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

HC Deb 11 December 1893 vol 19 cc1096-139

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 9th December.]

EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 13 (Public property and charities.)

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Jeffreys), he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, and which he understood the Government were willing to accept.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar) signified assent.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 36, after the word "charity," to insert the words "not being an ecclesiastical charity."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY (Preston), said he had to move— In page 10, line 37, after the word "shall," to insert the words "on or before the publication of notice of the proposal in accordance with the provisions of 23rd & 24th Vic. chap. 136.

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he would suggest instead that they should insert, "or before the publication of the scheme."

MR. HANBURY

said, his object was to make the matter specific of reference to the Act, not only as to the Council's having due notice, but also as to their having facilities to take objection if they wished to enter any.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that was his object also. Publication was required by the Act, and these words would cover it.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, the object of his hon. and learned Friend and that of his hon. Friend behind him was the same, and he was sure his hon. Friend would agree, if necessary, to the Amendment on the Report stage. But he (Sir R. Webster) did not think the reference to the Act rendered the proposal objectionable. It did not tie the House of Commons down, and he thought they should introduce some reference to the Act for the purpose of showing the machinery which they wanted to put into operation.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, there were more Acts than one dealing with the intention of the Government. He would not, however, raise any objection now, as the matter could be further considered for the later stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, he had next to move— In page 10, line 38, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and where there is no Parish Council, the chairman of the parish meeting. It seemed to him that, if a village had no Parish Council, it should have some source of information—public information regarding these schemes. The Government would understand that these schemes were not even communicated to the Vestries, and so it might happen that they would not be communicated at all to the people of the villages where no Parish Council existed. He thought all villages should be treated alike in the matter of public information on these subjects; and it was a very fair proposal that a communication should be made in the manner he proposed. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 38, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and where there is no Parish Council, the chairman of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the general plan was to give certain powers or make certain provisions in favour of the Parish Councils, but there was much in what the hon. Gentleman had said. He was not quite sure that this was the most convenient place to deal with the point, but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and would allow the Amendment to pass.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, he had to move— In Clause 13, line 39, after the word "expenditure," to insert the words "and by the consent of the parish meeting. The effect of the Amendment was that the Council should either oppose or support the scheme by consent of the parish meeting.

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

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

said, the Parish Council was really the proper Body to deal with the question, and it would thwart and complicate matters to adopt these words.

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

said, the Amendment referred to the draft scheme. If the Charity Commissioners had a charity brought before them in an ordinary manner with six trustees, the Parish Council could step in and appoint seven. The parish meeting should have a right of looking into the whole question.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, the referendum, to which Members on his (the Conservative) side of the House attached some importance, might be usefully applied in parochial matters on this question. Parish Councillors might be elected on some question of, say, a footpath, and afterwards a scheme might be brought forward regarding some parochial charity which might vitally affect the administration of that charity. He did not see why action regarding the charity should be taken in a hurry. There should be an opportunity for consulting the parish. When a scheme was to be settled for a term of years, he thought it should have adequate consideration, and he believed they might avail of this opportunity for working the referendum might be taken advantage of with good effect.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he was afraid the Amendment would not secure the object which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had in view. What was the parish meeting to do? It was to give its decision, its consent, or its opposition, regarding the scheme— whether it was in favour of it or opposed to it. But whether the people supported a scheme or opposed it, the Charity Commissions might refuse to take any notice. They cared very little about the localities. The only way to secure the hon. Member's object was by another. This Amendment, he feared, carried little weight.

MR. HANBURY

said, he was aware the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) had an Amendment of his own on the Paper; but this did not interfere with it, as he might seem to think.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

Oh, no.

MR. HANBURY

said, the two Amendments dealt with totally different matters. He did not wish the Parish Council to enter into engagements and spend money without the consent of the parish meeting. He understood the right hon. German the Vice President to say that the Amendment would thwart and complicate the working of the Parish Council.

MR. ACLAND

The Charity Commissioners.

MR. HANBURY

said, very well, the Charity Commissioners. He did not think any difficulty could arise from getting the consent of the parish meeting. He did not see what the objection could be.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was meeting this question as he might do. It was reasonable to ask that the various views of the Council should be under the control of the parish meeting. Individual members of the Council might favour one course and the parish meeting another. The question was of great importance, and he thought the Committee might possibly consider some way of dealing with it.

MR. WHARTON (York, W. R., Ripon)

said, there was one matter the Committee had overlooked. Some few days ago the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), whom he did not see in his place, told them that on all important occasions a poll would be demanded and taken. If there was one occasion more important than another it was, surely, the time when a charity came up for consideration. That was an occasion when they should certainly try to summon every one, so as to ascertain the sense of the parish.

MR. ACLAND

I will accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, he bad a suggestion to make to the Government regarding lines 40 and 41 of the clause, and the words— And shall for that purpose have that same right as any inhabitants of a place directly affected by the scheme. He understood the sub-section to give the Parish Council the power to object, and also to appeal to the Court of Chancery, whether the amount was under £50 or over £50. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the inhabitants had only got power in respect of charities up to £50. The Government, therefore, would fail, by including these words, in attaining the object they had in view.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, whatever the hon. Gentleman's reading of the words might be, they intended to include amounts over £50. He was under the impression that the sub-section, as it stood, was sufficient for the purpose; but if the hon. Gentleman suggested that that object was not secured, they would be prepared to consider the matter.

MR. HANBURY moved— In line 40, after the words "oppose the scheme," to leave out to the end of the subsection.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Members of the Government should have some opportunity of consultation on the question, and he could only promise that the matter would be dealt with on Report. The Government fully intended to meet the case the hon. Member had in view, and he would suggest to him that he should withdraw the Amendment and allow them to consider the question.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, there should be some general words in the enactment relating to the rights of the inhabitants, and, as the Government had promised to consider the matter, he would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would like to point out that under the clause they were materially lessening the power of the inhabitants of a parish. At present any few persons could deal with the Charity Commissioners, but under this clause it seemed to him they must have a majority of the Parish Council.

An hon. MEMBER: It does not matter.

Mr. JESSE COLLINGS

said, such a provision, dealing as it did with proceedings at law, might have a serious effect in a small parish.

Mr. BOUSFIELD

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn he would like to take the opportunity of making a suggestion on the question of drafting. This was an Act which was intended, and he hoped would be understanded of the rustics. Why, then, should they not make their meaning plain, and that in the shortest way possible, and in the fewest possible words? Here was an example—and it was only one of many to be found throughout the Bill: Instead of saying plainly " It is intended " to do so and so, the sub-section said— Shall for that purpose have the same right as any inhabitants of the place directly affected by the scheme. Then they had to go not to one, but to a number of Acts of Parliament to find out what were the rights of the inhabitants affected. This was one of the places—and there were a number in the Bill—of which advantage might be taken to put in what was intended. If too many lines were likely to be occupied by setting forth the rights here they might be indicated in a Schedule.

Mr. JESSE COLLINGS

hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would have regard to this question of restriction of expenditure. In cases where the amount was above £50 the parish, as a parish, had no rights at all, and in cases below £50 any private person might move in the matter.

Sir R. WEBSTER

said, that to assuage the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman he might tell him what happened. In cases of above £50 it was a certain number of trustees who had to put the Charity Commissioners in motion. What, however, was generally done was to send to the Attorney General, who took the matter up. Steps were not undertaken, as a rule, unless the charity was wealthy, and then motion was not made at the expense of individuals. The same risk had been run in the past as would be incurred in the future.

Mr. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the parish, no doubt, would bear the expense in that case, but in a case where the charity was not very large the whole fund might be swallowed up in law costs, and any additional expense there might be would have to be borne by the parish. As to the trustees taking the matter up in cases above £50, it must be a majority of the trustees; but supposing the majority would not move. A large charity would be able to bear the cost. During the term of office of the late Attorney General a charity the income of which was £850, was dealt with in this way, and almost a year's income was expended on the trial. In the case of a small charity worth about £50, however, there could not be much law, but the expenses might easily swallow up the total fund. If there was further expense, that would fall on the ratepayers. It seemed to him that unless this was guarded against in a most careful manner the parish might be ruined by law costs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ACLAND

said, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, as follows:— In page 10, line 41, at end, add,'' The accounts of all parochial charities shall annually be laid before the parish meeting, and the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act, 1855, shall apply with the substitution in Section 44 of the parish meeting for the Vestry, and of the chairman of the parish meeting for the Churchwardens. The term of office of a trustee appointed under this section shall be three years. The provisions of this section with respect to the appointment of trustees shall not apply to any charity until the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation thereof. The second part of the Amendment provided that a trustee should hold office for three years, and not for life as at present. This seemed to the Government a reasonable term. The third part of the Amendment fulfilled the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on Thursday, when, in speaking on an Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham, he said that on the question of the living donor they were not prepared to provide for variable lives, but were prepared, in order to meet a variety of speeches made on the subject on the other side of the House, to take the period of 30 years.

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

Sir R. WEBSTER

said, that while the Amendment was an attempt to meet certain of the objections which had been raised, he did not think it should be assumed by the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on that side thought that it went far enough. There were three points in which it did not go far enough. The first was as to ecclesiastical charities, which should be excepted specifically. The second was, whether it was wise to lay down a hard-and-fast rule as to the term of office of a trustee, and alter the period from life to three years? They desired to have men of experience, and it would be a serious thing if in all charities they were to tell the trustees that they were only to hold office for three years. As to the term of years after the foundation from which the section should apply, the question was one which must be decided later on, but he would at once indicate that he did not consider the term sufficiently long. No doubt in putting it down the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to meet objections raised on that side of the House.

Sir J. RIGBY

said, he did not see why the objection should not be met in regard to ecclesiastical charities. The Amendment dealing with that point would be accepted. As to the term of office of the trustees, it was the invariable practice of the Charity Commissioners at the present time to lay down a limit. He could point out instance after instance where that had been done.

Sir R. WEBSTER

Not limited to three years.

Sir J. RIGBY

said, that sometimes the limit was five years, sometimes three, and sometimes seven. When the Government were considering the matter they had thought three years better than five. However, it was not a question of election, but of a resolution of the Parish Council, and when the three years came to an end, if the Council were satisfied with the trustees they could re-appoint them as a matter of course. He would say nothing as to the third part of the Amendment at present.

Mr. HANBURY

said, he begged to move the omission of the word " parochial " in the first line of the Amendment, for the reason that, so far as he recollected the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, " parochial charities " were to be charities limited entirely to one parish. There must be some definition of the word "parochial." If the charity was in one parish the accounts would go before the Parish Council, but if it was in two parishes the accounts would go before the Vestry of each parish, which would be a ridiculous thing. As to the Amendment in regard to saving ecclesiastical charities they were in this awkward position: ecclesiastical charities included all denominational charities—those of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists, which were of an ecclesiastical nature. He did not see why Roman Catholic and Nonconformist charities should go before the Vestry. Those interested in such charities would prefer them to go before the Parish Council. It was all very well for the charities of the Church of England to go before the Vestries. The word "ecclesiastical," it seemed to him, should be limited. He, however, now moved to omit "parochial."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word " parochial."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'parochial' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Mr. CONYBEARE

said, he thought the accounts of all charities affecting a parish ought to be published, in the interest of everyone concerned.

Sir M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he hardly saw how the original Amendment could work if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston were agreed to. It would involve submitting to the parish meetings the accounts of all charities in existence.

Sir J. RIGBY

said, the words were taken from the very careful legislation in the Charitable Trusts Amendment Act of 1855, providing in considerable detail for the manner in which the accounts were to be rendered. With regard to those cases that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bousfield) suggested should be set out in the clause, or in a subsequent Schedule, to carry out the suggestions would extend the Bill by a page or a page and a half, and the clause would not be more clear when that was done than it was now. The word "parochial " charities was used many times without definition, being not a term of art, but a well-understood word. Per- sonally, he did not see why the accounts of all charities in the parish should not go before the parish meeting. It was a very proper tribunal to see them, if nothing more. The word would be defined later on in regard to area, to show that it was not confined to a single parish, parishes having been and charities being still dealt with by the body of Overseers representing the entire ancient parish. The parochial charity would mean what it had always meant, except in so far as it was proposed to extend its meaning in that way.

Mr. HANBURY

said, that if "parochial " was to include charities extending beyond one particular parish, then, clearly, some words would have to be put in after the words "the parish meeting," because the clause contemplated the accounts being placed only before one parish, meeting. He took it that they should be laid before all the parishes affected. The words "of the parishes affected thereby" would perhaps meet the difficulty.

Mr. BOUSFIELD

said, that if the Bill was to make sense and be consistent, there should be some definition of the word "parochial." Was it intended that a charity should belong to one parish? [Sir J. Rigby: No.] That showed the necessity of having a clear and precise notion as to what a parochial charity meant. Under Sub-section 3 the inference was that a parochial charity was not necessarily a charity confined to one parish, for the words were:— In the case of every parochial charity, the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish. It was impossible satisfactorily to get to the end of the clause without knowing precisely what "parochial charities" meant.

Mr. CONYBEARE

said, the difficulty would be met by inserting the word "such" before parochial.

Mr. HENEAGE

said, they had been on this question for more than a week. They had been endeavouring day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute, to get some assistance from Her Majesty's Government in order to know what they were dealing with in that matter of parochial charities. The Government either would not or could not tell them. He believed they could not, because they had not made up their minds. If the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bousfield) thought that in a few moments he could elicit from the Solicitor General what the whole House had failed to get out of him in many days he was very much mistaken. All they could do under the circumstances was to muddle on in the dark, and delay was the necessary consequence. This clause was an utter muddle, and he believed that long before they got to the Report stage they would find it necessary to turn it head over heels.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CONYBEARE

said, that hon. Members on his side of the House objected to the Government accepting this Amendment. He was not satisfied with the answer of the Government that the accounts of ecclesiastical charities should be submitted to the Vestries. To his mind, all these charities should be published for the information of the Parish Council. He had no desire, however to further the professed wish of the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Heneage) to delay the Bill, therefore he would con-tent himself with this protest.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

Mr. HANBURY (Preston)

moved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding, after the words "parish meeting" in line 2, the words "of any parish affected thereby." It was, he said quite clear that parochial charities might be charities extending beyond one particular parish, and in such cases it would be absolutely necessary that the account of these charities should be submitted to the various parishes affected thereby.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry) moved the following Amendment to the proposed Amendment:— In line 2, after the words " parish meeting," to insert the words "and the names of the beneficiaries of dole charities shall be published annually in such form as the parish meeting think fit. He said, the matter might seem a small one, but he attached considerable importance to it as being one under which a principle lay. His object was to secure that the names of the recipients of a doled charity should be scheduled and placed before the parish meeting when the accounts were placed before it. The first point he wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman was this: that if these were public charities every parishioner ought to know how they were dealt with, but he could not possibly know how doled charities were dealt with unless he saw a list of the beneficiaries. If such a list were published every parishioner would be able to point out those who were receiving the charity and who ought not to receive it, and others who were not and who ought to receive it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the reason why this property should be placed in the hands of the Parish Council was because it was public or common property. "He did not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was public or common property; it was to a certain extent public property, but it was specialised, and there were only few in the parish who participated directly in the actual benefits of the dole charities. That was to say, that although they were for the good of the whole parish directly, only comparatively few had the advantage of receiving the doles. He said that publicity would be a safeguard to the recipients and to the parish. Anyone who had had any experience in the Poor Law would bear him out that there was a danger of mixing up parochial charities and Poor Law relief. They ought to be kept separate, and if they were not there was great danger of injury to the poor. It had been laid down to be against the law that anyone who was in receipt of Poor Law relief should also receive charity money, and any administrators of charity money who gave such money to those who were in receipt of Poor Law relief were violating their trust, and the Charity Commissioners would interfere and prevent them using the charity money in this respect. They all knew it was often done, and he had often had in his experience cases in which he had been obliged to point out to the Poor Law Guardians that they were giving money to those who were in receipt of charity money. That was against the law, but how were they to be sure that the law would be carried out? It was good policy not to allow charity money and Poor Law money to intermix. But how were the Poor Law Guardians to know if the names of the recipients of public charity money were not published? He pointed out that there was great difficulty in properly managing trust money of this sort, especially when it was placed in the hands of a Public Board. These difficulties were not so aggravated under the present system because the present trustees were quasi-private; that was to say, the present trustees were nominated by the founder; they were selected by himself; they were the interpreters of his wishes, and to them was left discretion; therefore the money was not looked upon so much as a public charity, as being alms given through the bounty of a founder through the hands of his own trustees. But Parliament had altered all that, and created new trustees, and had done so without any regard whatever to the wishes and discretion of the founder. The consequence was that the new trustees were no longer the almoners of the founder, but of the parish. He believed that half a million of money was to be placed in the hands of these public trustees, and there was a risk of their dealing with the money in a way that would demoralise the parish and divert the charity from the direction the founder desired it to go in. If a large amount of money in respect of a public charity was badly distributed it might have the effect of lowering wages in a parish. He would take an illustration from the Poor Law and point out the effect of giving public money as a method by which wages were lowered.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think that is material to this Amendment. The only question is as to whether the names of those receiving the charities shall be published.

Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, his argument was that if they published the names of the beneficiaries they would prevent the giving of this money in a way which would have the effect of lowering wages, and, therefore, in the interests of the proper administration of the charities, it was advisable that this publication should take place.

Amendment proposed, In line 2, after the words " parish meeting," to insert the words " and the names of the beneficiaries of dole charities shall be published annually in such form as the parish meeting think fit."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

Mr. ACLAND

The fact is, that really in essence this power already exists where the full powers, which the Charity Commissioners have under the Act of 1855, are carried out. They can demand an account of all the payments made; and if any complaint has been made, they can demand all payments in detail, so that already, in certain cases where there is complaint, they can obtain an account of the funds paid to the beneficiaries, and thus ascertain who the beneficiaries are. That really accords very much with what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and we accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON rose to move the following Amendment:— To amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words " three years " in line 5, in order to insert the words, " six years, but of the. trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of three years from the date of their appointment, but shall be elegible for re-appointment. He understood from the President of the Local Government Board the other night that, with regard to the term of office of the trustee, he was quite open to receive suggestions as to what the period of office should be. Much to his surprise, before the adjournment for dinner, the Solicitor General said that the invariable practice of the Charity Commissioners was to make the term of office three years.

Sir J. RIGBY

No, no; the term of office limited—not three years.

Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON

said that, at any rate, the proposal of the Government was that the term of office of a trustee should be for three years, and the Amendment ran absolutely on the lines of the last schemes of the Charity Commissioners, in every one of which the term of office was for six years. It might be asked, why did he suggest that one-half of the trustees should go out of office every three years? The reason was that that was also the suggestion of the Charity Commissioners. They usually divided their trustees into three sections, and they adopted the system of retiring by sections. Their scheme usually was that one-third should retire every two years, but it appeared to him that the retirement of some of the trustees every three years would be quite sufficient. Whenever they retired, and fresh trustees were put in their place, the whole of this property, whether land, securities, or of other descriptions, had to be transferred to the names of the new trustees, and he was much afraid that a great deal of the charity money would go in the costs of such transfers. It was very desirable that there should be a continuity of policy in a body of trustees, especially if land for farming formed a portion of their property. He wished to secure that all the trustees, when they were in office should remain in for six years, but at the same time he wished to secure that they should be subject to popular control. Therefore he suggested that one-half of the first trustees should retire at the end of three years, and after that every one should hold office for six years. He begged to propose the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, to leave out the words "three years," and insert the words " six years, but of the trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of three years from the date of their appointment, but shall be eligible for re-appointment."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'three years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Mr. ACLAND

said, he had taken some pains to ascertain the practice of the Charity Commissioners, and he should like to point out that whereas in some cases where Vestry or School Board ratepayers were appointed the period might be long, there was a particular reason for that. In cases in late years where the Charity Commissioners had elected on trusts the representatives of popular bodies such as members of Local Boards, School Boards, or Town Councils, the term had been three years wherever the wish had been expressed that this should be the term, but in the case where the ratepayers of a parish were elected he thought it would be very obvious why they had frequently given longer periods of five or seven years. It was because where the ratepayers of a parish were elected a special poll might have to be taken, and it would lead to considerable expense. He knew of one case in connection with, an endowed school where the expense was something like £50 or £60. Obviously anything of that sort would be a warning to the Charity Commissioners that, if possible, the term should be extended. The only question now before the Committee was whether the trustees should sit for three years, as they did already in connection with the Charity Commissioners' schemes, or whether they should not follow such schemes? Popular bodies other than those under this Bill were elected for three years. Popular bodies in the case of this Bill were elected for one year. They had not taken one year, but three, because where the representatives of popular bodies had asked for a term of three years the Charity Commissioners had given three years; therefore he thought this proposal of the Government, which extended the period of one year—which was the ordinary life of a Parish Council—to three years, was, on the whole, a fairly reasonable term.

Mr. W. LONG

said, it was probably owing to the constant changes of right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill that from time to time the arguments of the Government had not been quite consistent. The President of the Local Government Board had frequently declined to admit that either the Local Boards or the School Boards were to be regarded as popular Local Bodies in any sense of the word, and hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had been told they were not popular representative bodies, because they were elected on a restricted franchise. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the representatives of the Local Bodies had all been appointed for three years.

Mr. ACLAND

When they expressed their desire.

Mr. W. LONG

said, the only comment he desired to make was that as these representatives were themselves elected for three years it naturally followed that that would be the line they themselves would recommend. But this was not a question of what the Local Authorities, whether popular or restricted, had recommended, but what was best for the administration of the charities. In the cases where the charities held land for farming purposes it was essential that they should have that continuity of policy which they could only get when the whole of the administrators did not go out at once. It was true that the whole of the trustees did not go out, but it would be to the elected trustees in future to whom people would look with special interest, and on whom would devolve special responsibility. If, therefore, they turned them all out at once, the administration of these charities would be confronted with dangers. Attacks had been made against the clergy as trustees, against the squires as trustees, and against the large farmers as trustees; but not one hon. Member had the courage to specify one single parish or one single trustee which was the object of attack or indicate one single charity in respect to which injustice had been done. [Ministerial cries of "Question!"] That was the question. The basis of the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the charities had been unfairly administered. But the moment Members on the Opposition side said a single word in defence of those who were attacked they were met by cries of "Question!" The Government proposed to upset the existing arrangements in regard to the charities by replacing the old trustees with new trustees. The Opposition said that if elected trustees were placed on these old Boards of Trustees, the Government, at all events, should give some small degree of continuity to the policy of the Boards by not turning all the trustees out of office at once, but allowing half to retire and half to remain. There was nothing whatever in the Amendment which was inconsistent with the principle of representation and popular control. But all that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted was to carry their Bill, no matter what it contained. [Cries of "Question! "] That was the question. Did hon. Gentlemen want to make this a practical reform, or to stick to a hard-and-fast rule and to refuse all Amendments simply because they were moved from the Opposition side of the House?

Mr. ACLAND

I am surprised at the heat which the hon. Gentleman has introduced into the discussion. The Government have assented to several Amendments moved from the other side. I think I put the matter very fairly with regard to the present Amendment.

Mr. W. LONG

It is not with the Government we are quarrelling; it is not with the President of the Local Government Board or with the right hon. Gentleman, who is courtesy itself, that we are quarrelling, but with the supporters of the Government, who invariably interrupt us when we are speaking—a course which, to say the least, does not tend to facilitate the progress or the Bill.

Mr. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, that they had nothing whatever to complain of, either from the President of the Local Government Board or from his right hon. Friend now in charge of the Bill. Indeed, if these right hon. Gentlemen had been left in charge of the Bill the Committee would not have been discussing Clause 13 now, for it would probably have passed on Thursday last. The question now before the Committee was, What was the best term for which the trustees appointed by the Parish Councils should sit? In his opinion, the Amendment would secure two desirable objects; it would preserve continuity of policy, and would enable the Parish Council to change its trustees if it thought fit. The Government, by introducing Sub-section 3 into Clause 13, had entirely changed the Bill. They had imparted to the Bill a sectarian spirit which it would not otherwise have had—

Mr. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

We are not discussing Sub-section 3 now.

Mr. HENEAGE

said, he was perfectly in Order in pointing out the effect which Sub-section 3 would have on the first elections of Parish Councils. Owing to that sub-section the men returned at the first elections would be returned on sectarian grounds in order that trustees of certain religious views should be secured for certain charities. But a good many of the men elected at first might be found to be not fit for the work, and those who elected them would be desirous of changing them at the first opportunity. Therefore, he was in favour of the proposal that one-half of the trustees should retire in three years, while continuity in the policy of the Board of Trustees was secured by the other half remaining in office for six years. If the Government saw their way to accepting the Amendment they would do much to get rid of a great deal of the friction which would be caused by Sub-section 3.

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

said, the Vice President of the Council had stated that on account of the presence of co-optated trustees on, the trust, the three years' proposal of the Government would not matter much, so far as the preservation of continuity was concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the President of the Local Government Board had told the Committee on Saturday more than once that about 75 to 80 per cent. of the charities come under Sub-section 2, where, in certain cases, all the trustees left office and had their places taken by trustees appointed by the Parish Council. The right hon. Gentleman would, therefore, observe that in by far the larger number of cases the continuity of policy which he thought would be preserved by the co-optated trustees would not, in fact, be preserved. On the contrary, all the trustees, except the Vicar, possibly would have to leave office on the passing of the Act, and trustees elected by the County Council would take their places.

Mr. H. L. W. LAWSON

said, that the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had made a most provocative attack on hon. Members sitting behind the Government, accusing them of a want of courtesy, and of attacking the trustees under the existing charities, which was not only uncalled for, but, to a large extent, utterly unfounded. He, himself, in discussing the present question, inside or outside the House, had never made any attack of that sort on the existing trustees, and exactly the same course had been taken by hon. Members who sat around him. They, therefore, had every reason to complain of the charges which had been levelled at them by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division—

Mr. W. LONG

I did not make any attack on the hon. Member. I vas referring to the interruptions which pro- ceed from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Whether he is one of them or not I do not know; but if he is not one of them, perhaps he might use his influence to prevent the interruptions .

Mr. H. L. W. LAWSON

said, there had been only one cry of "Question!" and on that the hon. Gentleman had founded an attack on hon. Members sitting on the Government Benches. With respect to the Amendment, he thought the best way to secure continuity of policy would be by the re-election at the end of the term of three years of the men who had done their duty. He was sure there would be no desire to throw these men on one side at the end of their term of office, and replace them by new men. The adoption of the Amendment to the Amendment would, in his opinion, introduce a very complicated and mischievous system.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, that nobody denied that the Amendment would secure continuity of policy, and one reason which made its adoption more necessary was the mode of election of these trustees. They were to be elected all at one time and by the same body, and the consequence of a very small change of feeling on the part of the electors would be that the whole of the elected trustees would be thrown out and an entirely new body put in their place,

Sir R. WEBSTER

said, that hon. Members opposite had thought fit without the slightest necessity to attack the hon. Member for Liverpool. He had himself witnessed over and over again gentlemen sitting behind the Government Bench who had taken no part in discussing the Amendment. Members more or less connected with right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench called "Question" when there was nothing to quarrel with. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether any hon. Member had brought a fairer judgment to bear on the Bill than the hon. Member for West Derby, who had again and again proposed Amendments for which he had been thanked by the President of the Local Government Board? With regard to the term of years, might they not arrive at some compromise? Speaking of schemes settled in the Court of Chancery, he rather thought six or seven years was the rule, but by way of compromise he suggested that five years might be accepted, with an arrangement that one-half of the trustees should go out at half the term.

Mr. ACLAND

I am anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am willing to accept four years as the term of office of the elected trustees, half the number to retire at the end of two years, this of course being understood to be subject to no technical difficulty being found to stand in the way later on.

Mr. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said, he did not know why the Vice President of the Council should have suggested four years instead of six, considering that the practice of the Charity Commissioners, in cases where trustees were appointed by popularly elected bodies, was to make the term of office six years, and one-half of the trustees to go out at the end of three years.

Mr. ACLAND

I offered four years because the late Attorney General asked for a compromise.

Mr. LEES KNOWLES

said, he thought that five years had been suggested by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and for his part he did not see why the term of six years should not be retained. In the last Report of the Charity Commissioners it would be found that it was provided that the trustees of the London parochial Charities were to be elected for six years, but that one of the two trustees appointed by the London County Council and the London School Board respectively—two popularly Elected Bodies—should retire at the end of three years. There was another precedent for the system proposed in the Amendment—that in the Local Government Act of 1888, of which the present Bill was the corollary. Under that Act the Aldermen of the County Councils were elected for six years, and half of them retired at the end of three years. He thought, therefore, it was highly desirable that the term of six years should be accepted, especially as the longer the term of office the greater would be the interest taken by the trustees in their work, while the provision for one-half the trustees going out of office at the end of three years would secure that overlapping of continuity which was most desirable.

Mr. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, that before the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had got on his feet he thought the compromise had been accepted. But after that speech he thought the Government were right in saying that every compromise meant further discussion, though, indeed, he would make compromises with the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he did not see any other way of getting on. The late Attorney General had proposed five years, but that could not be the term, as one-half the trustees would have to go out of office at the end of half the term.

Sir R. WEBSTER

The Vice President of the Council did not accept the provision' for one-half the trustees going out of office.

Mr. ACLAND

We do accept that provision.

Mr. STOREY

If the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks for his Party, surely that is a very fair agreement to come to?

Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, that if the Government accepted four years and two years he would agree to the compromise.

Mr. ACLAND

We will take four years and two years.

Mr. HANBURY

I think it will be necessary to provide some means by which half the trustees are to retire at the end of the two years.

The CHAIRMAN

The best course is for the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment and move it again with the alterations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 5, to leave out the words "three years," and insert the words " four years, but of the trustees first appointed as aforesaid one-half, as nearly as may be, shall go out of office at the end of two years from the date of their appointment, but shall be eligible for re-appointment." —(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

Question, "That the words 'three years ' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. FISHER (Fulham) moved to amend the proposed Amendment— In line 8, by leaving out all after " charity," and inserting " founded by any single donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained, nor shall it apply to the case of a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of forty-two years from the date of the passing of this Act. He was sorry that owing to an unavoidable cause the President of the Local Government Board was away, because he could not help thinking that he would have been able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. At the same time, he had some hopes also of being successful with the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill in the plea he was about to make for a measure of justice to living donors, in order to secure that this should not be interfered with. The President of the Local Government Board had said— It is a very strong measure to interfere with the wishes of donors whilst donors are living, or with the intentions of those donors who have passed away within a short time, and the right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that the only justification for such an interference would be to prevent the immediate perpetration of some public evil. Therefore, in the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board it was unjustifiable to interfere with the expressed intention of a donor whilst a donor was alive except on the ground of public policy. Then what ground of public policy could possibly be adduced for interfering with the intentions of a donor of a charity given, he admitted, for general parochial purposes, but a charity which when given was intended by the donor to be administered by those who were in religious sympathy himself? He would like to know also what ground of public policy would justify any interference in those charities, by which money which had been given by certain people still alive would be handed over to the Parish Council and directed from the purposes for which it was originally intended?. He had put down his Amendment, because he had not observed that the President of the Local Government Board, though he used this strong language, had put clown an Amendment to meet the case. He was not, however, particularly wedded to the Amendment, and he should be glad to accept any other Amendment which would cover his object. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government were prepared to enact that the clause should not apply to any property until after the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation, which would protect all existing interests. He had had a great number of letters from living donors on this subject, and these letters, unless the Government accepted his Amendment, would not be very pleasant reading to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he certainly thought it would be a very wrong thing indeed to interfere with the intentions of a gentleman, who was a Member of this House, who had given a charity for certain purposes. But owing to the foundation being for general purposes, under this Bill, if passed, that foundation would be taken by the Parish Council for the purposes of administration. But he was going to put a case to show that the 30 years would not cover all cases of real hardship. He had a letter from a gentleman who was formerly a Member of this House, and in that letter this gentleman stated that in the year 1862 he gave a considerable sum of money to the parish in memory of his father who had lived in the parish for many years, and had been one of the Churchwardens. This gentleman gave the charity on trust to the Vicar and Churchwardens, thereby intending that the administration of it should remain in their hands, as they were the persons with whom he was in religious sympathy. This gentleman wrote— The 30 years have gone, and here, while I am alive, you allow the Parish Council absolutely to come in and take this charity, and they may—I do not say they will, but they are in a position to—divert this charity for other purposes than those which I intended. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head.

Mr. ACLAND

.There is no power whatever to divert it.

Mr. FISHER

said, this was a charity left for almshouses to be administered by the Vicar and Churchwardens, and no doubt—and he saw no harm in it—they would give a preference to Church people. ["Hear, hear!"] Hear, hear! but why should they not? It was left in memory of a father who was a Churchman and a Churchwarden; but he presumed that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who probably detested the Church of England, thought it monstrously unfair that a member of the Church of England in honour of his own father should leave a charity to be administered by people of his own Church, and that though all creeds might be admitted, a preference would be given cœteris paribus to those who were members of his own Church. Would not the minister and deacon of any other body do the same? What pharisaism it was to pretend the contrary! It was only human nature, and no honest man could deny it. The limit of 30 years would not meet this case. But why was it to be 30 years? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) laughed. If the right hon. Gentleman ever had the generosity to leave, which might be doubted, any money to a charity— [" Order, order! "] Why did the right hon. Gentleman laugh? [Cries of "Withdraw!"] He would not withdraw. Why did the right hon. Member laugh? He had received many letters from donors who thought they were doing a great injustice, and it was not a laughing matter to them. Surely, apart from their religious views, they were entitled to some sympathy. There was no precedent for 30 years; but there was a precedent for 42 years, that being the period under which Municipalities were allowed to undertake certain improvements, and not being able to find any other precedent he had proposed to amend the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment by putting in the term of 42 years. Even in the case of the precedent he had found the Municipality, at least, paid for the venture, it would have to pay a fair price, but under the proposal of the Government they were to take the charity and put it after 30 years in the hands of men who might, at all events, apply it to totally different purposes to which it was intended. All he would say was that these living donors were extremely incensed at the proposal that was made by the Government. They said, and it was a reasonable contention, that where these bequests were of ancient date, though they might have been given to the Vicar and Churchwardens, there was some ground for presuming that those gifts, although given to the Vicar and Churchwardens, were not intended to have any denominational administration, but in the case of living donors they might at least ask them as to what their intentions were when the charity was given. He said they ought to respect that form of religious belief, and they would otherwise not only be doing a great injustice to the living donor but would dry up the springs of charity. There would be scores of persons who would not in years to come give any charities of this kind. The would point to neighbouring parishes where the Parish Council had given a different application to a charity, and they would say, "No; we will keep the money in our pockets; we are not going to give money which under this Act may be diverted from the particular purpose we desire." The Government were striking a deadly blow at the interests of the poor by infringing this principle. After the words used the other night by the President of the Local Government Board, he hoped they would accept his Amendment, or that they would accept one that would embrace a wider area, such as that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell.) He, therefore, moved his Amendment in the hopes of covering all cases of hardship, and to respect the opinions of living donors who considered that their intentions should not be interfered with, except on the grounds of public policy.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 8, to leave out all after "charity, and insert" founded by-any single donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained, nor shall it apply to the case of a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of 42 years from the date of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Fisher.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, the hon. Gentleman moved on Thursday night an Amendment which corresponded very much with the present proposal. The hon. Member had made no specific reference to the latter portion of his Amendment, and in its present form the Amendment was not one which the Government could accept. The Amendment provided that the section should not apply to a charity founded by more than one donor until after the expiration of 42 years from the date of the passing of this Act.

MR. FISHER

said, he meant living donor, and he quite agreed that the word "living" ought to have been put in.

MR. ACLAND

said, that in the course of the Debate on Thursday upon the Amendment which was now brought up again, the President of the Local Government Board recognised to some extent the principle which the hon. Member raised, and though his right hon. Friend said that he did not believe in the principle of variable lives, he undertook to move the insertion of words that the provision of this section with reference to trustees should not apply to any charity until the expiration of 30 years from the date of the foundation thereof. The Government by inserting the words he had himself moved had therefore gone a long way to meet the point upon which hon. Members felt so strongly. The hon. Gentleman had alluded frequently to the term of 30 years, and practically he believed it covered the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case—["No, no!"] If it covered the life of the living donor, it would certainly cover the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case. At any rate, the Government went a long way towards meeting the the case of the hon. Gentleman. There were one or two other points he wished to allude to. The hon. Gentleman had confined himself to a single donor, but did he really think they required a clause dealing with a single donor, and excluding, it might be, two sisters, or, say, two or three members of a family who jointly desired to found a charity? The moment they did that, they got into the question the Prime Minister pointed out of a large number of donors who might be subscribers whom it would be difficult to get at. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Charity Commissioners regarded the attempt to deal with donors in the way proposed by the Amendment as attended with the most serious administrative difficulties, and that was the reason why preference was given to a term of years. The hon. Member spoke of diversion several times, and did so in such a way as to suggest that to some extent he was under a misapprehension. This clause applied only to the appointment of trustees, and diversion by them in the legal sense would be a breach of trust. He admitted the force of the case put by the hon. Member up to a certain point. The hon. Member did not quote the case of an ecclesiastical charity, which would not come under the Act, but he quoted a case of money left for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish, not for the benefit of members of the Church of England. The hon. Member said it would only be human nature that the Vicar and Churchwardens should give a preference to members of the Church. Although that might not necessarily be a breach of trust, yet he could imagine cases in which it would come proximately near to a breach of trust if the number of members of the Church of England was comparatively few, and there were many members of other bodies, and the charity was left for the benefit of all. If the charity was for the benefit of the members of a particular body, then it could not be diverted at all, in the sense in which the word was ordinarily used, without a breach of trust. Where the donor had narrowed the charity in the matter of administration, but not of preference, it might be slightly varied as between one set of people and another. The question seemed to be narrowed down to the difference between 30 years and the life of a donor, and, having regard to great administrative difficulties, the Government felt that, in making a concession, they had strong grounds for preferring a term of years.

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

thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not attached sufficient importance to the variation which a new body of trustees might make in administration, though acting legally in the terms of their trust. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had alleged outside the House rather than in it that the present trustees had administered these trusts unfavourably to persons who were not members of the Church of England, and surely they on that side of the House, while not admitting the fact to be true in the past, might consider that a variation in the trustees might lead to a variation in the trusts unfavourable to those who were members of the Church of England. The point they really had to deal with in discussing this Amendment was what the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had practically admitted to be the equities of the case. The right hon. Gentleman explained that in the view of the Charity Commissioners the Amendment of his hon. Friend would; be practically unworkable, and he had put before the Committee that the terms of 30 years was not in the mind of the Government an unalterable term, and that an extension of that term might probably cover the cases of the living donor. The right hon. Gentleman had in his mind, for instance, the Amendment placed on the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell). Fifty years would, he supposed, in practice cover all cases of the living donor, but what he wished to call the attention of the House to was that from one point of view the Amendment proposed by the Government was better for them than the proposal of his hon. Friend. The proposal of the Government practically exempted all charities whether founded before or after the passing of this Act for a period of 30 years from their foundation, whereas the proposal of his hon. Friend only exempted charities founded by any donor, living at the date of the passing of this Act, for a certain period. From his point of view the importance of this matter went somewhat beyond either the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government or that of his hon. Friend, because what was to be the effect of this clause in the future. The effect of the clause as proposed to be amended by the Government was that any charity founded after the passing of the Act, as well as any existing charity which was not more than 30 years old, would be exempted for that time from the date of its foundation. But suppose that a donor founded a charity after the passing of the Act, he would be face to face with this position: he would know that he could only entrust his charity to private trustees, or, being a Churchman, to the officers of his own Church for a period of 30 years, and that after that period the trustees would be outvoted by a majority appointed by the Parish Council. A donor might wish that a charity should be in the hands of persons belonging to his own Church or denomination, to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants of a parish. That would be exactly what he would not be able to secure. How could he do it? He could not do it by leaving it, as had been the practice hitherto, in the hands of the Churchwardens of his Church or of trustees privately nominated by him. He could only do it by making it an ecclesiastical charity, or, in other words, confining his benefaction to members of his own Church or denomination instead of giving it generally to the inhabitants of the parish. Would that be for the advantage of the parishioners at large? He could not imagine that hon. Members on either side of the House would desire to narrow in that way the possibility of charity in the future. By the legislation the Government were now proposing they would drive persons who would give or leave money in charity from devoting it for the purpose at all, or they would drive them to devote it to purposes which, under this Bill, would be called ecclesiastical. The hon. Member for Sunderland approved of the idea that persons should be deterred from giving or leaving money in charity at all, and the Prime Minister the other day laid stress upon the view that these benefactions were utterly mischievous. He was quite certain that was not the view of the pariehioners in the rural parishes, but the last thing they would wish would be that donors should be deterred by legislation from leaving money for the general advantage of the parishioners in future, whether by way of doles or in any other way. If the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend—and he confessed that it did not, from his point of view, cover the case—what he would suggest was that they should adopt the term of years proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan, and also add at the end of the clause the words— Or to any charity founded after the date of the passing of this Act. He believed if they did not insert some provision of this kind the result would be found out before very long by those very persons in the rural parishes they desired to benefit, to be most mischievous to them as absolutely stopping the flow of charity to the rural parishes, or confining it solely to what, under this Bill, would be held to be ecclesiastical purposes for the benefit of one Church or denomination.

SIR R. TEMPLE

, in supporting the Amendment of the Member for Fulham, greatly regretted that the Government did not seem inclined to listen to the powerful appeal that had been made to them by the right hon. Member for Bristol. He ventured to assure them that if the clause passed in its present form there would be a number of influential persons in all the villages of England who would feel a sense of rankling injustice. There might be a ground for interfering with the arrangements made by those who were dead, though he did not admit it; but to interfere with the arrangements made by the living was nothing short of naked and undisguised spoliation; it was interference with public rights and confiscation of what was virtually private property. As to what had been said as to the term of years, he would point out that 30 or even 42 years would not cover the living donors; 50 years, as proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan, would be necessary for that purpose. He hoped Churchmen on his .side of the House would adopt a more just and generous attitude towards their Nonconformist brethren than they seemed to be inclined to adopt toward Churchmen in this respect. He earnestly hoped the Government would think twice before they passed this matter as it stood at present, for if they did it would not be allowed to rest here, for he and his friends would exhaust all the forms of the House in their resistance to what they considered to be rank injustice.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

was one of those who believed that all charity by , way of doles was pernicious. What the poor in. the North of England needed and demanded was not charity at all, but justice, and when justice had perfect sway there would be no more need for charity from either side of the House. As to the Amendment, he wished to point out how little was the matter they were now disputing about. In this matter of charities, they on that side had surrendered all ecclesiastical charities and all parochial charities which applied to more than one parish. Might he represent to his hon. Friends that in surrendering they had surrendered all the future? because everybody could see that if he wanted to leave a benefaction to his parish in the way of dole (which was not likely) all he had got to do was to leave it to his parish plus two or three houses in the next parish, and then immediately his benefaction would be out of the Bill for evermore. If that be true, there was he, a living man, who did that the day after the Bill passed, and there on the other side was a living man who gave a benefaction a year ago, and they refused to that man, living, the right to say how he intended that benefaction, and by whom he intended it to be applied. He could not accept for himself what was not given to others. Having gone so far it was not worth while to waste time over such a miserable point as that on which the Committee was disputing. He thought the Government might adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bristol leaving out the provision that the Bill should not deal with any charity founded after the passing of the Bill.

MR. TOMLINSON

objected to the proposal of the Government to exempt charities for 30 years from their foundation. That meant that every charity which had been founded for something less than 30 years would carry on its work until the .30 years expired with a rope round its neck. His view was that if they put a period of years in, it should be not from the foundation of the charity, but from the passing of the Act, and if it was fixed from the passing of the Act, it gave a definite period in which people would have time to ascertain what was best to be done. For his own part he should not feel so strongly on this matter if dole charities alone were concerned. But that was not the case. The charities which it was most important to preserve were the parish rooms, which had been built by Church people, out of Church money, but which were to be excluded from the category of ecclesiastical charities. These rooms had been founded by and at the cost of Churchmen, not in any narrow sectarian view, but for the moral and social improvement of the parish in which they lived, and the principal ground upon which he felt so strongly about the clause was that the effect of the Bill would be to deprive the Church of the control and management of these parish rooms.

MR. ACLAND

would like to ask of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol or some responsible Member of the Opposition if there was a fair prospect, if the Government made a compromise on the term of years, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fulham would be withdrawn. If the Government were willing to make a concession going beyond a generation of 30 years might they hope to get the matter settled?

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, of course he had no power to bind anyone, but he would suggest that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan was accepted, and the Government added at the end of section the words— nor any charity founded after the passing of this Act, the object which his hon. Friend had in view would be met.

SIR F. S. POWELL

hoped the hon. Member for Fulham would withdraw his Amendment. He believed the best course to adopt was to fix upon a definite term of years.

MR. FISHER

observed that the Amendment on the Paper of the hon. Member for Wigan, fixing "fifty" instead of " thirty," years did not meet the case of the living donor at all, but he would withdraw in favour of that Amendment if the words suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol were added.

MR. COURTNEY

suggested that the Government might arrive at an agreement with the Committee by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan.

MR. ACLAND

said, if there was a fair prospect of settling the question the Government would be perfectly willing to split the difference as to the term of years, and accept 40 instead of 30. He hoped that that offer would be accepted as a reasonable compromise.

SIR R. WEBSTER

did not think it necessary to import the split-the-difference argument into this discussion, which, after all, was not founded on much reason. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, although he could not accept the addition about future charities, that if this Amendment were withdrawn he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan. [Mr. ACLAND: No.] He thought they might fairly ask for that, term of years which would practically give them the donors charity for the longest term.

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said, there were two points to be considered—the case of living donors, and the case of non-living donors. It seemed to him the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would only cover cases of donations made within recent years by non-living donors, and would, not cover gifts of which the donors were living. It was most important to deal with the case of living donors. The point might be very well met if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the first part of the Amendment after the word "single" as far as the word "obtained." This would meet the case of the living donor. It would then read— Any charity founded by any donor living at , the time of the passing of this Act, unless the consent of such donor has been obtained. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, he said that the proposed Amendment did not include the case of two sisters, joint donors; but, if the word "single" were omitted, that point would be met, and the case of living donors would be covered. It was not a question of a term of years —30, 40, or 50. He (Mr. Knowles) did not care what length the term fixed upon was, as long as they provided for living donors. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the first part of the Amendment, they could discuss the question of the term of years afterwards. The matter was, after all, extremely simple.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought he observed signs in various parts of the House that the Committee desired to come to some conclusion upon this rather difficult question. They (the Opposition) held that 30 years was too short a period in which to leave undisturbed the wishes of a deceased donor, and that it would be better to make the period 50 years. [Cries of "No!"] He thought that would meet the wishes of the House. [Cries of "No!"] Well, that was his suggestion. Then, the living donor certainly deserved some consideration. An unfortunate man who, out of public spirit had given his worldly goods for a public object, and should see his gifts diverted by the Legislature to some other purpose [Cries of "No!"]—who should see it administered by an alien machinery, would certainly deserve commiseration. What he would suggest was that they should have a period, be it 40 years or 20 years, during which a living donor's charity should remain undisturbed, and that this period ought to begin from the date of the passing of the Act. Then the living donor who had given his money 10 or 20 years ago for a public purpose would know that from the time of the passing of the Act he would stand in the same position as if he had only given his money at the time of its passing. He did not know whether he had made this clear to the Government, but he thought he had, and he was sure the House would be satisfied if his suggestion were adopted.

MR. ACLAND

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would be agreeable to a fixed period of 50 years. He would meet him for adding 10 years to his previous offer, and he would, therefore, say 40 years after the passing of the Act.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

Will the right hon. Gentleman bring up the words? Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?

MR. FISHER

said, if the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was now concurred in, as he understood it was, by his friends, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "forty."— (Mr. Acland.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would suggest that the following words should be added at the end of the Government Amendment:— Or in the case of charities founded by donors living at the time of the passing of this Act until the expiration of 40 years from the passing of this Act. He begged to move these words: "That those words be there added."

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

said, in the case of a donor who founded, a charity 40 years ago and who was still living, is it intended that he should have 40 years more?

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, such a donor was protected by the words.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BOUSFIELD

Sir Julian Goldsmid—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Does the hon. Member desire to do anything?

MR. BOUSFIELD

Yes, Sir. I wish to move to add words to those just agreed to. These words would not apply to one case—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! The hon. Member can propose nothing until the Amendment, as amended, has been added to the Bill.

Amendment, as amended, added to the Bill.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, he desired to add words—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! There are a number of Amendments on the Paper, and they must be taken in their order.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Without questioning your ruling, Sir, I might venture to point out that, as I understand it, my hon. Friend wishes to move a separate sub-section to follow on after the words that have just been added.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the words?

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, certainly; they had been rather hurriedly drawn up, but he desired that they should be added. They were— Nor in the case where the disposition of the trust is in the absolute discretion of the first trustees during the lives of such first trustees or of the survivors or survivor of them. This Amendment was intended to meet such a case as he had personal knowledge of, as where a large sum of money had been left by will for the benefit of a particular parish to certain trustees named in the will, the nature of the trust not being mentioned in the will, but disclosed to the trustees during the lifetime of the donor, and the way in the which they should spend the money being left to the discretion of the trustees. He did not think that case would be met by the words already added.

MR. MELLOR

, having returned to the Chair, asked if the hon. Member would be good enough to bring up the words?

MR. BOUSFIELD

Certainly, Sir.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he sympathised with the object his hon. Friend had in view, but he must recollect that the arrangement just come to was a compromise between gentlemen holding somewhat different feelings on the question, and the essence of a compromise was that each party should give up something. The Government had already made a substantial concession, and he would ask his hon. Friend to recognise the fact that they (the Opposition) were bound to pay them back.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, under the circumstances, he did not wish to press the Amendment; but the subject-matter of it suggested itself to him as a practical point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Droitwich (Worcester) Division (Mr. R. B. Martin), who was absent. The Amendment was— In page 10, line 41. at end, insert—" (6) No member of a Parochial or District Council shall, so long as he occupies a seat thereon, or for 12 months afterwards, receive either for himself, his wife, or child, any share or participation in any dole or charity of which he by virtue of his office shall be a trustee.

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

MR. ACLAND

said, it would save time and trouble, perhaps, if he would point out that the Government were willing to insert words of their own to meet the case referred to.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he had also an Amendment on the Paper on the subject.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he would withdraw the Amendment which he had moved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add, as a new sub-section, the words, " (6) Whilst a person is a trustee of a parochial charity he shall not, nor shall his wife or any of his children, receive any benefit from the charity."—(Mr. Acland.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, there was just one point — the limitation during the time of trusteeship only. He thought it was desirable the Amendment should be extended in that respect, and he would suggest that they insert, after the word "charity," the words—"and for a period of 12 months afterwards."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, those words had been considered by the Government, and they had not thought that they were words which ought to be inserted in the Amendment. There was no such imposition of a retrospective disability on a trustee who had ceased to act as trustee in the case of any other charities. The trustees appointed under this Bill might be poor people. A man might meet with a disaster in life and become an object of charity. The man might resign his trusteeship in consequence; and, if he did, why should he be the only person in the parish who should not receive some benefit from the charity?

SIR R. WEBSTER

thought it was important in the interests of economy and the right distribution of the charity that some stronger safeguard should be introduced in the sub-section, and that the term should be longer than that proposed by the Government. He begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment— After the word "charity," to insert the words, "and for a period of 12 months afterwards.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 150.—(Division List, No. 378.)

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the Government hit the wrong man. They were preventing trustees from receiving benefits for themselves and their families, but the ordinary Common Law of the land said that a trustee should not make a profit out of his trust. The man they wanted to hit was the person who appointed the trustee. He, therefore, proposed to embrace within the scope of the Amendment The member of the Parish Council who appointed the trustee.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "trustee," to insert the words, "or the member of the Parish Council appointing the trustee."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, he should like to ask whether the hon. Member would treat a, member of a Town Council in the same way as he now proposed to treat a Parish Councillor?

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

All Councillors who appoint trustees.

MR. ACLAND

said, he did not think it was necessary for him to argue this matter. It would not be desirable to adopt a special disqualification, which would apply in the case of a man who would hold office at intervals, it might be of four years or two years. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, there was no application in the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to Town Councillors, because he was not aware that they, in general, had the right to appoint trustees of charities. They were conferring a new right in the case of the Parish Councillor. When a new right of this kind was conferred on Town Councillors then would be the time to provide a disqualification in their case.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he had no desire to discuss the clause as a whole at any length, but it was far too important to be allowed to pass into the Bill without comment. During the Second Reading Debate the Government declared that they had no intention of dealing with ecclesiastical charities, or of touching in any way the operations of the Church of England. But that principle had been seriously infringed. In fact, the Church had been treated in a way in which no other religious denomination had been treated. Other Religious Bodies were allowed to keep their charities in the hands in which they had been placed, but this was not the case with the charities of the Church, on which great injustice had been inflicted. During the progress of the Bill it had over and over again been stated that those interested in the Church considered that one of the most valuable charities or means of influence "which of recent years had been adopted in the parishes was that of parish rooms. Well, if the clause now stood as it did when originally brought in, and the donors of the parish rooms had been allowed to retain the control of them in the persons they had appointed as trustees, a great part of his objection to the clause would have been removed. The Opposition had a right to hold that the Government should have yielded on this matter, and should not have taken away both the Churchwardens from the trusteeship of these rooms, whilst charities belonging to other denominations were left untouched. The Solicitor General had argued that the Churchwardens had a civil as well as an ecclesiastical function, and therefore they should be divested of everything which could not be called in the strictest sense ecclesiastical. That was considered by Church people a great hardship and injustice. It was said that they had no right to complain, because the Parish Councils would not use their influence adversely to the wishes of the founders. If that were so what reason was there for changing the trustees? He hoped that the Committee would divide on the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that before they parted with this clause, which had been and was so very interesting, he should like just to say a few words. The section was left in such a condition that it could be held up as a model of confusion and contradiction. A week ago they were going on swimmingly, when, arriving at Clause 13, there was a fresh Amendment sprung on the Committee. There had been nearly a week's discussion on it, and there was now hardly anything of it left. He trusted that the hon. Member for Rugby would remember that he had been the means of exhausting several days of the time of the Committee with little or no practical result. Whatever results there were, indeed, would be of a mischievous character. What would it do? It would have the effect of largely increasing the number of ecclesiastical charities, because liberal-minded donors, who would be quite willing to leave charities or make bequests for the general benefit of the parish, would now be induced to leave their benefactions directly to the Church. Another result of the clause would be to produce friction and bad blood in the parish. He was much obliged to the Government for dropping the 4th subsection, which sought by a side wind to largely extend the powers of the Charity Commissioners. He was glad that in consequence of the opposition which was threatened, and certainly would have been carried out to the bitter end, the Government had consented to drop the sub-section. It must not be forgotten, however, that they intended to do this great injury to the rural districts. The Government sought to make it appear that they were anxious to place the management of local charities in the hands of parishioners, and that the Opposition had been preventing them from doing it. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; that, no doubt, was the object; but after spending or wasting a week's time over it, that object was not yet secured. Then there was the unjust proposal which the Government endeavoured to force on the Committee, that while they permitted any other religious denomination to leave charities to their ministers and the stewards of their respective chapels, they denied that right to the Church. The result of that would be, as he had stated, to increase ecclesiastical charities. It would not be difficult to show the object the Government had in view in wasting time, and for the sake of which they threw over the President of the Local Government Board and violated every pledge they had given on the Second Reading. They had not gained much by their electioneering tactics of tickling the ears of the parishioners. The clause as it stood would give the parishioners less and do them more injury than in the form in which it was originally introduced.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I desire briefly to express my view of the proceedings which have occupied the last five days. The discussion of this clause began on Tuesday last. It lasted Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and up to the present hour to-night. Hon. Gentlemen opposite regard that as a very great waste of time. ["Hear, hear."] But who, may I ask, is responsible? There is a parallel to what has occurred on this Bill, and the parallel is to be found in the measure proposed by the late Administration for conferring local government on the counties of England in 1888. If any hon. Gentleman will look back at the Bill he will find that it then took just about the same time to get through the same amount of business as our discussions on this Bill took up to Tuesday last. If there was any complaint made of the undue length of time that was taken up on this occasion that complaint must react with equal force against hon. Gentlemen on the other side. On Tuesday our proceedings began to drag more slowly. Was there anything in the action of the late Government like that which has characterised the action of the present Government with respect to this Bill? Let the Government take warning by the length of time they took to force through the Amendments introduced in absolute breach of the most solemn pledges. I recollect that 1888 the Government of that day, rightly or wrongly, against the will of their own supporters—almost the unanimous will of their own supporters —adhered to the proposal they had made that the management of the police should be vested in a Joint Committee. Suppose they had acted like the Government opposite and broken their word and departed from their solemn obligations, and bad kept the police in the charge of the Quarter Sessions, what course would have been taken by gentlemen opposite? I do not believe that the Bill would have been allowed to take the form of law. We should have been accused of a scandalous abandonment of public pledges and public faith. No pledges were ever given in more clear and specific language than those of the present Government, and never were pledges more shamelessly abandoned, without excuse and without justification, without a shadow of cause, without any motive we can discover, except that the right hon. Gentleman's supporters from behind made it very inconvenient, and that his colleagues beside him made it more inconvenient still to keep them. With no other motive than that the Government came down, and in the face of their own speeches made not many weeks before, threw over every pledge they had made. The Government have been treated well. Never has a Government carrying out such a policy been treated with such leniency. Unless they take this lesson to heart, and treat us with the unflinching honesty of purpose which has been usual with Governments on both sides of the House, the passing of this Bill will become absolutely impossible. We agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill because we were told that it would not spoliate the Church, and that the principle was one we could assent to. Then, after having obtained our assent to the Second Reading, the Government in Committee, without warning, changed the whole complexion of it in relation to the Church of England. I am not going to add another word to what I have said; time forbids it. But I feel that I should have failed in my duty if I had not expressed briefly, but I trust not obscurely, what I think of the action of the Government.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 90.—(Division List, No. 379.)

It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.