LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

HC Deb 09 December 1893 vol 19 cc935-1016

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 8th December.]

[SIXTEENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 13 (Public Property and Charities).

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 26, after the word "overseers," to insert, as a new sub-section the words, as amended:—"(3) In the case of every parochial charity, the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, not being an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council shall, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration or otherwise, appoint such a number of additional trustees as will cause the number of trustees, who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, to be a majority of the whole body."—(Mr. Cobb.)

Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."

MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.) moved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment—In line 4, after "appoint" insert "from time to time." He said, he thought a period of three years would be quite long enough, but it should be understood, of course, that the trustees should be eligible for re-election. He did not want to use up all the available men.

Amendment proposed, to the proposed Amendment, In line 4, after the word "appoint," to insert the words "from time to time."— (Mr. Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.

I think there is no necessity to insert "from time to time," because these powers are already exercised under an Interpretation Act. If my hon. Friend will refer to the notices for this morning he will see that I have already an Amendment which, I hope, will meet his view. In reference to the period of three years, the view of the Government is that three years is a sufficient time for these trustees to hold office, and I have put down an Amendment this morning limiting the tenure of office to three years. Then the retiring trustees will be eligible for re-election.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

asked if he was to understand that trustees should always hold office for three years, and that all should go out together?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No, Sir; I understand from my legal advisers that that would not be so. When a trustee is elected he is to hold office for three years.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that under the Municipal Corporations Act a Town Councillor held office for such period as his predecessor would have held office, and therefore he understood the right hon. Gentleman was adopting a new practice altogether. At any rate, it was a practice that was not consistent with the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act in regard to holding office.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

May I say that there is no analogy between the cases. I have been elected myself a representative trustee, and the full period elapses from the time of the election, and that, I think, is the preferable rule. While we desire to avoid a perpetuity of office, I think we should avoid annual elections.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

said, he quite agreed with the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be undesirable to have annual elections. But there was the point to be considered that if a trustee did not attend a certain number of meetings his office became vacant, and must be filled.

MR. STRACHEY

said, that, being quite satisfied with the pledge of the I Government, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not wish to anticipate discussion on the right hon. Gentleman's new Amendment, but he did not think it would carry out the intention he had announced, his object being to prevent the frequent election of these trustees. He only wanted the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that where there was no Parish Council, and where the duty was left to the parish meeting, his object would be defeated, and there would be a multiplication of the number of elections.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

asked the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) whether he agreed with the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^*SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan) moved the following Amendment to the Amendment:—Line 4, to leave out "such a number of." He said, he believed the omission of these words would make the clause more clear. They did not appear in the clause introduced by his right hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 4 to leave out the words "such a number of."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'such a number of' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

We cannot agree to leave out these words. Independently of any further Amendments to be introduced, it would make the Amendment now proposed unintelligible. We propose strictly to adhere to this Amendment, and the words form an essential part of it. If we left out these words we should then be at the hazard of other Amendments.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, no doubt the omission of the words would make nonsense of the clause, but this Amendment was a preliminary one, with the view of making the clause more workable. By the Amendments which had already been made, and by the good sense of the Government, they were gradually licking this clause into shape. The Solicitor General would be surprised to hear that he approached the clause not as an enemy, but as a friend to Parish Councils. For many years he had advocated the establishment of Parish Councils, and had been most anxious to see them established, but he was also anxious that they should be able to do the work which Parliament wanted them to do. It was quite clear that according to the original framing a Parish Council when it came into existence would be immediately confronted with a task which it would be absolutely impossible to perform. According to the scheme of the hon. Member for Rugby, the first thing the Parish Council would have to do when it came into existence would be to double the number of trustees for every parish charity. But those who knew anything of life in a small village knew that the great difficulty the people would have would be to find men of sufficient intelligence and leisure to undertake the very thankless task of dealing with these parish charities. It was not an easy or pleasant task, or one that many men were willing to undertake, and to ask the Parish Council to double the number would be to impose on them a task they could not perform. He did not believe that in a parish of 500 they would be able to find an additional number of trustees for parish charities. Almost everybody who was available as a trustee was engaged already. He accepted the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby that the majority of the trustees of a Parish Authority should derive their authority from a parish meeting, but let that be done in a practical way. It was absurd to insist on the Council appointing a number of additional trustees at once. Why should they not appoint the existing trustees? He believed that if the clause were so framed it would not do much harm, for in nine cases out of ten the Council would elect the existing trustees. If the clause was so altered as to make it clear that the majority of the trustees of these charities were to draw their authority from the Parish Councils, in his opinion the clause would be a good and a practical one.

MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, he thought there would be a real inconvenience in overloading the body of trustees by the compulsory appointment of others, especially as in many cases the charities were small ones and the number of existing trustees was large. He supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, but he suggested as a reasonable compromise that all parties in the Committee might readily agree that words should be inserted that would make it clear that a number "not exceeding" the majority of the trustees should be representative.

MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S. E., Eccles)

said, he was anxious to say a word or two, because, although he recognised the inconvenience there might be temporarily in largely increasing the number of trustees, he thought it was necessary to retain these words, and to give the Parish Council from the first a majority in the administration of these charities. The difficulty as to the excessive number of trustees might be met by a number of the existing trustees resigning their office and accepting nomination at the hands of the Parish Councils. He objected to trustees being appointed for life without the Parish Councils of the future having a potent voice in the administration of these charities. He supported the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, and hoped they would adhere to these words.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

said, the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a remarkable one. He appeared to think that the relations that would exist between the existing trustees and the Parish Councils would be so amicable that the former would receive nomination at the hands of the Parish Councils. He hoped that that might be so, but in that case where was the necessity for this clause at all? The clause was based upon the idea that the interests of certain existing trustees would be hostile to the inhabitants of the parish, and that was the possibility that they had to face. As the clause stood it was absolutely unworkable, because the number of trustees would be excessive, with the consequence that in small parishes it would not be possible to find a sufficient number of new trustees qualified by education to administer a charity. He pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of reconsidering the whole subject. Let him not define how the principle of elected trustees should be carried out in this Act in every case, but let him impose that duty upon the Charity Commissioners.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could only repeat what he had said upon this subject last night—namely, that there was no difficulty in framing the clause in such a way as to give the Charity Commissioners power to reduce the number of trustees while preserving the elective principle. Rules for working the clause might be framed between the Charity Commissioners and the Local Government Board which the Parish Councils might carry out. He asked the Committee to deal with the sub-section before them upon its merits, and to regard the clause as a declaration in favour of the principle that the majority of the trustees were to be representative, leaving the mode of working the clause to be settled subsequently. He might remind the Committee that in any case the clause would apply to only a very small percentage of the parochial charities. He was satisfied that at least 70 and possibly nearly 80 per cent. of the existing parochial charities were dealt with under the clause which enabled the elected trustees to replace Churchwardens and Overseers.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he thought the clause was crude, ill-digested, and ill-considered. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed that its provisions should be carried into effect by means of Rules to be drawn up by a conference of the Charity Commissioners and the Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting, as he was continually doing, his intentions in this matter. The clause was neither crude nor ill-digested, but might usefully require rules framed by a Government Department to bring it into operation. The right hon. Gentleman on this, as on every other occasion when he rose, adversely criticised the proposals of the Government.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the charge brought against him had no basis. He would point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that the trustees who were now acting as such in relation to any charity were appointed under a certain defined scheme, or Act of Parliament. If they retired, there was a necessity of filling up their places by persons appointed in some way; therefore, if they retired and were re-elected by the Parish Council, they would take them from one body and place them in another. They must cause these retirements to be filled up by re-nomination, and they would then have considerable inconvenience from the increase in the number which they would not be able to obviate by withdrawing a certain number of existing trustees. They would have to be appointed in two ways—either by nomination or by election by the Parish Council, so they would get again that increased number the inconvenience of which the right hon. Gentleman recognised. What they had settled in their Divisions upon this point in the subsection was only this: that the Parish Council should elect some—what proportion had not been settled. Whether they were compelled to elect a majority was quite open to the consideration of the Committee, and he submitted that as the right hon. Gentleman recognised the inconvenience of the present proposal he ought to adopt the words which had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, which put it in the power of the County Council to- elect a majority if the Parish Council desired it. The proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham met the case without displacing the trustees.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

should not have ventured to address the Committee if it had not been for the tone adopted by the Solicitor General, who appeared to him to give no reply to his objection to the clause of the hon. Member for Rugby as it now stood. The rebuke of the Solicitor General was not so much addressed to him as to the President of the Local Government Board, because his words were taken from the right hon. Gentleman's clause as it still stood in the Bill. That clause contained the grammatical construction which he had adopted for his Amendment, so that the hon. and learned Gentleman was maligning the Government of which he was a Member. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was singularly discourteous, not to him (Sir Francis Powell) only, but to the colleague who sat next him (Mr. H. H. Fowler).

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON (Gloucester, Cirencester)

could not say that he honestly agreed with the remark of the President of the Local Government Board that this Amendment was unimportant in itself or applied to a small or insignificant number of charities.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I did not say it was unimportant in itself, but that it applied to a small number.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON

said, that was true with regard to the number, but not with regard to the amount of the charities. In his own constituency the most valuable charities would come under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. Their endeavour ought to be to make this a provision which would work with as little friction as possible in different parishes, and they on that side of the House did not anticipate any hostility between those for whose benefit this was framed and the great number of the present trustees of existing charities. His own belief was that in most cases the parishes would wish to make as little change as possible, and in a great many oases there was not much fault to find. But this Amendment carried out the whole spirit of the recommendation made by successive Select Committees of this House that in the management of local charities there should be, if not representative control, at least a popular and representative element. He fancied this Amendment was discussed in a slightly mistaken way, because this question would more properly arise in the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras to omit the word " additional." He believed it would be expedient to omit that word, as in many cases there might be difficulty in finding a sufficient number of trustees in a small parish properly to administer these trusts. He should, therefore, certainly suggest that they should not tie the hands of the Parish Councils by insisting on the word "additional." It seemed to him it would needlessly encumber the clause and obstruct action if they clung to the word "additional."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is not the present Amendment.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON

It is being discussed.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; that is a subsequent Amendment.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON

certainly thought these words might be carried, otherwise there might be a difficulty in working the management of these trusts. He suggested that the provision should be so amended as to enable these bodies in many cases to give a representative character to those who were now acting to the satisfaction of the people with whose affairs they were dealing.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had furnished another reason, in addition to those already given, why the Amendment should be carried. He had said that in most cases he believed the villages would not desire any change in the trusteeships.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON

In some cases.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

asked, if in some cases they did not want to make any alteration in the trusteeships, why-should they force them to do it? The President of the Local Government Board had made an appeal to them to scamp the discussion on this clause. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] Well, to hurry it over, and he had said they really ought to get on. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: To accelerate it.] Yes, but this clause came out of the right hon. Gentleman's own stable, and required examination; and inasmuch as he had trotted out this cob they were entitled to look over it, and see if it was sound. They did not think it was, but, on the contrary, they thought it was unsound in many respects. He wanted to call attention to the fact that these words which it was proposed to omit were really the very governing set of words in the Act; and if they adopted these words they were bound thereafter to add, as a supplement to them, such a number of them "as will"—what? Their object was not to give the Parish Council additional power here, but was that a given effect should be produced by the exercise of a certain power—namely, that a majority should be introduced. The right hot). Gentleman had the calmness to tell them that was an affirmation of the principle of representative Government. It was a negation of it. Leave representative government to work freely, and leave it power to appoint either a majority or a minority, or none, as it pleased, and that, indeed, would be an affirmation of the representative principle; but when they choked the representative principle with a collar, and said, that whether they liked it or not, they had got to appoint a majority of these trustees, he said that, instead of affirming the representative principle, they were negativing and absolutely killing it. By leaving out the words "such a number of," the provision would then read "The Parish Council shall appoint additional trustees." Let it end there: if it wished to do so he was quite willing that it should appoint some or none, many or few. He and his friends were champions of the liberties of the Parish Council; gentlemen on the other side wanted to oppress them. In many cases they perfectly recognised that the Parish Council might not wish to appoint additional trustees, and would not desire to make any change. He was perfectly ready to give them liberty to appoint other trustees if they wanted; what he was not prepared to do was by a clause in an Act of Parliament to direct and force them, in spite of their will and their knowledge that it would be a bad thing. What he objected to was the attempt to force them to appoint a majority when they might not wish to make any change or might wish to appoint a minority. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give some liberty to the Parish Council, and accept this Amendment. Let him cut the tail off this cob by leaving out all the words after "trustees," and let the Parish Council appoint additional trustees if they would without dictating to them that they should appoint a majority.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

suggested that trustees at present holding these trusts should be relieved from any obligations cast upon them by will or deed, or anything of that kind, by being allowed to resign, and then submit themselves to the approval of the electors of the parish. In that way the multiplicity of trustees would be avoided, and the difficulty arising from the excessive number of trustees got rid of.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, this Amendment was not only preliminary to a further Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite, but also to an Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and one of his own, so that they had a right to ask the Government—Did they intend to make any concession on this sub-section? The President of the Local Government Board talked as if they were opposing he Government. But when they promised to support the Government on the Second Reading it was to support the Government in carrying out the pledge which they gave, and they did not promise to support the Government if they made any departure from their own proposal in an entirely opposite direction, as they did by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. That Amendment was not only a new departure, but was absolutely contradictory to the Amendment which stood on the Paper as the matured decision of the President of the Local Government Board. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not take some course which would, to a certain extent, appease the wrath of those who were opposed to this sudden innovation of the hon. Member for Rugby by making some concession in the words suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in his Amendment, or in that which stood in his (Mr. Heneage's) name? The President of the Local Government Board had put down a sub-section in which he used the very words of the two Amendments on the Paper in the name of himself (Mr. Heneage) and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. S. Powell). The hon. Baronet's words were— Not exceeding the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners in each case. whilst his words were— Not exceeding in any case more than one-third of the number of the whole body. For his part, he was perfectly prepared to give up "one-third" on condition that the words of the Member for West Birmingham ("not exceeding such a number") were taken, because that would allow the Parish Council—in whom he had confidence, and the Member for Rugby had not—either to elect the whole number or any portion they might please. This sub-section they were debating now was entirely antagonistic to the clause of the Bill as drawn, and, therefore, a departure from the Bill. What they were discussing was whether the Parish Council, against its will, was to be compelled to do that which its common sense and judgment condemned? It might be said that this question had been discussed before, but it had not been settled, and he hoped the Government might do something towards settling the question, otherwise they would not get the clause in a hurry. They should contest this question until they got some concession, so that the Parish Councils should not be compelled against their own judgment to swamp existing trusts by putting in them members other than those who were already in. This was not a Church question or a question for the Nonconformist Body, but it was a question for smaller Religious Bodies—for the Roman Catholics and Jews, and for those who had got small trusts in the name of private persons. By this clause Roman Catholics might be absolutely swamped, and a majority placed on these trusts of Churchmen or Nonconformists against the will of the donor. Another objection he had to the sub-section was that it would prevent the best men being elected on the Parish Council, and would make it a sectarian fight between different denominations each trying to get the upper hand, and a majority on the Parish Council in order to dominate new trusteeships. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to make some concession.

MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

said, they must insist on having a majority of trustees elected by the Parish Council if they so wished. In order to get rid of this Amendment, and so that they might get on, he would assent to a compromise in the sense that would leave unimpaired the right of the Parish Council to have an Elective Body of trustees on these Trust Bodies. He was quite prepared to leave it optional with the Parish Council as to the number of trustees they should elect. Having decided the principle that the Parish Council should have elective trustees upon a parish trust, he was quite willing to allow the Parish Council to be the judge of the number they should put on the trust.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, the hon. Member had evidently forgotten the vote he gave the previous night.

MR. STRACHEY

I have forgotten nothing of the kind. I voted for the principle that the Parish Council should put in a certain number of trustees; but we had nothing whatever to do with the number of trustees.

MR. BRODRICK

He voted for the principle that they should put in a number of trustees if they liked.

MR. STRACHEY

No, no. The hon. Member will misrepresent me. What I said was that the Parish Council should be forced to put a certain number upon the trust, but that as to the exact number it should be optional.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he took the words down at the moment, because they struck him very much coming from the hon. Member who gave the vote he did the previous night. What the hon. Member said was that the Parish Council should put on a certain number of trustees if they should wish. What the hon. Member wished was that they should be forced to put on a majority of trustees. [Mr. STRACHET: No, no.] He would put a case which would show the difficulty of carrying out the conditions of this clause. By the first words of the clause the number of trustees was fixed, and such an interference struck him as a great invasion of the private rights of donors. But what was to happen in a case where the number was not fixed by the donor, and where those who had the power of nominating had an unlimited power of nominating? He had in his mind the case of a trust which the Committee must deal with here, and in which 14 trustees were nominated. The Parish Council would have the obligation cast upon it of electing 15 more, making 29. The nominators were determined men; they wished to preserve the trust, and there was no difficulty whatever in the way of their appointing 16 more, which would form a majority, and bring the number of trustees up to 45.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

Is it a parochial trust?

MR. BRODRICK

said, they did not know what a parochial charity was yet. When the Government had given them their definition they could tell what the charity was.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that words defining a parochial charity were already in the Amendment.

MR. BRODRICK

said, his argument was that if they made it compulsory to give a majority they would get these parochial charities where there was an unlimited power of nomination into an absurd position. There was a special provision in some of these trusts to prevent an elective majority being a majority, and they would have to deal with these cases. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, Was he going to press this question of a majority to the last extreme? because, if so, it would be absolutely impossible to carry it out in the case of some trusts, the majority of the people nominated exceeding the majority which would be elected by the Parish Council. It was not too late for the Government still to meet them on the point, and thus to avoid a prolonged discussion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I rise to ask your opinion, Mr. Mellor, on a point of Order. I think I gathered from something which dropped from you that you regarded this Amendment as preliminary to certain important Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for Wigan and the right hon. Members for Great Grimsby and West Birmingham. I do not read it so. It appears to me that the questions raised by this Amendment are entirely independent and distinct for the particular subjects raised by the other Amendments I have indicated. It is no doubt possible to refer now to the questions raised by those Amendments, but I wish to know whether in your opinion there is any direct or necessary corollaration between the Amendments?

THE CHAIRMAN

I thought the second Amendment of the hon. Baronet had a distinct reference to the first Amendment, and was preliminary to it, but it has since been altered in such a form as will enable it to be moved independently.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk)

asked the Committee if it considered it wise, in the face of the last Annual Report issued by the Charity Commissioners, to lay down any rule as to the number or proportion of trustees to be appointed by the Parish Council? The present proposal was to leave the number to be appointed absolutely open, and if that were agreed to it would at once place out of Order half-a-dozen subsequent Amendments. The Charity Commissioners, in their last Report, had laid great stress on the mere presence of Boards of Trustees of persons who were independently appointed, as many of the evils incident to the close constitution of a purely co-optative body of trustees were in practice obviated by the light thrown upon their proceedings by the pressure of a colleague independently appointed. This expression of opinion was to be found on page 29 of the 40th Report. Now, the Committee was bound by the decision arrived at on the previous evening that the Council should appoint some trustees, and all they were contending for was that the number to be appointed should be left to the discretion of the Parish Council. That appears to be a reasonable proposition, and he hoped that it would be acceded to.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, he understood the President of the Local Government Board to declare he considered the clause would be unworkable unless accompanied by Rules and Regulations to be issued by his Department. Now could we not meet the objections to this clause by Rules and Regulations to be issued by his Department? If he could do so opposition to the clause must cease; but if not, the introduction of these Rules and Regulations was merely an attempt to draw a red herring across the track.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

asked if the Government at the present moment grasped the full meaning of the Amendment? He would cite a case to enforce the point. In one of the parishes in the North of England, where Roman Catholics were numerous, they had almshouses of their own, and he desired to know whether these almshouses would be parochial charities or not? Did they cease to be parochial charities when conducted in the interest of one religious denomination? They had no definition of "parochial charity;" but it seemed that such a charity, if confined to a particular parish, as would most probably be the case, would be a parochial charity. There were many other such cases in which the charities were for the benefit of the parish in which they existed. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to force every Parish Council to draft on to the Governing Body of these charities a majority of trustees who might be absolutely alien to, or ignorant of, the purposes for which these charities were founded?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No. If it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention it only showed the tremendous risk he ran in having accepted in an unwary moment the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, and without having fully grasped its significance, for under the Amendment every Parish Council would be compelled to put a majority of their own trustees on the Governing Body of every such parochial charity. But if it were the intention of the Government to do this, then he held that the Opposition were justified in appealing from the tyrannical majority to public opinion. The Government had shown by their unprecedent and extraordinary obstinacy on this matter that they did not fully grasp the situation, and that justified any amount of opposition to the clause.

MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby would apply to very few charities, but as a fact by its wording it included every parochial charity. Who, then, were they to believe—the right hon. Gentleman or the Member for Rugby? Subsection 2 provided that, where these charities were in the hands of Churchwardens and Overseers, these persons were to be ousted, but under this Amendment they were not to be ousted, but merely swamped. He thought the Government ought to let Parish Councils know which of these two methods they were to adopt. They had got into a tremendous muddle in consequence of the manner in which the section had been dealt with, and he therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to answer his question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not agree that we have got into a muddle in consequence of the manner in which this section has been dealt with. It is perfectly intelligible and consistent with my statement that in a large proportion of charities the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby will have no application, because the elected trustees will be in a majority. Where a charity is vested in the Incumbent and Churchwardens, the latter will be replaced by elected trustees, who will consequently be in a majority. There the Amendment will not apply. If the charity is in the hands of the Incumbent, Churchwardens, and Overseers, there will also be a majority, for there would be four elected trustees and only one (the Incumbent) not elected. In modern schemes the general rule has been to have nine trustees, the Incumbent and Churchwardens, three members elected by the ratepayers or Vestry, and the remaining three co-opted. Under the Bill as it now stands the elected trustees will be five in number, being the three at present elected and two in place of the Churchwardens, and will, therefore, form the majority. In none of these cases, therefore, will the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby apply, and I am consistent, therefore, in saying that we cannot accept any words intended in a greater or less degree to qualify the principle of having a majority of elected trustees. What we have been discussing since Tuesday is whether elected trustees are or are not to be in a majority. The principle that they are to be in a majority the Government consider has been accepted in repeated Divisions, and therefore, with all due respect to hon. Members, it seems to me to be an unnecessary consumption of time to discuss the question over again. The Government have recognised, in re-spouse to the right hon. Member for Bristol, that some provision must be made to obviate the inconvenience that will arise from the necessity of appointing a very large number of trustees, and I have already promised to introduce a clause giving the Charity Commissioners power to reduce the number of trustees in cases where necessary, the principle that the elected trustees must be in the majority being retained. I am, of course, willing to answer any question that may be put; but I do submit that the position of the Government has now been made quite clear. It is for the Committee to decide whether or not it will accept that position.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he thought that his right hon. Friend had not stated the case quite fairly. The real question was not whether there should be an elected majority among trustees, but whether the Parish Council should be compelled against its will to elect a majority.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We have discussed that already; we have had a Division upon it.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that all that had been settled up to the present was that the Parish Council should be compelled to do something. The Committee had not decided whether it should appoint one or two or a majority of the trustees, and whether it should be compelled to do so against its will. The hon. Member for Oxford University had suggested that the Government did not grasp the situation. Some Members of the Government no doubt did grasp it, but, unfortunately, there was a Government outside the real Government, and to it the latter was now subservient. If it were not in that position, the real Government would hardly consent to coerce the Parish Council in this matter. He wished to look at this question from the point of view of the benefit of the rural population. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had told the Committee that the clause was unworkable, but it had the further fault that it would undoubtedly inflict the greatest damage on the rural population by stopping the flow of charity altogether. Suppose there was a parochial charity for the purpose of training girls in domestic duties, and it was managed by 8 or 10 persons, surely the Parish Council ought not to be compelled to place on the management 9 or 11 additional persons? It was against such a proposal as that they were contending. They had been told of a trust upon which there were 23 trustees already, and now the Parish Council was to be compelled to elect 24 additional trustees, so that there would be an unwieldly total of 47. He knew of a charity in his own city—a very valuable trust—which was managed by 10 of the principal citizens. The City Council had a right to elect members on the Board of Management, but recognising that the work was being thoroughly well done it had not exercised its powers. But if a similar trust existed in a rural parish the Parish Council would be compelled against its will to swamp the Board with its own nominees. Was that an advisable thing to do? The right hon. Gentleman had told them the issue was whether the Parish Council should have a majority on the Governing Body of charities. He dissented from that view: he thought the real issue was whether or not they should trust the Parish Councils. The Opposition had accepted the principle of trust. The hon. Member for Rugby said he did not trust the Parish Council. Well, they did. The hon. Member for Woodbridge said that the labourers in his division were practically slaves. They did not believe it. The hon. Member for Market Harborough said he would not allow them to exercise a free judgment. The Opposition would. That was the issue for which they were contending. They wished the Parish Councils to be free and not to be coerced by anything in the Bill. As for the question of uniformity, were they to adopt the Chinese method of treatment and have them all of one pattern throughout the country? If so, they had better prescribe the class of Councillors to be elected. The position of the hon. Members for Rugby and Woodbridge was absolutely untenable. They said the labourers would not hold up their hands in the presence of certain people.

MR. COBB

I said nothing of the kind.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (continuing)

remarked that the Member for Wood-bridge said it, and the hon. Member for Rugby said something very much worse. The supporters of the hon. Member for Rugby were inconsistent. If they thought that an agricultural labourer would not have the courage to vote for the election of trustees when the landlord of the district was present, how could they expect him to vote for a resolution which would have the effect of taking from the laud-lord a certain amount of his property for the purpose of compulsory hiring. It was absolutely monstrous, and he hoped it would go forth to the rural parishes that the Opposition were for the absolute freedom of the Parish Councils, while the hon. Members for Rugby, Wood-bridge, and Market Harborough complained that they were not to be trusted, and that the labourers were not free men. They would net even trust them in the matter of fixing the hour of meeting.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I do not think that is germane to the question before the Committee.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would not have mentioned it had he not been challenged by an hon. Member.

MR. BYLES (York, W.R., Shipley)

Speak to the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

maintained that he was speaking to the Amendment, . and that he was speaking also in the interest of the rural population—an interest which the proposal before the Committee was calculated to destroy, and for the evil of which their Amendment would afford a remedy. The President of the Local Government Board, in order to make the proposal acceptable to the rural population, made the nice suggestion that he was ready to give certain powers of control to the Charity Commissioners, but rural communities had had enough already of the Charity Commissioners in connection with the Allotments Extension Act, and would not be grateful for their intervention. The Parish Council, he held, ought to be allowed to elect a majority of the trustees of a charity if they wished, but they ought also to be allowed to elect a smaller number if that course should seem preferable. In conclusion, he protested against the injury about to be done to the rural population by attempting to curb the free action and will of the Parish Councils.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that as he represented more Roman Catholics perhaps than any English Member in the House, forming, as they did, a third of the whole of his constituency, he should like to emphasise what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. And he confessed he was thoroughly surprised that when a question of this sort arose the Irish Members, who were supposed to represent Roman Catholics, should sit entirely dumb. [Cries of "Question!"]

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Move to report Progress.

MR. HANBURY

said, he should have thought that this was a question on which they would have heard something from the hon. Member who generally led the Irish Party, and he hoped that before the discussion terminated they would hear something from him, seeing that Roman Catholics were more affected by the Amendment than any other people, and that in two ways. In the first place, there was no religious community in the country more jealous of outside interference than the Roman Catholics. Of that they had pretty conclusive proof in the fight—the gallant fight—they had been making for their schools. Everyone who knew anything at all about schools knew how strenuously Roman Catholics resented outside interference in such matters. Preston, of course, did not come within the scope of this Bill, but he could speak of a large number of Roman Catholics living in the various villages of his neighbourhood of Staffordshire. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, as a Staf- fordshire man knew that there were many Catholics in that district, and also that there were a great many charities. He knew that in the villages of North Staffordshire the Roman Catholics, although numerous, were widely scattered. The members of the Church of England, he admitted, were a large body, and able to a large extent to protect themselves even supposing that a majority of new trustees should be elected by the Parish Council to manage their charities. The Church of England would be represented on the Parish Council, and in all probability would have some of these additional trustees, but that would not be the case with smaller communities. The Roman Catholics, of whom there would probably be no more than 20 or 30 in a village, would not be in sufficient force to obtain representatives; therefore, what would happen would be that this community which was so jealous of outside interference would not have a single representative on the Parish Council, and probably would not have a representative on the trust. In this way a gross injustice would be done to the community he represented. He trusted that even at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would do something to protect this small community.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member for the University of Oxford had spoken of the obstinacy, the ignorance, and the want of common sense of the Government—not a very encouraging invitation to the Minister in charge of the Bill to take part in the discussion. If one commenced to reply to such epithets there was a possibility of losing one's temper. He was perfectly amazed at this controversy. As he read the Bill, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and other denominational charities were entirely outside of it. The principle of the Bill was that an eleemosynary charity, administered by officers of any church or denomination, did not constitute an ecclesiastical charity; but they did not vary or minimise the expressed opinion of the Charity Commissioners, and, indeed, the law of the land, that a charity confined to the members of a certain church or denomination was an ecclesiastical charity. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head, but they had put words into the Definition Clause dealing with property held in trust for any particular denomination. Now, he supposed, they would have a discussion as to the meaning of the Definition Clause before they reached it. He could but state the intention of the Government. They were not dealing with Roman Catholic, Jewish, Church of England, or Nonconformist charities as such. In this clause they were dealing with the public charities of the parish, and all the Government maintained was that, where the officers through whom a charity was administered belonged to a particular Church, that did not constitute the charity a charity for the benefit of that Church. He had stated over and over again until, he was sure, the Committee were weary of hearing him, that when they reached the Definition Clause the Government would welcome any suggestion or recommendation which could be advanced in order to make that clause, if necessary, clearer and fairer. He could quite understand the attitude of hon. Members from Ireland, who knew perfectly well that their charities were in no danger whatever. If the Government were not only to be fought on what was not in the Bill, but was to be told that there was something in their minds that they disclaimed the discussion on the Bill must range over a wide and vast field.

MR. HANBURY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had bagged the whole question by putting in the word "exclusively." He (Mr. Han bury) admitted that charities confined to Roman Catholics or Nonconformists or members of the Church of England exclusively might not be affected by the Amendment. He did not think they would be. But his case was that of charities the trustees of which were Roman Catholics, but the application of which was not confined to Roman Catholic purposes. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that such a charity was hit by the Amendment. He (Mr. Hanbury) was not going to admit the right hon. Gentleman's contention that charities left by Roman Catholics were all confined to the Roman Catholics. He knew many that were not. The same thing applied to Church of England charities, Jewish charities, and so on.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought the hon. Members for the University of Oxford and Preston were quite justified in bringing the case of Roman Catholic charities before the Committee, but, at the same time, he agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that the time for discussing that matter would be when they came to the words providing a definition of "ecclesiastical charities." What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman was by no means unsatisfactory as suggesting to the Committee that later on they would have a thoroughly satisfactory definition of "ecclesiastical charities." The Amendment now before the Committee had been discussed at considerable length. It would not settle whether or not the elective trustees were to be a majority or only a certain number of the trustees. The question was merely whether certain words should be inserted in the sub-section or should be left out of it; and that being so, and seeing that other questions must be raised hereafter, he trusted the Committee would now come to a decision.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

rose—

Mr. Halley Stuart rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said about the Definition Clause. That, however, would not meet his (Mr. Heneage's) point.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 68.—(Division List, No. 368.)

SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he wished to move to leave out the word "additional," in line 4 of the Amendment. The proposal in the Amendment was considered by many Members objectionable, in so far as it would necessitate the appointment of a large number of persons to control a small matter. For instance, a small charity of some £30 or £40 a year would, as matters now stood, have perhaps seven trustees. Well, under the proposal before the Committee that number would ,be increased to 15—namely, 7 plus 7 plus 1. That would be an unreasonably large number of gentlemen to manage such a small sum. It was proposed to meet the difficulty in a very cumbrous manner— namely, by proceeding before the Charity Commissioners for a reduction of the number. It seemed to him that that would not be a very practical or sensible course. Supposing it should be thought desirable that the number of trustees elected by the parishioners or their representatives should be in excess of the number of persons appointed under the existing arrangement, it would be well that some other method should be adopted of keeping the number down. It had been suggested by Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, who generally supported Her Majesty's Government, that it would be much simpler in many cases that existing trustees who had discharged their duties well should be appointed by the parish, if the parish thought it right to do so. It was not suggested that the parish should be obliged to do anything of the kind. All that was suggested was that if there happened to be trustees who possessed the confidence of the ratepayers and their representatives that they should be as eligible to represent the trust as anyone else.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I beg, Mr. Mellor, to draw your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

THE CHAIRMAN

On Wednesday and Saturday afternoons the House cannot be counted out until half-past 4 o'clock. I must point out that a count can take place, although the House cannot adjourn if there is not a quorum present. Strangers must withdraw.

The Committee counted; and 40 Members being found present,

SIR J. GOLDSMID

went on to say that if the word "additional" were retained, people who had discharged the duty of trustees to the satisfaction of the Commissioners and to the advantage of I the trust would not be eligible for appointment as parish trustees, simply because they were already trustees. He proposed by omitting that word to enable people to elect such persons as their representatives. There was nothing in the Amendment which would in any way militate against the principle that the majority of the trustees should be elective. He was told that there might be a legal difficulty. He always found that when something reason- able and sensible was proposed it was common to say that it would be a good thing to adopt if a legal difficulty did not prevent its acceptance. He would suggest that the legal difficulty could easily be got over in the present case by adding hereafter a very short new proviso to the clause. He trusted, therefore, that the Solicitor General would not raise any legal objection to his proposal. All the arguments were in favour of the Parish Council having a free hand in the selection of representatives, and this object would be met if the word "additional" were omitted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 4, to leave out the word " additional." —(Sir J. Goldsmid.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

said, he was quite willing to adopt the Amendment.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, he was about to make a few observations; but if he understood the President of the Local Government Board to assent to that course, he would not say anything.

MR. HANBURY

said, he would like to ask whether the legal difficulty which had been suggested would arise? Was it possible to appoint no new trustees, but merely to re-appoint the old ones? The intention of the President of the Local Government Board should be made clear.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that there was no great encouragement to accept the Amendment, if it were to lead to a long discussion as to whether the Amendment would effect its purpose. He was not responsible for the Amendment, which the Government, however, accepted.

MR. HANBURY

said, he only wished to know whether the Amendment would prevent future difficulty?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they accepted the Amendment, believing that no legal difficulty would arise.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, no difficulty could arise, because on Report he would move to insert the words— Provided that any person already a trustee shall be eligible.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, he wished to know, if there was a fresh election of the existing trustees, would it Be necessary to have new trust deeds drawn? He had been a Churchwarden for many years, and had got something to do with such matters, so that he knew the difficulty that existed when new names were required to be inserted in trusts. They should know how the matter would stand, and whether new deeds would have to be drawn up as a consequence of the operation of the clause.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would merely point out that Churchwardens were not in any way concerned.

MR. RANKIN

said, they might be.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We accept the Amendment.

SIR J. GORS.T

said, he did not think progress was facilitated by this method of meeting the reasonable questions addressed to the Government. The difficulty in this matter was exactly that which he himself suggested in the early part of the afternoon, and it struck him as a serious one. If the Government would meet the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin with regard to the appointments on the Trustee Bodies, there would be no further discussion. He took it, from the silence of the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby) and the President of the Local Government Board, that they would look into the question and see if they could settle the difficulty. If that were so, he was sure no one wished to detain the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle) moved— In line 5, after the word "trustees," to insert "whether already trustees or not.

He said, it would be better not to wait until Report to make this point clear. It was desirable the position of these persons should be made clear at once.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 5, after the word "trustees," to insert the words "whether already trustees or not."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Amendment."

THE SOLICITOE GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, he thought these words would be very improper words to insert there. The question had already been settled with regard to the appointment of trustees. The Amendment provided that the trustees already serving would continue to serve without any resignation; but to say that an appointment should not be an appointment—that some sort of form should be gone through whereby trustees already were to be, without resignation, appointed by the Parish Council would be a contradiction in terms. The words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury struck him at the time as rather more in accordance with the intentions of the Government. He did not remember the words just now—

SIR H. JAMES

said, if his hon. and learned Friend would tell him what his intention was he would find words for him. [Laughter.] He (Sir H. James) was really serious. They ought to make the matter clear. If the Solicitor General said he would consider the matter he should be glad.

SIR J. RIGBY

What were the words?

SIR H. JAMES

My words provide that a person shall be eligible for election as a .trustee, although he is already a trustee.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, so far as the case was concerned of a trustee resigning, he did not think any words were required. But the suggestion had been made that the resignation of a trustee might involve the appointment of a trustee by a body other than the Parish Council. The question was not a very easy one to solve; but it was not beyond the resources of draftsmanship. The Government were perfectly ready to take the question into consideration with a view to obviating the difficulty. He was not prepared to offer a solution on the spur of the moment; but he would see whether words could not be brought up on the Report.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, the Solicitor General had not appreciated the difficulty. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to speak about resignation on the part of existing trustees if they were to be the elected representatives of the parish. He, however, had made no suggestion as to there being any resignations. The case which he put, and which he thought the President of the Local Government Board agreed to, was that of the parishioners being allowed to choose as their representative one of the existing trustees. In that case no resignation would be necessary. The parishioners would simply say—" A particular man has our confidence. He is on the trust. Let us appoint him as our representative in our name." That was what he (Sir J. Goldsmid) understood the Government to have accepted and what the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) was endeavouring to urge. It did not affect the other question mentioned by the Solicitor General.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he understood the meaning of the Amendment to be this:—A B was a trustee for life, or a co-optative trustee. He was prepared to accept the position of an elective trustee. If the parish wished to elect him, there should be no obstacle in the way. It would be unwise to prevent that—subject, of course, to the trustee going out of office at the end of three years. They would be prepared to consider any words that might be put down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury on the Report stage; but, in the meantime, they had accepted an Amendment which they thought was satisfactory. The choice of the parish was not to be restricted to outsiders; but if an existing trustee were appointed, he became an elective trustee.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, if there was any complaint as to delay in this matter, the blame must rest with Her Majesty's Government. The Members of the Government appeared to be divided among themselves as to the meaning of the words under consideration. The Solicitor General had propounded a different opinion from that expressed by the President of the Local Government Board. The President of the Local Government Board had placed a different interpretation on the words suggested.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I spoke the mind of the Government. There is no difference between what I said and the opinion expressed by my hon. and learned Friend.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, be repeated that the Solicitor General had taken a different view from that held by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down the doctrine that an existing trustee, although appointed for life, must resign his position in order to become a trustee representing the parish, which meant that the trustee should resign on the off-chance of being elected for the parish.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he said nothing of the kind.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was making good his statement that, in his opinion, the statements of the two Members of the Government who had spoken were at variance. He repeated that that was so, and he asked did the hon. and learned Gentleman not use the words that he had now cited?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the trustee must be an elected trustee, and the provision they had made was, it seemed to him, perfectly clear. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury had suggested certain words, and his hon. and learned Friend had promised they would be carefully considered.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not deny that there must be some clear consideration of the words. They had the words before them. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed them. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] He had brought them forward, and they were bound to be considered. His point was, that the acceptance of the last Amendment involved further discussion, and that the statement made by the Solicitor General differed from that made by the President of the Local Government Board. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to deny that.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, in substance he had expressed the same opinion as his right hon. Friend. Under the clause in its present form a trusteeship for the Parish Council could not be forced upon a man without his consent to be elected. He must agree to the election. Whether an existing trustee went through the form of resignation or not was a matter of no importance; he would be supposed to have resigned one office before he accepted the other. The matter was one of absolute unimportance.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it might be a matter of no importance; but it was thought important to accept an Amendment—

An hon. MEMBER: Question!

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was speaking to the Question. He was simply anxious that clear and distinct words dealing with existing trustees who might be elected to represent the parish should be at once inserted in the clause. He wished to avoid technicalities. He did not want the point delayed until the Report stage, which possibly the House might never reach. He thought it was unfair that a person acting as trustee at the present time should have to submit to election by some other instrument. They were entitled to have words to carry out the meaning of the Government and of the Minister in charge of the Bill. Notwithstanding the dissent of the Solicitor General, he believed the words of the right hon. Member for Horncastle would meet the case.

SIR H. JAMES

said, he rose in the hope of bringing this matter to a conclusion. The practical difficulty that appeared to exist was whether, in case an existing trustee resigned in order to become an elected trustee of the parish, a successor must be appointed to fill the position he occupied on the trust. Under the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Horncastle that would not be necessary, and the object was to prevent cumbersome numbers. He did not see any great difference between the statements of the Members of the Government who had spoken. He thought the Government might accept the words as they stood.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, it occurred to him that the point of difference between the two sides of the House was a very small one. The object of the Amendment appeared to be to enable the Parish Council to say whether they were satisfied with the present trustees, or some of them. If it was a mere question with the existing trustees, they should be able to find words to express their meaning. Did the Government think the words "appoint a number of trustees" would carry out the adoption of the existing trustees? He did think the words would have that effect. He understood the Amendment before the House to include persons, whether trustees or not. He did not think it was worth their while quarrelling over a question of words. The words already adopted would not carry out the intention, and he thought the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would meet the case.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

said, he understood the Government to admit that a number of trustees might be elected from those already existing. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the rules of the Charity Commissioners as affecting the carrying out of this clause; but he thought it would be better they should make their meaning clear at once.

MR. ROBY

said, he was clear on the point, as far as he could judge, that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horncastle could not carry out what was intended, and he thought the Amendment should be withdrawn on this ground. The Government had promised to introduce words which would meet the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. His own belief was that in order to meet that object a separate clause or a new sub-section would be necessary. He did not reply to the right hon. Member for Bodmin, because the difficulty was a purely technical one admitting of being easily dealt with. The words now proposed would leave the matter in a state of grave uncertainty, and they would not know what the position of the trustees was to be. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

The object of the Amendment is to enable the Parish Council, if they think fit, to select from those who are already trustees men who in their view are suitable to act as elected trustees, so as to get over the difficulty of being unable to obtain the necessary number of elected trustees. Until the Government propose some words to carry out that object, if they object to my words, I will insist upon the adoption of my Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon that issue, the Government will accept it, and we will decide it. Let me recall the attention of the Committee to the position the Government have been placed in. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South St. Pancras was accepted by the Government in perfect good faith, and immediately afterwards the right hon. Member for Bury, being himself a very able and experienced lawyer, pointed out that it would be necessary to insert some words in the Amendment, and he gave notice of his intention to bring up the necessary words on the Report stage. The Solicitor General also pointed out that there was a difficulty which would have to be provided for, and this was followed by a long discussion as to whether the Government were really going to carry out that promise. Therefore, on the spur of the moment, the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed words which we are advised will not meet the case. Having accepted the Amendment in good faith, and having stated that the Solicitor General would see that proper words were brought up, we are not trusted. If, therefore, a Division is insisted on by the right hon. Gentleman we will accept the issue.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to the technical meaning of the words. The question really was whether the present trustees of charities were eligible for election, and thereby able to sit on the trusts with a double qualification. There would be great difficulty in many cases in getting proper persons to act as elected trustees, and the proper way of dealing with this matter was to allow the Parish Council the right to elect those who were already sitting on the trust to represent them.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, his object was to allow the parishioners, if they desired to elect the existing trustees, to elect them. That would get over all questions as to resignation and the increase in the number of trustees. Persons so elected would be practically on the trust in two capacities. They would be there as original trustees and as elected trustees. If at the end of his term of office the Parish Council did not choose to re-elect such a trustee, he would still remain on the trust in his capacity as an original trustee, and it would be for the Parish Council to decide whether or not they would increase the number of elected trustees. If the Government did not accept his Amendment, as he thought they had done, the Committee would have to decide upon the matter.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have tried to make it clear that the Government will endeavour to carry out the meaning of the Amendment in good faith at some future stage, but not at this stage of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman is under a great misapprehension when he suggests that we regard his good faith with suspicion. What we regard with suspicion is his declaration of agreement with a policy "we have not defined. We thought that the President of the Local Government Board agreed with the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Horn-castle Division, the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras, and the right hon. Member for Bury, but now it appears that there is a fundamental difference between them. What I and my right hon. Friend contend for is that where there are co-optative trustees it should be in the power of the Parish Council to elect them. But the President of the Local Government Board says that the trustee must resign, and at the end of three years he must present himself to be re-elected, or he would cease to be a trustee.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I said that from the first.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not questioning the good faith of the right , hon. Gentleman. That is what he said from first to last. But this is not a question of drafting. It is not a question as to whether the words are the most appropriate words for carrying a common object. We have different objects. We think the proper course is that the Parish Council should have the power to elect one of the co-opted trustees as their representative, and so long as they choose to do so that gentleman will serve in the double capacity of co-opted and elected trustee. But if in the course of time he refuses to present himself for election, or if the Parish Council refuses to elect him, then he will return to his original capacity as co-opted trustee. That is the policy which we desire to see carried out.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that he had put on the Paper the same Amendment as that of the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras, and his intention was that the existing trustees should be eligible for election, and should be both elected and nominated trustees at the same time. He put down the Amendment for the purpose of reducing the enormous number of elected trustees, and also of shortening the discussion on the Bill. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Everything the Opposition did was viewed with suspicion by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but they should remember that the President of the Local Government Board had promised a certain Amendment later on with the object of reducing the number of elected trustees. He would point out that if the course suggested by the Government were adopted they would not be treating the original trust properly. Suppose the original trustees were three, and one of them resigned, and was elected by the Parish Council, then they would have only two trustees under the original trust. The Government ought not to be allowed to play fast-and-loose with the trust in that fashion.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, that it was clear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Lender of the Opposition that the existing trustees were to play the game of "Heads I win, tails you lose," because it was intended that if they resigned their position as trustees, and were not nominated by the Parish Council, they were to be allowed to resume their former position as trustees. That was not fair. What the Government wanted was that a man should chose whether he wished to act as an original trustee or as an elected trustee. [Ministerial cries of "Agreed!"] They would have agreed long ago if hon. Members on the Government side had spoken as little on the Bill as he had. The right to speak in the House seemed to depend on its continual use. If they did not use their muscles they would lose the power of them. If they were not continually speaking on every Amendment, then they had no right to speak at all. That seemed to be the view of some hon. Members. He desired to say that he did not think it fair that an original trustee should have the option of falling back again to his original position in the event of his not being returned again as an elected trustee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 188.—(Division List, No. 369.)

^*SIR F. S. POWELL moved to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out all the words in line 5 from "trustees" to the end of line 7, in order to insert the words— Not exceeding the number allowed by the Charity-Commissioners in each case. His object in moving the Amendment was to give the Charity Commissioners a discretion in fixing the maximum number of trustees in the case of each charity. With regard to the capacity of the Commissioners to discharge that task, he need not say many words. The Government had already admitted this capacity by suggesting that they should be required to act when the number of trustees was too small; and the Report of the Committee on Charitable Trusts of 1884 declared that they had exercised the powers conferred on them with discretion and with sound policy. He thought that was sufficient proof of the capacity of the Charity Commissioners to be entrusted with the powers he proposed to confer on them. He thought that the Report proved the competency of the Commissioners to deal with all he wished to entrust to them. Further Reports from the Committee of 1886 and 1887 spoke of the policy of the Commissioners as being fully justified. It was sufficient for him to say with regard to these Commissioners that they had been established for certain purposes, and their policy had been justified by successive Committees. He, therefore, felt they were perfectly competent to act . as regarded the limitation of the number of Governors. The Committee would, perhaps, permit him to repeat, in a word or two, what he had stated in substance on two or three former occasions:—namely, that different trusts required different management, and that it was an unwise course for the House of Commons to impose upon every trust, in every part of the country, and under all circumstances, identically the same form of administration. His desire was to give that elasticity which he believed was necessary, and without which no institution could work well, and could be adapted to the necessities of each case, and the wants of each separate locality. He was fortified m that opinion by what fell from several hon. Members in the course of last night's discussion. They spoke of the inferiority and incapacity of Parish Councils; they went so far as to say that members of Parish Councils dared not lift up their hands and dared not vote according to the best of their judgment. On the one hand they praised Parish Councils, and desired to invest them with all kinds of power, and in the next moment they said they were such poor and weak creatures that they were not able to vote according to their conscience, and required not power from this House so much as protection. Therefore, he thought he was only acting in accordance with the suggestions made by hon. Members when he proposed that the Parish Councils should not be entrusted with this duty, but that the duty should rest with the Charity Commissioners, bringing to bear an entirely independent action, giving the locality the result of a wide experience, and, as he believed, able to assist the administrative efforts in the parishes throughout the country; able to assist them in a manner which would be highly beneficial to the localities, and a service to those who received benefits under them. Perhaps he had sufficiently laid his case before the Committee, and he felt most anxious on every occasion not to say one word more than the necessity of the case required. He was perfectly aware that on many occasions he might have adduced additional arguments and stated additional facts, but he always thought it was more respectful to the House of Commons to seek to express his views in the fewest possible words, and, having adduced those arguments that appeared to him sufficient, not to elaborate the case by bringing forward new arrangements and other facts. He had fulfilled his task, and begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 5, to leave out from the word " trustees," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words " as shall not exceed the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners in each case."—(Sir. F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'as will cause the number of trustees, who are either elected by ' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Baronet's speech may be divided into two sections. The first part was a very just and full defence of the policy and conduct of the Charity Commissioners. That is not in issue in the present case. I have a great appreciation of the Charity Commissioners myself, and if their conduct were impeached I should be glad to join in their defence as a Member of the Committee of 1884. The second part of the speech was an interesting summary of what was stated last night on the main question of this Amendment, but I do not propose to follow the hon. Baronet or any other speaker upon that. The point of this Amendment is that, whereas the Committee has decided by numerous Divisions, or, as I see the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, is going to decide the principle of elected trustees, they are not prepared to abandon that and hand it over to the Charity Commissioners; I think that is not a duty that this clause contemplates that they should discharge. This, after all, is but another means of attacking the same principle.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

said, the right hon. Gentleman spoke just now of the spirit of the Amendment having been accepted, and indicated that the Committee had accepted on all occasions the principle that the Parish Council should appoint the majority. He did not think they had reached that point yet; that question would yet have to be decided. So far as they had gone at present, they had only expressed the conclusion that the Parish Council was to appoint a certain number of trustees. He thought the Committee generally was in accord with the sentiments that had been expressed on all sides—namely, that it would be quite impossible on all occasions for the Parish Council to accept a majority pure and simple, because the case had been indicated over and over again in which very small trusts, amounting to only some £5 or £10 a year, were now administered by a body of trustees already amounting to some seven or eight, or even as many as 10 persons; and if they were to have seven, or eight or even 10, representative trustees added to them, it would take a body of perhaps 20 persons to administer a charity of £5, £10, or £15, which on the face of it was perfectly ridiculous. What they wanted to do in this ' matter was to arrange that these charities should be administered in the best possible way. That was what the Committee generally desired to arrive at, and that was the end Parliament ought, and he believed had in view, and he thought they might fairly trust the Charity Commission, after the Debates during the week, to carry out the views of Parliament in that respect. The Charity Commissioners, he knew, were unfortunately a very unpopular body— much too Tory for the Radical Party and much too Radical for the Tory Party. Therefore, probably, the work they did was satisfactory, and by hitting off the juste milieu really good work was being done. That being so, he could not see why this discretion should not be given to the Charity Commissioners. He quite saw a difficulty might arise, for the moment the Act was passed the work thrown on the Commissioners would be considerable, but he believed they would be perfectly capable of carrying it out. The pressure would be very great at first, but they would be capable of carrying it out, and if his hon. Friend went to a division he would desire to show his confidence in the body of Commissioners by leaving to them discretion in the matter.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

thought they could not consider this Amendment without to a certain extent bearing in mind the Government were going to accept the principle by which the number of trustees should be very largely increased. That being so, something was wanted to put a reasonable limit to the numbers. As had already been pointed out, there were a great number of charities upon which the trustees were more numerous than efficient, and were they to add to them the effect would be to damage the responsibility of the trustees, and the use of the charity. Therefore, inasmuch as the Government were determined to swamp the number of trustees upon all these charities by this clause, there ought to be some words by which a reasonable limit might be put to it. He did not himself like to bring in the Charity Commissioners, but he could not think of any better proposal, and for that reason he supported the Amendment. It was all part and parcel of the unfortunate position they had got into by tinkering with these charities in a Bill that was not intended to do so. If this part of the Bill had been left out, they would have been saved a great deal of friction and irritation. But as the Government had run into these difficulties deliberately, it was necessary to do something to prevent this enormous increase in the number of trustees. Those who had had anything to do with charities would, he thought, agree with him that the smaller the number of trustees the better it was for the charity, and for this reason he should support the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 81.—(Division List, No. 370.)

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he wished now to ask the Committee how far they thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) carried out the principle which he laid down, that in every case the Parish Council should have power to ensure a majority of the representative element in the Governing Body of the charity? What was the interpretation the hon. Gentleman placed on the representative element? In his Amendment the hon. Member used these words— Trustees, who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting. Apparently the hon. Member thought those were the only trustees who could be regarded as representative in their character. He (Mr. Hobhouse) ventured to submit there might be others in existence, who were equally representative in every true sense of the word, representative not of any institution, but of the people at large, and these trustees ought to be taken into account before they proceeded to swamp them by a large addition made by the Parish Council. Now any one acquainted with the modern schemes of the Charity Commissioners knew that in most of them there were a certain number of representative Governors. He was ready to admit that some of these Governors or trustees were not representative in the popular sense of the term. Where they only represented an institution, such as a College of one of the Universities, and not a popular body, they could not come under his hon. Friend's idea of a representative trustee; but there were also a great number actually appointed by popularly elected Bodies, by Bodies elected on as popular a franchise as the new Parish Council. It was obvious the Charity Commissioners had been obliged to put on such trustees because there was no Parish Council in existence, and where the Charity Commissioners did not use the vestry, they had, in some cases, chosen the County Council, and in some cases the Local Board; and the Committee ought to remember that though they were regarding this clause as only affecting a rural parish, they had had warning that the provisions of this clause would be almost certain to be extended to urban districts and even the Metropolis. But there were instances in which the School Board had put on representative trustees, and he would ask was it reasonable to swamp these trustees, such as he had named, by another lot of trustees put on by another popularly elected body. He did not see why they should not still recognise the representatives of the School Board, and especially upon educational endowments. He ventured to make a most strong protest against enacting by this clause a provision that would oblige a Parish Council to swamp not only the co-optative, the nominated, and ex officio Governors; but the Governors who were in every true sense of the term popular and representative, though put on by another Body than the new Parish Council. Since he had placed his Amendment upon the Paper there had been an important addition made to his hon. Friend's Amendment by the insertion of words which confined the meaning of parochial charities, and he thought as they had now got a large number of charities excluded from the clause by that most valuable concession, it was necessary to move his Amendment in a slightly altered form, and he therefore begged to move to insert, after "meeting," the words— Or by a School Board or other representative Local Authority. It was no alteration in substance, only in form, and the reason he did so was that, now the clause was more strictly limited, there were fewer cases in which they would have the County Council appointing representatives.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 7, after the word "meeting," to insert the words, "or by a School Board or other representative Local Authority."—(Mr. Henry Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that this Amendment, even in the limited scope in which the hon. Member had proposed it, would not meet with acceptance from those on this side of the House who represented county divisions. With regard to School Boards, he would point out that they were not elected on the same franchise as the District or Parish Councils. What they were there to do was to give the Parish Council the right to constitute an elected majority by parochial electors, by either the Parish Council or the parish meeting, to govern these charities. That was what their supporters in the counties demanded, and he ventured to say that even if they accepted the Amendment in the restricted form in which it had been moved they should be defeating the wishes of those who supported them. His hon. Friend had said that these powers would be extended by a further Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board to the urban districts, but he ventured to say that it would be resented in the urban districts if the School Board was associated with the urban District Authority in carrying out the powers given under this clause. He thought it would be a grave mistake to complicate the number of authorities who would have the power of appointing these trustees, and it would be a far simpler course to allow the Parish Council and the urban District Council to appoint this elective majority, and not recognise any other Public Authority whatever.

MR. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock)

observed that the effect of this Amendment would be to constitute a large number of bodies in connection with these trusts. The hon. Member had said that by handing over Local Representative Bodies to the County Council the latter would have the power of making the appointments, and he had said that the County Council was composed of the representatives of the people at large. 'That was why they (the Liberals) were opposed to the County Councils having this power. They were the representatives of the people at large, but what they wanted was to have the representatives of the people at small, in the parishes. They were called there to give the people in the parishes parish local government. It was not a question of county government, but of local government. He took it that the people in the parishes were anxious to have the control, as far as possible, of local charities, whereas the effect of the Amendment would be, in the long run, to give to the County Councils the power which ought to rest with the Parish Council and the parish meetings.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)

said, it was reassuring to hear the hon. Member say they were sent to this House to allow parishes to govern themselves. They (the Opposition) thought they had been asserting that principle for some time, whilst hon. Gentlemen opposite had constantly, obstinately, and tenaciously refused to give the Parish Council that freedom and power which he and his friends had been so anxious to give them. The two hon. Members who had last spoken had not given any strong reason for their opposition to this Amendment. The powers, which existed at present ought unques- tionably to be continued under the new proposal, and if the hon. Gentleman pressed this Amendment to a Division he should undoubtedly support him.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, the hon. Member for Tavistock had objected to the County Council because it represented the people at large, whereas the hon. Member said he was urging the claims of the people at small, whatever that might mean. He submitted that even if that objection were valid it would not apply to the School Board, which represented the people at small just as much as the Parish Council; it was elected for the same area, and the fact of its being elected on a franchise different to that of the Parish Council did not diminish its character or lower its prestige as a purely local and parochial body. It was just as popular in a parochial sense as the Parish Council; and considering that some of these charities might be of an educational character, it was a most appropriate authority to nominate or appoint one or more trustees.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk)

wished to point out that if the Mover of this Amendment had based himself on the hope that this Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby would not be of very extensive operation because of the definition of parochial charities he was leaning on a broken reed. Although the Government had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman below him defining a parochial charity, yet there was an Amendment down on the Paper to that definition which would entirely destroy its force, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby was an illustration of how the acceptances of the Government might be discounted by the Amendments of their followers. He took it that the intention of the Committee was to impose no more expense and trouble than they could help, and they did not wish the money to go to the lawyers, but to the poor. In that case they must avoid, as much as they could, having fresh appointments of trustees. There was a needless waste of money at the present moment in law costs in connection with the appointments of trustees. It was described by the Charity Commissioners as a wanton expenditure of charitable funds, and they said—

THE CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

The hon. Member is now going beyond the limits of the Amendment.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

was hoping to show that by avoiding as far as possible the operation of the Amendment of the Member for Rugby they should be saving charity funds. He would give concrete cases of trust of which he had got the details.

THE CHAIRMAN

This Amendment really refers to nominations by School Boards or other Representative Authorities, and the hon. Member must confine his references to that.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, his intention was to show that there was a very large elective principle in the trustees of a great many parochial charities without having these new trustees introduced under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. This elective principle they were proposing to introduce into trusteeships was there already, and was very strong indeed. He proposed to take the case of the Tarvin Grammar School, in the County of Cheshire.

THE CHAIRMAN

We have already passed that part of the subject, and we cannot go back upon it. We must confine ourselves to the addition proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

The addition proposed by my hon. Friend would have this effect: that if it were carried the case of the Tarvin Grammar School would not come under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby.

THE CHAIRMAN

When this discussion has been finished the various Amendments which have been passed will have to be added to the clause, and on that general addition it might be possible to go into these matters, but it is not on this Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On a point of Order, and for our guidance, I ask whether it would not be in Order for the hon. Gentleman to show that in the case of certain trusteeships there was already a very large elective element, quite sufficient to carry out the views of the Committee with regard to the elective element, without accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby in its entirety? It might be a reason for modifying it if it could be shown that the elective principle was already very largely carried out in the ease of certain trusteeships.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman will see that the Amendment is already wide, and the proposal is to make it somewhat wider by the particular Amendment of the hon. Member. Upon the general question being proposed from the Chair, that the whole words be added to the clause, then hon. Members can go into illustrations if they think proper. It would not be in Order to do so in the present Amendment.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, what he was endeavouring to maintain was that he could show the Committee one or two cases in which as the Amendment stood without the addition of the words they were now discussing there would be a trust which would be affected, whereas if they put in these particular words that particular trust would not be effected; and also that there was a strong representative element already upon that trust. As he was not in Order in stating a particular case, he would state one hypothetically. Supposing there was a case were there were 12 trustees, six elected by the ratepayers of the parish, one by a University, and one by the County Council, as the Amendment stood, without the addition of the words they were now discussing, the trust would come under the operation of the proposed new clause, because only six out of the 12 trustees would be elected by the ratepayers; but if the words were added they would bring in the one trustee appointed by the County Council, so that seven out of 12 trustees would be elected on the representative principle. He could show many other cases from the Report on the state of trusteeships in England where parochial charities had an immense representative element on the trusteeships already, and where surely it was not desirable, in the interests of carrying a mere principle to the furthest possible limit, to interfere with schemes just settled by the Charity Commission.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, there seemed to be some misapprehension as to the purport of the Amendment. Its object was not to add any new element to the trusts, but merely to provide that in calculating the majority which was to be the standard, those really representative members who were already on such trusts might be taken into account. The contrast in the clause itself was between privately appointed trustees and representative trustees appointed by Public Bodies, and it seemed to him that inasmuch as the County Council might, in certain trusts, already appoint their representatives on these trusts they ought to be taken into account as representative and not as private trustees.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

desired to point out that this Amendment sought to give no extra power at all. It only asked that those who were already representative members on a charity should be reckoned as representatives, and that those who were really elected on the trust should be treated as elected members, and not otherwise. The Member for Tavistock spoke of charities belonging to one parish. But there were many charities extending over a number of parishes. The hon. Member for Somerset spoke of one which belonged to five or six parishes. The District Council under this Bill would be a popular body, and surely any member on that charity elected by the District Council was the very man to be treated as a valuable elective member.

MR. LUTTRELL

These are, in my opinion, unfortunately excluded.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, this did not refer to the future at all, but only to schemes in being. Fresh schemes would be framed on an altogether different basis; practically, this only affected schemes in hand, and asked that trustees elected by District Councils or any other body that was really representative should be treated as elective members precisely as if they were elected by the Parish Council. He thought that in the interests of the trusts themselves and their proper administration the Government ought to willingly accept the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

expressed the hope that they should hear from the Government what they proposed to do. He should have been glad to have had an indication of opinion a little earlier, for one of the difficulties connected with the consideration of the Amendment was that the Committee were discussing the administration of these charities without knowing from whom the trustees were to be eventually selected. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division had told them that there was a direct issue between the two sides of the House, and that hon. Gentlemen on the Government side wished to establish government in small in the parish, whereas Members on the Opposition side wished to establish what the hon. Member called government in large. He would not stop to inquire what government in small by the Parish Council might be, but he would point out that there were circumstances in many cases where the administration of local charities frequently led to a considerable amount of friction and local differences. Circumstances might arise which would make it impossible to get a satisfactory administration if trustees were limited solely to those appointed by the Parish Council. There was a distinct advantage in retaining the trustees who were nominated by popularly elected bodies, and it would be better that they should have an element nominated by the County Council and some outside larger authority than confine themselves solely to trustees appointed by the Parish Council. The Amendment, he submitted, would not in the slightest degree minimise the popularly elected representative system, but would allow those trustees nominated by popularly elected bodies to remain, and so conduce to the satisfactory administration of parochial charities.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W. R., Rotherham)

said, in answer to what the hon. Gentleman had said as to persons qualified to be elected, the Government proposed to accept the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, which provided that no person not qualified to be elected a Parish Councillor should be appointed an additional trustee. He thought that met part of the point as to outsiders being brought in to govern these charities from all parts of the country. On the other hand, the Government intended to adhere to what they believed to be the real spirit and meaning of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby—namely, that these trustees should be elected in the parish and by the Parish Council. In the case of a large county like the West Riding of Yorkshire, if members of the various bodies were to be allowed to be representatives in future on parochial trusts of this sort, they might have to come a very long way, and they might not attend the Committee at all. That would really defeat the definite object they had in view—namely, the government of a parochial charity by a majority of parochial elective trustees. There were cases already in existence where under the Technical Act of the late Government they had a certain number of representatives to the County Council already placed upon trusts, and if they were to remain for ever it would exclude a reasonable number of parochial trustees who might fairly expect to be elected. Certainly the Government thought that the spirit of the hon. Member for Rugby would be much better carried out by its acceptance as it stood, and they intended to adhere to it. They could not, therefore, accept the present Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman had given a very extraordinary reason for arriving at the conclusion he had stated. The right hon. Gentleman said that these District and County Councils and other Representative Bodies would largely elect persons as trustees who would never attend.

MR. ACLAND

I only pointed out what might occur in the West Riding.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was born in the West Riding of Yorkshire—

MR. ACLAND

I am a Member for the West Riding.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, but he (Mr. Lowther) was a born Yorkshireman, and he was not going to admit that Yorkshireman was going to elect persons to fill offices which they were notoriously incapable of discharging. On the contrary, he should say that a member of a Yorkshire County Council or District Council would be as unlikely to induce his colleagues to appoint dummies an any elected body in any other county. He should like to know this: Assuming that these Representative Bodies were fit to discharge the duties for which they existed, did the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend to the Committee that they were unfit to discharge the simple duty cast upon them of electing trustees or nominating suitable persons to serve on trusts? If not, then the right hon. Gentleman had given them no reason whatever for deliberately inflicting upon these Representative Bodies a slight, as they did when they treated them as if they considered they were unfit to nominate person to discharge the powers they already possessed.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he could not conceive how it was that a person not qualified for a parish Councillorship was to be debarred from election as a trustee. The parish should have a full voice in the management of the trusteeship if they were to carry out the object of the Bill. He would like to point out that there was no desire to dispossess trustees appointed by School Boards, County Councils, and Boards of Guardians. The question which they had to decide was whether trustees so appointed should be considered as representing the popular element or not. In his opinion, it was quite reasonable to say that such trustees fulfilled the conditions which the hon. Member for Rugby and his supporters wished to attach to the constitution of Boards of Trustees.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he did not think the Government quite appreciated the absurdity of the position in which they would find themselves if they refused to accept the Amendment, especially in the case of those charitable trusts which had been reconstructed recently by the Charity Commissioners. The Commissioners, by introducing a popular element in the ease of charitable trusts recently reconstructed, had given a democratic dose to the construction of such Boards. The Government now proposed to give to the Boards an additional democratic dose—

MR. ACLAND

The same dose.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

A double dose. What was the reason for insisting on this double democratic dose? The Charity Commissioners had given popular representation in educational trusts by introducing representatives of the School Boards and the County Councils.

MR. ACLAND

I hardly think those come under the Bill at all.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he did not know; he had not the comparative statistics before him. He was aware that the matter was not mentioned in the Bill. It was not denied that there were parochial charities in many cases which would come under this Bill, which had been dealt with by the Charity Commissioners in that sense. They had already a single democratic dose, and they were going to double the dose.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

And why not?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

asked why should they do that? Why were they going to give the same dose to charities already dealt with as to those not yet dealt with by the Commissioners? They were going to provide a certain number of elected persons who must exceed in number those who were selected. That was, they proposed to give exactly the same democratic dose to trusts that had already been reconstructed with the view of making them democratic as they proposed to give to trusts manned exclusively by co-optative members. Well, he really must ask that they would give equality of treatment, as trusts that had been modified already ought not to be treated as if they were on the same platform and under the same constitution as trusts that had not been modified. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the question in a spirit which he suggested.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was not satisfied that anything had been done with regard to democratic representation.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Charity Commissioners have done something.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the general complaint was that the Charity Commissioners had not sufficiently regarded the democratic tendencies of the time and had done nothing to give their bodies a democratic character. The democratic doses administered by the Commissioners in their schemes had been homoœpathic doses only, and the mixture ought to be strengthened. London, for instance, was democratic; yet it was dominated by an ecclesiastical representation; and those who were supporting the Amendment were doing so in order to prevent proper democratic representation.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he did not know that they had to go to Cornwall to get a representative of London. London did not send a democratic majority to that House. His experience was that when a democratic body began to feel its responsibility it became a little Conservative. In reference to this Amendment they were giving more than the two doses referred to by the right hon. Gentleman below him, for they were giving double and double, since they proposed to put in a majority over the existing number, thereby making the representative body all round twice as large as it was at the present time. It seemed to him that the proposal contained in the Amendment was neither unreasonable nor unfair. They were told that adequate protection would be given to existing rights, but now they had it that such rights would be swamped by newly-elected trustees. These trustees would swamp the trustees nominated by the Charity Commission, the County Council, the School Board, and other Representative Bodies. He hoped the Committee would go to a Division on the question.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 121.—(Division List, No. 371.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. Mellor, we have now reached, or almost reached, the time when on Wednesdays the Sittings are brought to a conclusion, and the House will feel that if we are to sit longer now it will lead, not to the despatch of Public Business, but to the inconvenience of Members generally, and I think, therefore, that it would be desirable that the Sitting should now come to an end.

An hon. MEMBER: Obstruction. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I make this suggestion to the Government as much in the interest of the Government themselves as of their supporters and of other sections of the House. I have had con- siderable experience of Saturday Sittings as a means of carrying on the business of the House, and every one will agree with me that when we have got to deal with some exceptional measures, or have to carry out Supply, Saturday Sittings are a necessary evil. But they are far worse —they cannot be described as a necessary evil—when we are dealing with ordinary measures of this kind, for then the amount of business got through never is great and never can be great, because there is no desire on the part of the House to meet the views of the Government or to further their object, and there never can be. When the Government on a measure like this chooses to impose upon the House a Saturday Sitting I come down with no desire whatever to make it pass through, or to forward the views of those who thus gratuitously and uselessly inflict this burden upon the House. I do not wish rashly to make any charge of bad faith against the Government; but anybody who will look back to the Debates which took place at the time when, in August or September last, we handed over to the Government the privilege of having Saturday Sittings will see that that privilege was asked for by the Government for no purpose like this to which they are now putting it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in August last explained the general conditions upon which alone the Government would ask for Saturday Sittings, and, as I then interpreted his words, and now interpret them it was not to push on ordinary routine business, but to meet some exceptional necessity. If I have rightly interpreted his words, as I think I have, the privilege of having Saturday Sittings for such a measure as this is a breach of faith with the House.

Several hon. MEMBERS

No, no!

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Do hon. Gentlemen think I have exaggerated the inconvenience of Saturday Sittings? If they do, I claim the adhesion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to my view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like a wise man, has run away.

An hon. MEMBER

No.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If he has not run away, where is he? We are at pre- sent in the anomalous and unfortunate position of having no Leader of the House at all. The Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), as we all know, is unhappily prevented by sickness from being in his place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his own will. Where is he?

An hon. MEMBER

At his own fireside.

Another hon. MEMBER

Sandringham.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Does any hon. Member think that any host, and above all the host to whom reference has been made (the Prince of Wales), would prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from doing his duty if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were the least disposed to do it? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has very wisely, I think, left his colleagues to bear the burden and heat, not of the day, but of the night. I only point out these circumstances as indicating the inconvenience of sitting at this time. If even the Deputy Leader of the House is carried away by his engagements, and cannot be present, what must be the inconvenience to other Members of the House by the arbitrary and tyrannical course which has been taken? I deprecate the kind of scene which is likely to fill up the remainder of the Sitting—[Cries of "Oh!"]—unless the Government see the wisdom of assenting to the course which I venture respectfully to press upon the notice of the Committee. [An hon. MEMBER: Threatening.] Some hon. Gentlemen think I am threatening. That is not at all the case. They must have experience—some of them have not much —of what these kind of scenes are, and they are themselves at this moment giving us an indication of what they are. It is these cheers and counter-cheers, these ironical interruptions, and the heat and passion which are raised by collisions of this character which I deprecate. Hon. Gentlemen think I am threatening. I am only threatening them with themselves, because they will be the chief actors in the scene which I foresee. I shall say nothing, as I think I have said nothing, which shall add unnecessary heat to our Debate. I have commented on the absence of the Leader of the House, as I have a perfect right to do, but unless hon. Gentlemen think that is an acrimonious topic, not a word have I said which should arouse the susceptibilities of even the most tender consciousness in the House. I desire now to move that you report Progress in the interests of Public Business, and not the least in my own, for I am quite prepared to sit here and share the humble fare which, I understand, is provided for us by the Kitchen Committee. But I do not think anything will be gained by that, and I hope the Government will not compel the Committee, and, above all, the officers of the House who have to be in attendance, to go through a farce which will undoubtedly be painful, and which I believe will be absolutely fruitless.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that we had now reached the time when, according to the ordinary Rule of Wednesday Sittings, the House would adjourn; but, last night, the right hon. Gentleman was distinctly told that the Sitting was not to be subject to the Wednesday Rule. The Leader of the House, in answer to a question on the subject, stated that the limit of the Sitting would depend upon the amount of business accomplished. Now, Sir, we have done nothing to-day—[Ministerial cheers and counter-cheers]—absolutely nothing. [Opposition cheers.] Hon. Members opposite accept that statement and cheer it. Nothing practically has been done, not upon one clause, but upon one sub-section of a clause, that has been under consideration part of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has had painful experience of fighting a Bill, but in the whole course of the conflict which took place on the Coercion Bill I doubt whether the same number of lines occupied the same amount of time that has been expended during the present Committee. The answer of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman is that we quite appreciate the position of the officers of the House. Nor have we any desire to impose any burden upon the Members of the House, least of all upon ourselves, and therefore it is not a pleasant task to ask the House to sit long. But the right hon. Gentleman, with that public spirit which always characterises him, has expressed his willingness to stay through the remaining business, which I do not think will occupy a considerable amount of time. We are willing to stay; and at half-past 5 o'clock I do not think the time has been reached when it is in accordance with the practice of Saturday Sittings that the House should be asked to adjourn. We are, no doubt, in exceptional circumstances as to time. We are approaching a period of the year and of the Session when it is necessary that business should be expedited, and I do not think it is too much to ask the Committee to deal with the remaining business of the day, which raises no new question. The question of principle, which I quite admit hon. Gentlemen have been quite within their right in discussing, has been exhausted. I should think that every speech that could be made has been made, that every argument that could be used has been used. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have addressed the Committee again and again; and under the circumstances the Government cannot, even with the terrible prospect of humble fare provided by the Kitchen Committee which the right hon. Gentleman has pictured to us, accept the Motion.

SIR H. JAMES

said, he would not discuss the question on the narrow ground on which the President of the Local Government Board had put it; but when the right hon. Gentleman imputed obstruction, he (Sir H. James) must ask who were the obstructors? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was not one of them; but his colleagues had been obstructing him when they were, he would not say breaking his faith, but agreeing to the introduction of a sub-section which contained a whole Bill in itself. These hon. Gentlemen knew that the sub-section would be discussed at the greatest possible length, and if that course had not been taken, if the right hon. Gentleman's counsels had been accepted and his word had been fulfilled, the conditions would have been very different to those now existing. But the question they were now discussing involved the character and utility of Parliament. [Cheers.] They were agreed on that. Hitherto hon. Members coming there had been selected from a class of men who had many duties in this country to perform—duties represented by local influence, family estate, and duties they had to discharge as heads of families. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes; he repeated it. The majority in that House had not been composed of professional politicians who had no such claims upon their time, who had no local influence, and who could easily make a home in that House, and to whom it was easy to desert every duty [Cries of "Order!" and "Question!"] except that which they thought they were fulfilling when they came to Westminster. If this practice of constant Sittings throughout the year and on every day in the week were continued, they would have a different class of men to the present in that House. If the Government would listen to the advice of those who sat around them, and who were their best supporters—the senior Members of the House—they would find that many of them would openly say that they would never undertake the burden of Parliamentary life again, or seek re-election in a House so conducted. In that ease, what would be the consequence? Why, that the House would drift into the hands of other men than had hitherto been returned. A new class would come into existence, who would sit every day in the week, especially if they were paid for it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Were you not paid?

SIR H. JAMES

Certainly not.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how much he received during the years from 1880 to 1885?

SIR H. JAMES

I will answer that question, which I believe no other Member of the House than the man who asked it would put to me. I was not paid as a Member of Parliament. I was paid in the same way as the Prime Minister is paid and the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not here to-night, were paid. The interruption that has just taken place will not prevent my making a protest—I believe a proper protest—on behalf of the senior Members of the House against the Government imposing upon us, at a time when there is no necessity for it, a duty which the House can never bear, in order to fulfil the obligation of Party claims and Party claims alone. The Motion which has been made is a representative Motion. It is one of protest against asking Members to bear an unequal and unfitting burden, and I will repeat that, if this course is persisted in, it will bring this House into disrepute throughout the whole civilised world.

MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

said, he was sorry the right Gentleman had imported into the discussion those topics of so much acrimony and heat which had characterised his address. His reference to the Irish Members who were sitting opposite seemed to him (Mr. Reid) very unfortunate—

SIR H. JAMES

I made no reference to the Irish Members.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's reference to professional politicians without any home except the House was levelled against those gentlemen. At all events, he could not understand what practical bearing the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman had upon the question before the Committee. He (Mr. Reid) would advert to one sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. His right hon. and learned Friend had said that the character and reputation of the House were at stake. He quite agreed with him, for he thought that the way in which these Debates had been protracted and the way in which speeches had been multiplied, not only on this Bill, but on others also during the Session, had, indeed, brought the character of the House into great peril. He desired to point out that hitherto it had been difficult enough to pass a Bill which was contested, but now it seemed almost impossible to pass into law any serious Bill, even if it purported to be uncontested. Such had been the duration of the Debates that he apprehended that it was very likely that they would not conclude their discussion of the Bill until the month of February. He thought those of them who were interested in legislation in another way were entitled to complain. He did not say this was not an important Bill, but he did say that if this Bill was to occupy their time until February, and was thus to destroy the chance of any proper legislative programme being carried through next Session, it would be no use for them to go to the country. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members would allow him to finish his sentence. It would be no use for them then to go to the country and to lay the blame upon the obstructive tactics of the other side of the House, for the answer would be prompt and natural that the majority in that House could have exercised means whereby to prevent tactics the effect, he would not say the object, of which was sufficiently apparent. The Government would be blamed and would suffer if they did not take the means which were necessary not only to vindicate the authority and honour of the House, but also to render it an instrument of utility in the country. Therefore, although the supporters of the Government ought to stand by them on this occasion, and to insist on business being proceeded with, he wished to point out that some return was due to those supporters from the Government, and he would do what he hoped they contemplated doing—namely, take the responsibility of proposing to the House of Commons measures which would bring the despatch of business within a reasonable compass of time.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

said, that as a pretty constant attendant in the House, and one who had felt the length of the Session, he must protest against their being driven in the way in which they had been driven by the Government. The Leader of the Opposition had only just returned to his duties; the Leader of the House of Commons was away, and other Cabinet Ministers were absent enjoying themselves—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I really do not think that these topics ought to be indulged in. The Question is that I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY

said, that his reason for supporting the Motion to report Progress was that he believed that neither Ministers nor other Members could stand the pressure that was put upon them. He sat opposite to Ministers and looked at them, and could see that they were suffering from overwork. If they went on like this an extra supply of undertakers would soon be wanted. Of course there were many Members away taking care of themselves; but he was there, and there he should remain as long as the Committee sat, even if it sat till 12 o'clock. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) sitting behind him had been ill, and yet he had come down to the House when Ministers were away. It was the absence of Ministers that he complained of. This Sitting had been brought about, in the first place, through the faulty drafting of the Bill, and in the next place through the Government having broken faith with the House. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury had said, the Government, by their action, were destroying all the amenities of life. They destroyed everything that they possibly could, and then expected good work in that House. They could not expect to get good work out of a jaded House of Commons. Then from overworked Ministers the country could not get good administration; and last, but not least, there were the officers of the House to consider. Although he felt sure that the officers of the House would be quite willing to bear any burden that might be put on them, human nature was human nature, and could not last for ever. The Government made the House sit all the year round and gave them no ease, but though they coerced the House in this way little would be gained by it. It would be better for the Government, when they made an agreement with the Opposition, to stick to it. At present they were like sheep without a shepherd. Where was the Leader of the House? At any moment he or some other Member of the Government might come in and throw over the Minister in charge of the Bill, and undo the work that was being clone. He had the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure, but he thought the Committee were entitled to a little more consideration than it was receiving.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed to be that all the amenities of life would be destroyed if they did not Adjourn, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present and the hon. Member for Islington was. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury had addressed some more serious arguments to the House, but it seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that the right hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the matter. The right hon. and learned Member would lead them to believe that if they sat on for two or three hours more the class of Members who now sat in Parliament would be changed at the next General Election. Well, he should not have the slightest objection to that. They on that side were in favour of the class being changed. They wanted the people to be more largely represented, and if through their sitting there for two or three hours more they brought about that change, which, in his opinion, would be advantageous to the country, it was an additional reason for prolonging the Sitting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to urge, as a special plea for adjourning, that there were a great many heads of families in the House, and that they wanted to do something on Saturday night. What they wanted to do on Saturday night he had not the slightest notion. The Leader of the Opposition made the amiable suggestion—his suggestions always were amiable—that if the Committee did not adjourn now it was unlikely that much Business would be done, and that there might be scenes and trouble in the House. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman intimated that the Government should "knock under" and yield to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for Adjournment, otherwise they would be trampled upon and no Business would be done. He would ask if such an argument had ever before been addressed to a Legislature. He had been really surprised to hear it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Well, generally when he rose he (Mr. Labouchere) did so to pour oil on troubled waters. Saturday Sittings were objectionable, if they were not necessary; but when they had a Saturday Sitting and Members were already in the House, it would be a foolish thing not to make the most of the opportunity. An ordinary Sitting of the House lasted nine hours. If they were to adjourn now they would have sat for only six hours. Why should they not have an ordinary Sitting of nine hours, which would bring them to 9 o'clock? If the right hon. Gentleman were to move the adjournment at that hour he (Mr. Labouchere) could understand that there would be something in his action. Therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the peace and harmony of which he was so strong an advocate, to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that it should be reconsidered at about 9 o'clock.

SIR W. HART-DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

As one of the older Members of the House I should like to say one or two words — and I will endeavour to say nothing to disturb the oily surface which had been so generously distributed on the water by the amusing observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down. It is a great pity that these disputes occur. To my mind the scene, or, I would say, the disturbance from which we are now suffering, is owing to the settled policy of the Government since March last. In March last when it was announced that the Opposition were to have the gag applied to them, and that the whole time of the House was to be monopolised by the Government alone, I addressed a few observations to the House by way of registering my protest on the ground that the Government were hazarding not only the prospects of the Session, but the good name of the House of Commons. It is utterly impossible for any Government to gag and coerce a very large minority of the House. The endeavour to do that has been the great mistake all through this dreary and ridiculous Session, and this meeting on a Saturday is part of the same policy, and, therefore, is received with just resentment by the Opposition The Government must take human nature as they find it. Whether hon. Members howl "obstruction" at us or not we care little. We care more for the good name of Parliament, and it is with the deepest regret that we find that the Government are still determined to pursue a policy of compulsion and coercion which no Eng- lishman would stand. That may be plain speaking, but it is the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have had a seat in this House for nearly 30 years, and during that time I have been present on many occasions when accusations of obstruction have been hurled by one side against the other. I have unfortunately witnessed many scenes in this House, but I have never known a Government to undertake so mad an enterprise as this policy of going into Committee on a Bill of this magnitude in the month of November. It was one of the maddest enterprises ever undertaken by a Government. I venture to urge this in common justice to the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him, that so long as the conduct of this Bill was straight forward there was no considerable discussion upon the clauses and no heat in the Debates thereon. It was only when we found that we were completely thrown over, that the pledges given to us were not fulfilled, and that vital interests of ours were in great danger, that resentment was naturally shown at the treatment we received. And now what do we find? The usual failure, and a Saturday Sitting on such a Bill as this. We find ourselves discussing an Amendment to an Amendment not moved by one of the Opposition, against whom you declaim, but by an ardent supporter of the Government. It is no fault of ours that we find ourselves in this difficulty. There is one way out of it, and that is the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. We might then get on more smoothly. It is a matter of regret to older Members to find the House drifting into this state of things. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) has let the cat completely out of the bag when he says that we are being kept here all the year so that there may be sufficient advertising of the efforts of the Government to achieve legislation, and so that the Government may have a respectable programme before they appeal to the country. I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his admirable display of candour in the speech he has just made.

SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said, his right hon. Friend (Sir H. James) had spoken for the senior Members of the House. He had been a little longer in the House than his right boo. Friend, and nearly as long as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Hart-Dyke), and he never recollected such a state of things as they saw now— obstruction so shameless, and he was bound to say so successfully carried out. He was not more eager than the Leader of the Opposition to stay and partake of the humble fare provided by the Kitchen Committee. But rather than allow his Party to be bullied out of a great and useful popular measure of legislation, he, for one, was quite willing to eat his Christmas dinner in the Dining Room of the House of Commons.

MR. BARTLEY

rose amidst loud cries of "Divide!"

Mr. Conybeare

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; " but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

MR. BARTLEY

thought it only reasonable that there should be some answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had talked about "shameless obstruction," and said that he would not be bullied. Why, the bullying was on the other leg altogether. It was the Opposition who were being bullied, for a large minority were to be absolutely put down by the supporters of the Government. For the last three days the Committee had been called upon to discuss an Amendment which absolutely revolutionised the Bill. It was an Amendment which the Government had never thought of until it was put down by one of their own followers. Yet they talked about "obstruction." He did not object to attend, nor did he object, any more than the hon. Baronet opposite, with his great heroism, to eat his Christmas dinner in the House of Commons if necessary. If they could do any good, he had no objection to sit, but he hoped the Kitchen Committee would supply them with what was necessary. What he did resent was this: that, while they were called upon to sit six or seven hours, Members of the Government were away, in addition to those absent through illness. That was not fair. Why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be present? He was the Leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister, and he was continually altering the decisions of the President of the Local Government Board. He wanted to know why the right hon. Gentleman should be away? He himself had only just got up from a bed of sickness, and why should he be present and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not be there? And he wanted to know why other Members of the Government were away? Where was the Secretary of State for War; where was the Secretary to the Admiralty; where was the Lord Advocate? [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

This is not material to the Question that Progress be reported.

MR. BARTLEY

again rose—

Mr. Channing

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

MR. BARTLEY

Am I to understand that it is out of Order to refer to Ministers not being present when they were engaged on a special day?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is really not material to the Question to report Progress.

MR. BARTLEY

said, it would seem that it did not matter whether the Government were present or not. He supposed it was all right. He said emphatically that they could not make progress with this Bill in the way they were going on at present. The Committee had met every day that week and had done a great deal in connection with a new Amendment which revolutionised the measure. Now, after six hours' discussion on the present Amendment, the whole Committee was tired, and it was impossible to devote to the various propositions brought forward that freshness and vigour which were necessary to make the Bill suitable to the country. Under these circumstances he strongly supported the proposal to report Progress. He had been a. Member of the House for eight or nine years, and he had always found that these heated discussions never resulted in any good to the Bill under consideration. A large number of Members considered this question of charities most important.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid.)

Mr. Mellor, is the hon. Gentleman in Order in speaking on the clause when the question before the Committee is that of Progress?

THE CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members are bound to confine themselves closely to the point when a Motion to report Progress is before the Committee.

MR. BARTLEY

said, his point was that the Committee could not properly consider the clause if it attempted to do so at the present time. Under these circumstances he strongly supported the Motion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 120.—(Division List, No. 372.)

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

moved, in line 7 of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "to be," in order to insert the words "not to exceed." He explained that the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to give the Parish Council power to elect as small a number of trustees as they chose. He wished to remind the Committee, in view of the charge of obstruction that had just been made, that for the last three or four days the Committee had been occupied with an Amendment which had proceeded, not from the Unionist side, but from one of the supporters of the Government. If, therefore, Members said there was obstruction, the reply was that it proceeded from their own side. There were many cases in which there were charitities—such, for instance, as nursing charities—having a number of trustees, in some cases ladies, who were doing the work well. Parish Councils, if left to themselves, might possibly in such cases elect a single representative in order to keep in touch with such an institution, and might regret more than anyone else being obliged to elect an absolute majority of trustees. It had been argued that if the Parish Council approved the work of the trustees they would elect as trustees people holding the same opinions. The difficulty however, might be to find another six or seven who were capable of doing the work. The Amendment would give full power and freedom to the Parish Councils to elect any number of trustees they chose up to and including a majority. Why anyone should want to curb the liberty of the Council in a matter of this kind seemed to him to be most strange on the part of those who professed to be in favour of representative institutions.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 7, to leave out the words " to be," in order to insert the words " not to exceed."— (Mr. Jesse Callings.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'to be' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I need hardly say that this Amendment, if adopted, would strike at the very essence of the proposed reform. It would do away with the principle which has been discussed over and over again on this clause—that of making the elective element the majority. It is on this point that the battle has now been going on so long, and although my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) says it is not a matter of compulsion, the practical effect of carrying this Amendment will be to put it in the power of the Parish Council to add only one single member. That would strike at the very root of the clause, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

The Government are actually not going to trust the Parish Councils in a matter of this kind. They are going to insist on the Parish Councils appointing a majority. The proposal of the Amendment is a most reasonable one. It is merely that the Parish Councils should have the power to appoint a majority, but that they shall not be compelled to exercise that power. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) has quoted certain cases in which it would be perfectly reasonable to give a discretion to the Parish Council in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has not attempted to answer those cases. I regret that the Government are continuing to show that want of trust in Parish Councils of which, at any rate, they must acquit us.

MR. BARTLEY

said, there were a very large number of small village cha- rities which were largely supplemented by subscriptions. As he understood this clause, it would bring such charities under the scope of the measure, and the result would be to dry up the subscriptions, which in many cases were the larger part of the charity. If the Amendment were adopted it would give the Parish Council some chance of preventing this.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that what the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had said about the words proposed to be omitted was perfectly true. They were the governing words of the sub-section, and if they were got rid of almost all the objection to the provision would disappear. The right hon. Gentleman had well told the Committee that so subtle and difficult were the questions that arose on the Bill that if they were properly discussed the discussion would take a year. That was not the fault of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had allowed to be imported into the Bill all sorts of questions which did not properly belong to Parish Councils. The most difficult and complex question of the numbers who were to be placed on the charities would affect so nearly all the beneficiaries of charities that he did not think the Committee would be justified in allowing the objectionable word " majority " to remain in the sub-section without making a very strong protest indeed.

MR. W. LONG

said, that as a regular attendant during the Committee stage of the Bill the had done his utmost as a private Member to help the right hon. Gentleman to make the measure workable, and he confessed it was not encouraging, neither was it calculated to facilitate their progress or to secure a Bill upon the provisions of which they would be able to congratulate themselves, to have cast against them ridiculous and childish charges of shameless obstruction. There had been nothing of the kind.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would, if adopted, give the Parish Councils a very necessary amount of freedom. In many cases there would, in fact, be great difficulty in securing a sufficient number of trustees to constitute a majority of the Board, and the Amendment afforded a practical way out of that difficulty.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 72.—(Division List, No. 373.)

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he wished to add the following words at the end of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby:— Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to charities not included in Subsection (2), which are founded after the passing of this Act. Personally he thought the Committee had come to a wrong decision by providing in Sub-section (2) that in future, if anybody left a charity in trust to the Churchwardens and Overseers, that trust might be interfered with by the Parish Council. The object of this Amendment was to prevent interference by the Parish Council with future charities which were placed in the hands of private trustees, and he would not have brought it forward had not the President of the Local Government Board, when he raised the point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, promised to consider it later on. He appealed to the Government, was it not preposterous, for instance, that, in the case of a man giving a charity and appointing two or three private trustees, the Parish Council should have the power at their very next meeting to step in and interfere in its administration by swamping his trustees? Suppose he left a charity and appointed the Solicitor General and himself as trustees, the Parish Council at their next meeting would appoint three other trustees, and would thus prevent the charity being administered by the Solicitor General and himself in the harmonious way he intended when he founded the charity. Surely that would impose a serious disability. Unless some provision similar to that which he submitted was inserted in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby the result would be greatly to the disadvantage of the poor; for, if the donor of a charity was to be prevented in future from having it administered by such trustees only as he desired to appoint, the flow of charity would be seriously affected. The change he was proposing was a very mild one, and unless it was made the result would be that in the future charities would not be so arranged as to be applicable to the benefit of the whole population, but would be diverted into ecclesiastical channels. He appealed to the Government to allow the pious donors of the future to choose their own trustees.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, At the end, to add the words,—" Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to charities not included in Sub-section (2), which are founded after the passing of this Act."— (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Gentleman has put a concrete case of a trust to be founded to-morrow, and in which he says he and the Solicitor General are acting harmoniously together as trustees. He is afraid that on the passing of this Bill the Parish Council will step in and swamp the Solicitor General and himself by the election of three other trustees. If the House sees fit to accept an Amendment which I hope to move at a later stage, that catastrophe cannot happen until 1923, or 30 years hence The Government assume that persons founding future charities will know what the law is, and will take the steps they may think necessary to prevent that interference by the Parish Council which they do not like.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, it was all very well to suggest that future donors would be able to take steps to protect themselves, but they would have no confidence that Parliament would not again interfere—as it proposed now to do—with trust property. The right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that unless some such security as that proposed in the Amendment were inserted the flow of charity would certainly be stopped, and one effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby would be to put an end to the practice of leaving money in trust for the benefit of the poor. Donors ought not to be discouraged by the possibility of their arrangements being frustrated. They ought rather to be encouraged to continue the system of founding charities for the poor which had happily so long prevailed in our rural districts. He heartily supported the Amendment, believing that it was nothing more than justice.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

When the Charitable Trusts Act was introduced into this House in 1853, the very same arguments were raised as are now being used. It was argued then that the flow of charity would be stopped, but, as a matter of fact, some of the most princely donations that have ever been made to the country, such as the Peabody Trusts, the Baird Charity of £500,000, the Gardner Benefactions, and other great trusts have been made since the passing of that Act in 1853. The history of charitable donations had never been surpassed—in point of munificence—in any period preceding the legislation allowing interference by the Charity Commission.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, the Bill on the face of it excluded ecclesiastical charities from its scope, and it was perfectly certain the result would be that the number of ecclesiastical charities would increase. If a Roman Catholic, for instance, wished to leave money for the good of the whole parish, he would be strongly tempted to exclude from the benefit all who were not of his own religion. Legislation which would narrow future gifts in that way would surely have a very evil effect. He thought it would be perfectly easy to escape the clause by making a charity apply to more than one parish. But he felt very strongly that the clause was objectionable as it stood, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

said, there could be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that legislation of this kind would tend to obstruct the flow of charity. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Charitable Trusts Act he forgot that the powers of the Charity Commissioners were limited to charities of the value of £50 per annum. All such magnificent charities as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, except upon the application of the trustees. But in the case of these smaller charities power would be taken—whoever might be appointed trustees by the founder—to appoint a majority of elected trustees, and it was that proposal which would militate against the flow of charity in the future.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central

reminded the hon. Gentleman that charities of over £50 in value could be reformed by schemes of the Charity Commissioners, and also by the Attorney General.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER

assured the right hon. Gentleman that he was in error. No charitable trust scheme came before the House at all. He had four or five years' experience at the Charity Commission, and he certainly had not forgotten what he then learnt. Endowed school schemes did come before the House, but they were matters of an entirely different character. The only power the Charity Commissioners had was in regard to schemes for charities below £50 in annual value. In the case of charities above that value they could, under the present Act, only deal with these on the application and with the assent of the trustees.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, that the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, and that the Charity Commissioners had power to frame schemes for charities over £50 for confirmation by that House. The difficulty was that there was no Minister responsible for those schemes, and, therefore, practically of late years they had not been proceeded with by the Charity Commissioners. But the power still remained. It could be done by Act of Parliament.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER

It is true it can be done by Act of Parliament, for, of course, Parliament can do anything; but it cannot be done otherwise than by Act of Parliament.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had committed a most extraordinary blunder. He had confused some recommendations in the Report of the Charities Committee of 1884, over which he himself had presided, with the law of the land. The right hon. Gentleman might shake his head, but that would not alter the recommendations of his Committee as to the law of the land.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the First Commissioner of Works had raised some extraordinary points with regard to the powers of the Charity Commissioners. His right hon. Friend seemed to have either misconstrued the powers of the Commissioners or he had wrongly conveyed them to the Committee. What his right hon. Friend had said about the increase of beneficence in recent years had nothing whatever to do with parochial charities. He hoped it would not be so, but he was inclined to think that, so far as parochial charities were concerned, the action of the Government would practically put an end to them. He declared that the Government would do no good to the rural population by what they were doing now. He knew something of the inner life of the agricultural labourers, and he believed that when it was explained to them that this Bill which proposed to give them Parish Councils, which they all so much desired, really proposed—

THE CHAIRMAN

I think the right hon. Gentleman is wandering from the point.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I will not wander from the point.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

Order, order!

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Perhaps the hon. Member for Camborne would like me to say that I will wander from the point, a process which he understands pretty well.

MR. CONYBEARE

I rise to Order. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say "I have not wandered from the point."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that without the protection which the Amendment sought to give they would do great harm to the rural districts, because they would practically put an end to those charities and endowments which had done so much good, notwithstanding all their abuses. If it was any use, he would even now appeal to his right hon. Friend not to be led away by those who knew very little about life in rural villages.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, it must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that the passing of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby without this proviso would clearly stop the flow of charity. The Government had said it would be all right, for they would provide that no donor's arrangements were interfered with until 30 years after the foundation of the charity. But no man would be so foolish as to found a trust during his lifetime when he knew that it would be interfered with in 30 years' time. A man might pay the money yearly out of his pocket, but he would sign no deed of trust. That would inevitably discourage the flow of charity; because a man, if he did not sign a deed of trust, might change his mind or forget to carry out his intentions. Then, again, the men who had founded charities were in most cases men of strong religious views—they were either violent Churchmen or violent Nonconformists, and it was not likely that men of that character would found charities in future when they knew that after 30 years they would be administered by people whom, perhaps, they regarded with the strongest antipathy. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby would in its present form also work great injustice in political matters. He, for instance, was one of 12 trustees of lauds and buildings for the purpose of maintaining a Conservative Club in a parish. That club was a very good thing for the parish—it was a parochial charity; but if under the Act a majority of Radicals were returned on the Parish Council, despite the teachings of the Club, a majority of Radicals would also be appointed on the trust, and surely nothing could be more opposed than that to the feelings of those who had founded the trust. It was, indeed, too hard that the intentions of donors should be upset by foolish action of this kind.

MR. FISHER

said, he wished that an Amendment were adopted by which such charities as were referred to in the Amendment should at least come before Parliament, so that Parliament might have the opportunity of pronouncing on the claims of the Parish Council. But what was now proposed by the Government was that all past charities and all future charities should be pounced on by the Parish Councils 30 years after their foundation, and diverted from the original intentions of the donors and testators. That was an act of very gross injustice, which would be resented to the end by the Opposition. Judging from the whole course of the Debate and the manner in which the Bill has been conducted, he believed they would have met in this matter with far more generous treatment from the President of the Local Government Board if the right hon. Gentleman had shown less consideration for the views of certain members of the Radical Party, who had exercised a most malignant influence on him during the past few weeks. The Government appeared to be trying to cram into the Bill as much contentious and obnoxious matter as possible.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, it had been made clear during the Debate that when the Act was passed it would be utterly impossible for a donor to prevent his charity falling into the hands of the Parish Council, except in two ways. The donor should either create it as an ecclesiastical charity, which no one would wish him to do, or he would have to tack on to the particular parish he desired to benefit a portion of another parish. He thought it would be a great disaster if the Bill passed without some remedy having been applied to allow a donor to leave his trust to his own particular trustees for administration by them. He, therefore, moved to add to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge the words— If the founder so provides in the instrument creating the trust. The object was to do a simple act of justice. If a donor, knowing of the existence of the Act, expressly wished that his bequest should not come under the administration of the parish, his wishes ought to be respected, and. the Act ought not to apply to his trust.

THE CHAIRMAN

This comes to an Amendment to an Amendment to an Amendment; and as it proposes to add certain words to the Amendment to the Amendment, I think we should deal with that Amendment first.

MR. CARSON

The Amendment of my hon. Friend will have an entirely different character if mine were added to it, and it might induce many Members to vote for it.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, that he could not accept the Amendment to his Amendment. He did not see the object of it. If a donor did not wish to contract out of the Act, he could leave his bequest to the Parish Council, If he left his charity to private trustees it showed that his intention was to exclude the Parish Council.

Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment, At end, to add the words, "if the founder so provides in the instrument creating the trust." —(Mr. Carson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment to the proposed Amendment."

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

thought the words were unnecessary. The fact that a donor, knowing of the existence of the Act, left his money to private trustees, showed that he did not wish the bequest to come under the Act. He thought that the Government had drawn an absurd and arbitrary line in this matter. If a man left his money to the parish he intended to benefit and a portion of another parish the bequest would be outside the Act; but if he left the whole of the money to one parish the bequest would come within the Act. Therefore, a man would be obliged to do a wrong to the parish he intended to benefit in order to keep his trust outside the Act. He was surprised that any statesman, or men calling themselves statesmen, should make such an absurd and ridiculous distinction.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should prefer to see the Amendment introduced into the Bill unamended; but perhaps there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who would not accept that Amendment without the addition of the words moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. Observe what the modification of the Amendment does. Donors who are indifferent to seeing their bequests seized after 30 years and the purposes of them changed will fall under the Act by making no special provision in the trust. But my hon. and learned Friend desires that those donors who do not wish the Parish Council under any circumstances to appoint the majority of the trustees in relation to their trusts should have an opportunity of gratifying their wish. As to the proposal for making all parochial trusts revert to the Parish Council after 30 years, I will not now discuss it in detail. I will only say that the argument of the President of the Local Govern- ment Board, even though supported by the imperfect facts of the First Commissioner of Works, is totally irrelevant to this issue. The Charitable Trusts Act is no precedent for this step. The First Commissioner of Works urged that the Act has not stopped charities, because many of the greatest charities have been created since it was passed. But all these trusts were not touched by the Charitable Trusts Act at all. Leaving the consent of Parliament out of account, I challenge any Member of the Government to point to any clause in the Act which enables the Charity Commissioners or any other Public Body to alter the trustees appointed under the original trust. The truth is, the Government cannot quote the Charitable Trusts Act as an expense for their present extremely high-handed conduct. The protection which the Government professes to give to donors in this 30 years' limit is entirely inadequate, and I hope my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to a Division.

MR. MATTHEWS (Birmingham, E.)

said, he desired to know whether it was the purpose and desire of the Government to put a stop to local charities? He would defy any lawyer, even the Solicitor General, to show how, after the passing of the Bill, any parochial charity could be created without, within 30 years, falling into the hands of the Parish Council. If a donor, after the passing of the Act, deliberately named private trustees, it proved that he objected to the bequest coming under parish administration. On the other hand, this Amendment would not prevent anybody who approved of Parish Council administration from leaving charities to the parish and subjecting them at once to the Act. Those who desired that parish life should be easier and happier must hope for some means being provided to enable donors to have their trusts administered by persons in whom they had confidence.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 136.—(Division List, No. 374.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he wanted a clear declaration made that in no circumstances, or at any time, now or hereafter, should any intervention on the part of Parliament be exercised with regard to the destination of charitable trusts. He had supported the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend on the ground that it was a moderate one, and one which might have been accepted by the Government as the basis of some compromise or arrangement. That Amendment having been defeated, however, he did not feel precluded from now supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent.

Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 109.—(Division List, No. 375.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope that the appeal which I am now going to make to the Government will fall upon ears less deaf than when I made a similar appeal three hours ago. In the course of the former Debate the hon. Member for Northampton, who has, I think, followed the wise example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who has found other occupation more congenial to his mind than to see the present Sitting through, told the Committee that about 9 o'clock it would have performed a full day's work and then there would be some hope of the Opposition having their modest request favourably considered. It is not yet 9 o'clock, it is true —[An hon. MEMBER: It is only 8]— but as the Chairman will shortly leave the Chair for the usual interval, the Committee will be practically within half-au-hour of that time when Business is resumed. It is desirable, also, that Members generally should have an opportunity of dining. [Ironical cheers from the Irish Benches.] I hear certain hon. Members on the Irish Benches, who are not interested in this Debate, and who have not given the Committee the great advantage of their presence and advice during the Debate, indicate that they do not think this appeal on behalf of dinner by Members of the House is one which ought to be considered. I rather think that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland have dined. Unless I am mistaken they look with the serenity of well-fed men on the pangs of the hungry; and I do not think those hon. Gentlemen are well qualified to judge of the condition of other Members who may have failed to get such meagre fare as I understand can be procured in the House. There is another reason in addition to the fact that the dinner hour has been reached. The next Amendment on the Paper is one of very great importance. It is one which was raised by my hon. Friend in obedience to a direct appeal made to him by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, I think, by the President of the Local Government Board also. The Amendment raises the question of the living donor, a question which very painfully interests a certain number of persons who deserve consideration There is another reason beyond the fatigue of the House why the discussion of this Amendment should be deferred. This Bill is one on which, above all others, the Committee ought to have the opinion of those County Members, who not merely represent their constituents politically, but are from day to day mixed up in the work of the localities they represent. Those Members have been obliged to absent themselves from the Debate to-day, not because they are going to enjoy hospitality, but because of public duties in their districts to which they are absolutely obliged to attend. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury, who his universally respected in the House as an authority on the subject we are discussing, has been obliged to go away. Of the majority of 109 a large number do not naturally and properly take a keen interest in the Bill. [An Irish MEMBER: Yes, we do.] Hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway have great sense of humour which everybody thoroughly enjoys, but they must still allow me to hold my opinion that the principal details of this Bill are purely English, relating as they do to English rural villages alone, and that hon. Members for Ireland have no special interest in English charitable donors. The House, it must be admitted, is in a maimed condition. How many Members of purely rural constituencies were there among the majority in the last Division? I should doubt if there were 60. Some of the hon. Members opposite represent rural districts in Lancashire and Yorkshire which are only rural in the technical and legal sense of the word. Of the purely rural Members I doubt whether there were 60 or even 50 in that majority. Is it not a farce for the Government to ask the Committee to continue the discussion of the details of this Bill when their own Party, by which they are attempting to carry the Amendment, represents a maimed and truncated representation of the very constituencies we are legislating for? On this occasion I think I have avoided anything which would embitter the Debate, though I may have been less fortunate on a previous occasion. I simply appeal to the common sense of the House, and ask whether anything is to be gained for our dignity as a whole, whether anything is to be gained even for the amour propre of any section of the House, or in the progress of Public Business, by prolonging a Saturday Sitting, which should never have been begun, and which, if it had been begun, should have been brought to a close long since? I beg to move that you do now report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, he rose with the hope of being able to put an end to this prolonged Sitting. They had gone through a very prolonged and busy week, and now they had a very prolonged day at the close of it, and no one must have felt the fatigues and labours of this period more than the President of the Local Government Board. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that they might now come to some arrangement. He had been looking through what lay before them, and he thought that within a reasonable time they might be able to make some satisfactory progress. The next Amendment was that in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham. As the right hon. Gentleman had just said, it was an important Amendment; but he would observe that it was one the consideration of which might be taken with more appropriateness on the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board, which dealt with this special subject. That would practically dispose of the Amendments they were now considering. The sub-section which came next was so much of what had been done already that there was nothing in it to arrest their attention for very long. The next Sub-section (4) his right hon. Friend had announced his intention of giving up. He would suggest, therefore, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham might appropriately be taken in connection with the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board, and then, that being the principal Amendment, and practically having disposed of Sub-section (4), there was nothing to prevent them rising within a reasonable time.

MR. ASQUITH

Hon. Members on both sides of the House must welcome the tone and spirit of the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. The Government are, and have been throughout, most anxious to bring the Sitting to a close at the earliest possible time consistent with making reasonable progress with the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bodmin, in a pacific and judicious spirit, has thrown out a suggestion which is worthy of consideration. The Government attaches the greatest importance to the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, but it has now been so long under discussion—namely, from about 8 o'clock on Thursday evening to about 8 o'clock on Saturday evening—that the Committee will, I think, agree that all the interesting and important topics it raises have been adequately discussed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham, the importance of which I do not minimise, comes more properly in Order when the Committee comes to consider the new Amendment of my right hon. Friend as to the close time, if I may so term it, for these parochial charities, and, therefore, might be postponed. The Government are prepared to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. That brings us to the end of the Amendments, and we hope the Committee will then see its way to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, then to pass Sub-section 3, which raises no controversial matter, and then, so far as Sub-section 4 is concerned, the Government are prepared to move its omission. If this proposal is agreed to we shall have made considerable progress, very little will remain of the clause for further consideration, and the hours of release from the arduous labours of the week will be speedily reached.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

said, he had been staying in the House most of these days to fight this subject, which he considered one of great importance, and upon which he had had many letters addressed to him by owners. He felt inclined to fall in with an arrangement by which he might obtain a fuller House in which to bring this matter under discussion. He would remark that this was the first time it had been hinted to him that his proviso would come more properly at the end of the section. He had no desire to prolong the controversy, as he understood the Government would give him an opportunity of fully discussing the matter at the end of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was the last man in the world to object to any reasonable terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made the suggestion, following that of his right hon. Friend opposite, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham ought to be deferred, and as the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston there would really be nothing more upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby. There was, it was true, a desire on the part of many Members of the Opposition to express their strong objection to that Amendment, but if they were now to do so very little would be gained by the arrangement which had been suggested. It appeared to him that his hon. Friends might, for the convenience of the House, be prepared to forego their right of discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby as a whole, relying upon what chances were afforded them by the later stages of the Bill. In these circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment amended, by adding at the end the words— Provided always, that no person not qualified to be elected a Councillor for the parish shall be appointed one of such trustees; and no person so appointed shall continue to be such a trustee after he shall have ceased to be so qualified."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question put, "That the words, as amended— (3) In the case of every parochial charity, the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, not being an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council shall, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration or otherwise, appoint such a number of trustees as will cause the number of trustees, who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, to be a majority of the whole body. Provided always, that no person not qualified to be elected a Councillor for the parish shall be appointed one of such trustees; and no person so appointed shall continue to be such a trustee after he shall have ceased to be so qualified, be there inserted in the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 48.—(Division List, No. 376.)

On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 10, line 30. after the words " the parish," to insert the words, "or, in the case of beneficiaries, by persons appointed by the Parish Council.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 10, line 31, to leave out Subsection (4).

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.