§ Order for Third Reading Read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third, time."
§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)I rise to move the motion which stands in my name, and I should like at once to say that I take this course not because I wish in any way to cast reflection on the educational efficiency of the great schools of Birmingham— on the contrary, I do not suppose there is any educational system in the country which is better administered, or more successful, than the schools which are. 745 governed by the governing body of the Birmingham schools, and I may say that they are the envy of many other towns in which there is not by any means so complete an organisation, beginning with the Board schools and going up to the University—but my reason for objection to the Bill is totally different. I object to it because I think it is highly undesirable that by a private Bill a very grave alteration should be made in the general law of the country. Until this Bill was introduced I do not suppose there was a single case in which a body administering public funds and entrusted with the care of public money was not directly under the control of some Department representing the interests of the public, and I think it is specially needful that with regard to largo and excellent schools of this kind the voice of the public should be heard in regard to the administration of its property. The system is one which exists through the whole of our political and public organisations, beginning with the Public Accounts Committee, where public funds have to be administered. This is purely a business arrangement, and it does not cast any stigma upon the authorities who are thus put under control, it merely ensures the bringing of fresh and impartial minds to bear upon proposals made for improving the work of the trustees, or for dealing with the corpus of this property. Another objection which I make to this departure is, that if an alteration is needed in the law of the land it should be effected by a public Act applying to all foundations alike, and provided with all necessary safeguards, and not by a private Bill applying only to one place. On a former stage of this Bill the Chairman of Ways and Means related to us a very remarkable instance of the value of the public control which I wish to see retained. It was a case in which the M.C.C., a body essentially appointed for the purpose of securing high and honourable conduct in the prosecution of our great national game, desired to purchase certain property from the Clergy Orphan School. The two bodies came to an agreement, fixing the price of certain land at £16,000, but when the matter came before the Charity Commissioner the sum was raised to £40,000, showing conclusively that men of most perfect honour and of the highest capacity might be deceived as to the value of the pro- 746 perty with which they wore dealing. In the Bill now before us there is no safeguard such as would prevent a similar mistake being made in dealing with the property of this foundation. The provision substituted for the safeguard is that if three of the Governors object to any particular transaction they may appeal to the Board of Education. But that does not in the least meet the difficulty. It is not the case of the fraudulent or improvident trustee that we have to deal with. We have to deal with the possibility that an honest mistake may be made by the whole governing body, and we want, therefore, the safeguard of an impartial and external mind to review these transactions. The action of the promoters of this Bill is essentially undemocratic, for it gives to wealth and political influence a power of dispensing with the general law which humbler bodies cannot exercise. It is suggested that the Court of Chancery should have some kind of undefined power, but the clause introduced by the Chairman of Ways and Means simply says, "the general jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery." But the clause would only apply in the case of such gross misconduct as would justify the Attorney General in laying an information before the Court, and that is not what is wanted. What is wanted by those who regard this Bill as a precedent for future legislation is to secure the external control of some impartial persons as a matter of administration, and not as a matter of litigation. Then, we object to the remarkable limitation by which the qualification for trustees is that they shall be residents or ratepayers carrying on business within a convenient distance of Birmingham. Again, the trustees propose to take power to appoint their own auditors. I do not suppose there is a single public body in this country which has this power: even the Auditor General is an independent authority, and I believe that educationalists are consistently in favour of insisting upon an outside audit of the accounts of elementary schools. Before I sit down I wish to make a personal observation. An hon. Member the other day said I was not opposed to the Bill. I fear he rather misconceived the upshot of a very hasty conversation I had with him. What I intended to convey to his mind was that I did not object to the educa- 747 tional provisions of the Bill, for some of them I admit are admirable, but I did object to the fact that the Bill gives a private privilege which, if given at all, ought to have been given by public Bill.
§ *MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)I wish to second the resolution. I do so with reluctance, but I think the question of the practice of the House and of public policy is involved. I found myself on the opinion of Sir Erskine May, who has said—
It has been questioned whether a public Act may properly be repealed or amended by a private Bill; and undoubtedly such provisions demand peculiar vigilance, lest public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places.I think the House will agree with that view, and will admit that when a Bill of this kind is brought before us, by which it is proposed to confer peculiar and exceptional privileges upon a particular place or charitable foundation, we ought to inquire very carefully whether a case is made out for a departure from the regular procedure in such matters. This Bill is in effect a scheme for the regulation of the foundation of a great and important educational institution in the city of Birmingham. With many of its provisions I do not quarrel, but I think it will be generally recognised that an endeavour to remodel an educational foundation by way of a Bill rather than by the usual and accepted method of a scheme carried through under the sanction of the Charity Commission, is an exceedingly unusual and rather hazardous departure. There is very little in this Bill which could not have been done in the ordinary regular way. The greater part of it is a repetition of the provisions of the existing scheme, under which great educational work has been done, and the only reason for coming to this House at all is that on two points it is sought to alter the general law in favour of this particular institution. This educational endowment claims the privilege of not having its scheme altered except upon the application of its own governing body, whereas nearly all the educational institutions of the country which come under the operation of the Endowed Schools Act can have a fresh scheme on the initiative of the Charity Commission or the Board of Education. That, however, is a comparatively minor point. The really important point is 748 that the governors of this school claim to be exempt from that proper control over the disposition of the funds committed to their charge which exists in the case of every other charitable foundation within the limits of England and Wales. That is a perilous departure, and one would like to know upon what grounds it is defended. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that no attempt has so far been made to defend the provision beyond the putting forward of certain allegations that the Charity Commissioners are an interfering body—that they interfere in trivial and trumpery matters, and that the foundation of King Edward's School is so admirably administered that safeguards deemed necessary for all other foundations may be safely dispensed with in their case. But the fact is that the Charity Commissioners have no power to interfere, except in important matters, when leases of more than twenty-one years are being granted, or when it is proposed to alienate the property of the charitable endowment. It is a matter of common notoriety that there are many charities in this country equally as well managed as this Birmingham endowment, and one does not quite see why an exception should be made in favour of a particular city or a particular institution in that city. And there are reasons, which should influence the House in being particularly careful not to grant an exemption in this particular case. The governing body of King Edward's School is composed mainly of representatives of the Corporation. The control and disposition of the property of this charity rests largely with the members of the Corporation, and knowing as we do how active and enterprising is the Corporation of Birmingham in matters of reform and of the development of the city, we must see it is highly probable that dealings may take place between the governors of the charity and the City Corporation. These gentlemen would find themselves in an exceedingly difficult position, a position in which the financial interests of the charity might be at variance with the financial interests of the Corporation. I think that that is a position in which they ought not to be placed. We were told the other day that the governing body of the school were tired of the Charity Commissioners—a statement which elicited a sympathetic response 749 from various quarters of the House. But whether they are tired or not, under this Bill they would no longer remain under the control of the Charity Commissioners. They would be placed under the control of the Board of Education, and all this trouble would have been saved and much debate would have been avoided if only the governors had been willing to accept the transfer of the powers of the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education without trying to limit those powers in one or two important particulars. I hope I have made out my case that this Bill involves a departure from the practice of the House, which might load to mischievous consequences, and I trust, therefore, that the motion which I have the honour of seconding will be carried.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'That this House declines to proceed with a private Bill specially exempting one Foundation from the State control imposed by the general law upon all Charitable Foundations, including the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge.'"—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)I interpose in this debate not because the locality I have the honour to represent is very proud of and deeply interested in this school, but because I want to remove the question from the local questions of Birmingham to the list of what I would call broad questions of public policy. I have taken some part in this House in developing our system of local government, and I am strongly opposed to centralisation, which, I believe, is one of the greatest dangers that we have before us in reference to our vast and over-charged administrative Departments. I have also been opposed for the last twenty years to the policy, and especially to the educational policy, of the Charity Commissioners, but I do not wish to introduce that element into the present consideration. I should, indeed, be the last to cast any reflection either on their personnel or their business capacity, for I shall never forget the assistance I received from the then head of the Charity Commissioners in carrying through Par- 750 liament in 1894 the Parish Councils Bill. Whatever criticism I have to offer is entirely one of policy. The real question on which my hon. friends differ from the policy of this Bill is that it is exceptional legislation — that it is legislation on behalf of one community and one foundation which does not extend to other foundations and other communities. My hon. friends think that any alteration in the law should be made by a public Act applying to all charities alike. I defend the Bill upon that ground. If the general law lays down certain conditions applicable to every individual of every corporation, it is clearly right that the general law alone should qualify it or modify it, but this Bill is founded in its inception and administration entirely upon exception. I defend this exceptional legislation as a matter of convenience. It would be absolutely impossible to deal with this question in any other way. We must deal with each individual case on its own merits. The Charity Commissioners have 23,084 charities registered under their control, and last year they made nearly forty thousand Orders. It would be impossible to introduce any general law and say that the whole of them should be exempted. Each must be looked at upon its own merits. The overwhelming majority of charities possibly ought not to be exempted; the very constitution of the trust and the circumstances in which it is carried on show that it is necessary to have a centralising and controlling authority. If you admit the principle of exemption, then I allow that Birmingham is not the only place entitled to have exemption; in fact, one gathers from the press that there are many bodies in Lancashire and Yorkshire which are likely to make early application to Parliament for similar exemption. But somebody must break the ice, and someone must go first to the necessary expense to obtain the sanction of Parliament, that these cases may be considered on their individual merits. Complaint has been made of the interference of the Charity Commissioners. I understand that the King Edward School in Birmingham has 700 leases under its control. Is it wise that the trustees of property of that description should be controlled in all their operations by a central authority sitting in London, who must be, and are, absolutely ignorant of all local conditions of the case, and that 751 they should be exposed to enormous delays and to very considerable expense? The nature of this Birmingham charity ought to be considered. This charity has an income of nearly £50,000 a year. There are two high grade schools for boys and girls, and eight grammar schools; we have, in fact, a complete educational system which I venture to say cannot be surpassed in any other city in the kingdom. The board of governors is to consist of twenty-two members, Eight of these governors are to be elected by the Corporation of Birmingham, and five are to be nominated by the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London and Birmingham, and by the teachers of both sexes in the schools. Another condition is that nine other members of the board shall be citizens of Birmingham. Cannot a body elected like that be trusted? In the light of public opinion in Birmingham, can it, not be trusted to manage the affairs of the Birmingham foundation school, and does it require to be checked by an outside body? It is, after all, not an unchecked control. It is practically subject to the control of the Board of Education, with one qualification with reference to the management of their property, and it is that if any three members of the board of trustees object to any resolution of the other body of trustees, they have a right of appeal to the Board of Education, whoso decision is absolute and final. If the promoters of the Bill had inserted a clause that any one member of the board of trustees should have a right of appeal, I think that no harm would have been done. What was the danger apprehended by the proposers of the Bill? The danger was misappropriation or misjudgment.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERWell, incapacity and misappropriation. I venture to say that the board of governors elected in the way I have stated are quite capable of dealing properly with the funds of the trust. But there is such a thing as public opinion in Birmingham—in fact, nowhere is it keener—and I am certain that any misappropriation of the funds, or any folly with regard to education on the part of the trustees would meet with a very sharp condemnation from the public opinion of 752 Birmingham. But another check has, on the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, been inserted in the Bill during its progress through Parliament. I may say I am not quite satisfied with the wording of the clause, but the object is that the Court of Chancery shall remain in possession of its inherent right, as the guardian of all charities, to interfere in the case of any breach of the trust. Therefore, any individual in Birmingham will have the right, in the event of any misuse or abuse of the trust, to ask the Attorney General to tile an information in order to prevent it. The ingenuity of check has been exhausted in this Bill. The scheme is enormously superior to the present one, and it will greatly improve the efficient working of this great foundation. I rather detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk on the occasion of the last debate a spirit of rivalry and scepticism with reference to the Board of Education. He alluded in a tone somewhat of dissatisfaction to the fact that the Board of Education was represented in this House on the Ministerial Benches, while the Charity Commission was not. But that is one of the grounds for the superiority of the Board of Education; we have all along desired that the Board of Education should be represented in this House by a responsible Minister. Because I believe the time has come for decentralisation not only in education, but in a great many other departments, because I desire to strengthen the local authority of the schools by giving them more power and responsibility, and because I believe the Bill will be to the advantage of the schools, I intend to vote for it.
MR. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has approved of legislating in this matter by means of a private Bill. He has told us there are 22,000 charities registered in the books of the Charity Commission; fancy having 22,000 private Bills to deal with them.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERI am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I did not propose we should have 22,000 private Bills. I distinctly said that the overwhelming majority of these cases should remain subject to the general law.
MR. GRANT LAWSONThe right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that there are exceptions already under the Charitable Trusts Acts, but in all those cases where the foundation is exempted from the control of the Charity Commission it is only because they have been placed under the Board of Agriculture. In opposing this Bill I am not acting officially on behalf of the Charity Commissioners. We felt it our duty to call the attention of the House to the Bill and its peculiar provisions, and having discharged that duty we leave the Bill to the instructed intelligence of the House. Speaking as a Member of the House and not as a Charity Commissioner, I desire to call attention to some very peculiar provisions of the Bill, and to state the reasons why I shall vote against it. In the first place, there is no provision, so far as I can see—as there is in the existing scheme—for the gradual replacement of capital expended on buildings. The House will have on this occasion to judge on the merits of the case, and not on the merits or demerits of the Charity Commissioners. I think it is eminently wise that the interests of future generations in charitable endowments should be protected by the continuous care of some outside body. That care now exists under the general law, but if this Bill passes that will cease to be the case. I see no reason why an exception should be made in the case of this particular foundation. The only justification that has been offered for this Bill is, in fact, that this school is very rich. Surely that is a reason why the governors should be sorry rather than glad to be exempt from the protection of the general law. Then, I think it is a very bad thing that the law of real property should vary, as it will do if this Bill passes, because a conveyance of lands belonging to this charity will be good as regards this charity, but will convey no title in the case of charity lands in any other part of the kingdom. Finally, I think to allow this Bill to pass will be to set a bad example. It will encourage other endowments and foundations to come hero by the same system of private Bill legislation to obtain exceptional legislation for them. That is a twofold evil. It wastes the funds of the charity in the promotion of Bills in Parliament, and it wastes the time of the House. We will have, if this Bill passes, 754 a continuous succession of Bills brought in by schools to set up special conditions for themselves. The Leader of the House has spoken of four debates on this Bill, but if Are encourage such Bills as this there will be 400 debates.
§ *MR. LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)I do not propose on the present occasion to enter at any length into the merits of this Bill, because the grounds upon which the Members for Birmingham unanimously support it have; been laid very fully before the House on several previous occasions, and the issue we have to decide to-day is precisely the same as that which has been settled by the divisions which have already taken place on the subject. The only difference is that the case for the promoters has been made very much stronger, and many of the objections which have been raised against the Bill have been disposed of by the alterations which have been made in Committee, all of which alterations tend in the direction of giving a larger measure of control to the Board of Education, and of retaining the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. I would only repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that the main purpose and object of this Bill is not to get rid of any reasonable amount of control in regard to fundamental matter's, but simply to enable a local and representative board of governors, who are all men of the highest standing, and who have no personal interest to serve, to manage their own property, which includes a very large number of leases, without being hampered and delayed by having to submit every detail of their operations to the approval of the Charity Commissioners or any other outside body. It is not the case that there are no other charitable endowments which are free from the control of the Charity Commissioners. As has already been pointed out, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the schools of Eton and Winchester, were exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act. It is true that they have since been put under the control of the Board of Agriculture, but that control is nothing like so irksome or inconvenient as that which is exercised by the Charity Commissioners. And there are half a dozen other schools which were expressly exempted from the Endowed Schools Act, which have not to submit to outside control, and which have 755 as full power over their property as these governors would be allowed under this Bill. As has been already shown, their manner of dealing with the property is safeguarded in every way by the right of appeal given to any three members of the board, and there will always be a sufficient number of independent members on the board to exercise that right, as is evidenced by the fact that there will be five representatives of the Universities perfectly independent of the representative governors and the other governors nominated by the City Council. To object to the governors being Birmingham men seems to me to be perfectly incomprehensible. I believe that that is a distinct point in their favour. It must be perfectly clear to anyone who knows Birmingham, that we can always get a sufficient number of men of high standing, intelligence, and integrity to be governors, and to manage the affairs of this foundation without going outside. It has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that it is an objection to the Bill that these governors have power to appoint their own auditors; but I would remind the hon. Member that not only have the accounts to be published in the local newspapers, but they must be submitted to the Board of Education for approval. It was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham that conflicting interests might arise between the Board of Governors and the Corporation of the City of Birmingham. Why, the interests of both these bodies are the interests of the people of Birmingham, and both are elected to look after the interests of the people whom they represent, so that both will have the same interests at heart, and there is no likelihood of any conflict taking place between them. My hon. friend the Member for Thirsk referred to the provision which was contained in a former scheme of the Charity Commissioners, requiring that a certain replacement of capital should be made. I am able to inform him, however, that this is fully provided for by the Bill, and that the Bill does not interfere with any arrangement which has been come to in the past. It has been said by several hon. Members that the Bill should not be passed because it would form a bad precedent, and that other schools and charitable bodies will not be slow to follow the example set by the governors of these schools. For my part I consider that, instead of that being 756 a drawback or objection to the Bill, it is a distinct point in its favour. The country as a whole is proverbially rather slow to move, and it frequently requires one of the more robust and energetic portions of it to show the way to the others. And if, as I think, and as seems now to be generally admitted by the majority of the House, this Bill will have the effect of remedying a manifest injustice, or at least a manifest inconvenience, it will form a most useful precedent for endowments in other large towns, and the constitution and powers of other governing bodies of a similar kind will probably in course of time all come to be remodelled, in accordance with the rules of justice and common sense which this Bill lays down. Then it is said that this Bill proposes to make an alteration in the law which should not be brought about by a private Bill, but should be secured by a public Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking the other day in reference to the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, said that if you want to bring about any great reform or pass any complete and comprehensive measure of legislation, you must proceed by steps and do it piecemeal. If there is one alteration in the law to which that doctrine would apply almost more forcibly than to any other, it is that which is now under consideration. We all know what a large amount of opposition and discussion has been provoked by the very modest proposal to abolish the control of the Charity Commissioners in this one particular case. But what would be the effect if a Bill were introduced to abolish the Charity Commissioners all round? There would be no end to the discussion that it would call forth; every known expedient would be resorted to, to prevent its passing into law, and its promoters might think themselves very fortunate if they got it through in anything under five years. It seems to me, then, that these are essentially cases which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, should be dealt with separately, each one on its own merits, and not by any general law. You cannot possibly lay down any hard-and-fast | rule that can be applied to the case of all charities, because each one differs from the others most materially and in many important particulars; and whilst it might be most unwise to remove the control of the Charity Commissioners in regard to some small endowment in some out-of-the- 757 way country town, it might be the essence of wisdom to do away with their powers in the case of a large charitable endowment situated in one of the chief cities of the kingdom, such as that which we are now dealing with. I submit, then, that if this Bill is passed it will not only be a great benefit to these schools, and very much calculated to promote their future welfare, but that it will also form a most useful precedent. I hope, therefore, that the House will not stultify itself by going back upon its former decisions, as to the desirability of passing it into Law.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)This is a matter of very great importance, not only in itself, but because of the precedent it will set. The crowded condition of the House at this time of business is proof of that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is most anxious for this Bill, will not think that those who oppose it desire in any way to charge the promoters of the Bill or the Corporation of Birmingham with being dishonest or incapable, or anything of that kind. If there is one corporation more than another which comes before this House with a good reputation in regard to all matters of local government, that public body is the Corporation of Birmingham. Still, admitting all that, I must urge the importance and value of an independent authority, like the Charity Commissioners, exercising supervision. The powers of the Charity Commissioners, are very large, not merely as regards malversation or dishonesty, or anything of that kind, but against possible mistake and error. Those who have studied the reports quoted by my hon. friend know perfectly well that cases can be shown of trustees acting bona fide, but making mistakes. There was the extraordinary case mentioned the other day in the House which occurred in London. A large portion of the very valuable property of Lord's cricket ground was on the point of being sold by the trustees of a certain charity, and they had almost parted with it when the Commissioners intervened, and got £20,000 more for it than the trustees were prepared to accept. May I remind my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham that in the evidence given in regard to this school before the Committee presided 758 over by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, it was stated that the corporation of that city put gentle pressure on the trustees of the school to part with that property, and if the Commissioners had not intervened the corporation would have forced them to part with it under the Artisans' Dwellings. Act for much less than they were able to obtain when the matter was gone into in a different way, and the property was exempted from that Act. Nobody on that occasion charged the corporation with being dishonest or stupid. It was a mistake made by business men. Surveyors and valuers fell into the mistake, and it did not in the least reflect on the business capacity of the Corporation of Birmingham. It shows that even an able and intelligent body like a corporation is all the better for having a second opinion, and that it should submit its own proposals to a body independent of all local interests, and able to approach the subject in the manner the Charity Commissioners are able to do. I believe it could be shown that all those cases which have been placed before the House, and which have been called exceptions, are not exceptions at all. They are all schools which have been dealt with by special Acts of Parliament. I may venture to say, in conclusion, that the supporters of the Bill have not really satisfied the public opinion of this House, because they have not had the courage to submit the Bill to a Committee. On the Second Reading they promised a clause which many hon. Members entirely misunderstood, and which my right hon. friend stated then, and stated now, is in reality not worth the paper it is written on.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF TUB TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.There are two quite distinct questions which Members of the House have got to decide before making up their minds in connection with this Bill. The first is the one which the noble Lord addressed himself to— namely, Is the arrangement proposed by this Bill better or worse than that for which this measure is a substitute? In other words, is this great charity likely to be better managed under this governing body than under the restrictions which necessarily and from the nature of the case are now imposed upon it? That is a question on which I venture to say there is very little difference of opinion. Does any- 759 one seriously believe that the new governing body of this great institution will mismanage the property? Nobody doubts that the management will be conducted under far more favourable circumstances than those which at present hamper it. On the merits of the Bill, I say that the change which it is proposed to make will be a very beneficial one. But there is another question on which I venture to say there is a much greater difference of opinion. It is the question not whether this is an improvement as regards King Edward's School, but whether it is right to improve this particular school without also improving other institutions under similar circumstances; in other words, is it proper to deal with this institution by way of an exception, instead of waiting for a general measure freeing all schools at the same time, if they are to be freed, from the control of the Charity Commissioners? It is on that point that I have formed a strong opinion, and I should not have troubled the House had there only been the first of the two points I have referred to. The second point is much wider than the first, and I think I am bound to say a word to the House in regard to it. In the first place, let me point out to the House that there is a great misconception in some quarters—amongst those Members who complain that this is a private Bill introduced by a local authority without any reference to a central authority. That is not the case. The Bill was referred to the new Education Department, and upon it that Department passed judgment and introduced Amendments. The new Education Department are of opinion that the Bill runs on general lines they are prepared to approve of in other cases which resemble this one. Therefore, we are not legislating at random about a single case, but on general educational conditions which have been considered by the central department of the Government which this House has entrusted with the duty. In the next place, I ask myself is it possible to proceed in these matters in the way my right hon. friend and others refer to. They appear to think that we ought never to touch these schools at all, or that we should legislate for the 22,000 important charities which are at present under the Charity Commissioners. It is manifestly impossible, in my judgment, 760 to proceed by a general Act which shall be applicable to 22,000 cases, or half that number, or quarter that number, or even an infinitesimal fraction of that number. Every case must be tried on its merits. I have no doubt that there are, outside Birmingham, other great educational institutions which may be treated, and they probably will be treated, as it is proposed to treat King Edward's School. In those cases the Education Department will apply the same principle which is applied to this Bill. In future, private Bills dealing with those institutions will be submitted to the Education Department, and I have no doubt the House will be prepared to sanction similar measures to that which on this occasion they will sanction for King Edward's School at Birmingham. There is, therefore, no ground for supposing that we are proceeding by way of making an undue exception in this matter, or indeed that it is possible to proceed on such broad lines and such universal lines of general legislation as some hon. Members appear to desire. For my own part, I believe that the consideration of each of these great educational endowments should be on its merits, and that this is the only way which is likely to produce good results. Whether a Bill should be brought in as a public or a private measure seems to me to be a very subordinate matter, of mere technical interest, and under these circumstances I think it would be a most unhappy precedent if on the Third Reading and after the fourth discussion the House should reject the Bill.
MR. ASQUTTH (Fifeshire, E.)The question at issue is one which goes to the very root of our Parliamentary procedure, namely, whether the restrictions which have been deliberately imposed by Parliament under the general law of the land in the administration of charitable trusts is to be whittled away in piecemeal fashion by successive attempts on the part of local communities to emancipate themselves from those restrictions. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of Birmingham, which is a very important place, and which for more than a generation has been the laboratory of a number of very interesting municipal experiments. I must say that I have not been convinced by any argument which I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman of the 761 proposition that a law which is good enough for the rest of England and Wales is not good enough for Birmingham. The vista which the right hon. Gentleman held out of the various charitable trusts of the country, or the communities for which those trusts exist, coming forward to this House with a succession of similar proposals to get rid in their particular cases of the responsibility imposed by the general law of the land is something which I cannot contemplate with satisfaction. If it be the case that the safe- guards provided by the Charity Commissioners are too rigid and inelastic in their nature to remain, as they have been now for a great many years, part of the general law, that is a difficulty which ought to be dealt with—and can only be properly dealt with—by general legislation. So long as those safeguards have been deliberately imposed by Parliament, so long as nobody contends that a case has been made out for an alteration of the general law, I think that, in the interests of our Parliamentary procedure—and, what is of still more vital importance, in the interests of uniformity of the law with regard to the administration of charitable trusts throughout the country — this House ought to look with suspicion on a measure of this kind. On these grounds I shall be compelled to vote against the Third Reading.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman has laid down a principle which he will find it inconvenient to practise in future, and which I am certain he has not practised in the past. It is that there should be absolutely no exception to the general law of this country. The Charity Commission apply the same restrictions in the case of a great institution dealing with £50,000 a year and 700 leases, and administered in the atmosphere of a great manufacturing and keenly intelligent town, as they apply in the case of some petty Tillage charity. Naturally, great irritation is produced in the case of the great institution by restrictions which are perfectly right and proper for the petty village charity. Let me take as another instance the question of the municipal law of this country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if this was the first time on which the House had had the common-sense to deal with various cases on their different merits. 762 Nothing could be more absurd than to put forward a proposal to put all charities on a Procrustean bed, and cut them all according to the same pattern. That is not a precedent which has been followed with regard to municipal corporations. There is not a municipal corporation of any importance which has not special legislation. A Committee was appointed to consider all cases of deviation from the general law on their merits; and since then variations have been permitted in the case of nearly all the great municipalities, according to local circumstances. Surely it is impertinent to come down here to try and frighten the House with the idea that we are now creating a new precedent with regard to charities. I do not remember any private Bill which has been fought with greater persistency than this extremely innocent Bill. And yet, except for the point with which I have just dealt, there is no general public interest involved in the matter. If hon. Members are pleased to suppose that the people of Birmingham are less capable of managing this charity successfully than the Charity Commissioners, who live in London and know nothing of the local circumstances, even then the people of Birmingham would be the only sufferers. There are only three bodies concerned. First, there are the Charity Commissioners, who declare themselves glad to get rid of the charity, though their representatives do not act in that spirit. Their representatives have come down here and said that, having stated their views on the subject, they are perfectly ready to hand over the control. Secondly, there is the Board of Education, which is perfectly ready to take over the charity. Thirdly, there are the people of Birmingham, from which city not a whisper of opposition to the Bill has come, although the Bill has been before the House all this time. The object of the whole people, without exception, is to secure the passage of the Bill. Do hon. Members believe in local self-government. or not? It is an extraordinary fact that the persons who in theory express their belief in allowing people to manage their own affairs, whenever it comes to the point insist that other people's affairs should be managed according their liking, and not from the point of view of the people concerned. If the people of Birmingham are fit to be entrusted with an expenditure amounting to something like 763 £2,000,000 a year, surely they are fit to manage the thousand petty details connected with this charity, in regard to which at present they are put to great inconvenience and trouble by the regulations of the Charity Commissioners. I hope, on that ground alone, and on no other, as a mere matter of consistency, the House will be prepared by a very large majority to allow the people of Birmingham to manage their own affairs.
§ MR. J. A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)said that many hon. Members of this House desired to extend as much as possible the administrative power of corporations and other local bodies, but what he thought the House ought to be very careful about was giving to the governors of a charity the power to dispose of the corpus of their endowment. He
§ wished to point out that, in consequence of the Charity Commissioners exercising control over the disposal of endowments, many thousands of pounds had been preserved to the charities which would otherwise have been frittered away. He knew of one case where the governors of the charity were prepared to sell some property for £20,000, but by the interference of the Charity Commissioners £40,000 was obtained. In another case £2,500 was the price arranged by the governors of a charity, but by the interference of the Charity Commissioners £8,000 was secured for the endowment. It was because he thought they ought to be very careful with regard to giving such powers that he should oppose the Bill.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 152.)
765| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Aird, John | Finch, George H. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Fisher, William Hayes | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l) |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Arnold, Alfred | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Arrol, Sir William | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Garfit, William | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r) | Gedge, Sydney | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.) |
| Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S.-(Hunts.) | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Beach, Rt. Hn W. W. B. (Hants.) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Killop, James |
| Biddulph, Michael | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J. |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.) |
| Brassey, Albert | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Brigg, John | Graham, Henry Robert | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gull, Sir Cameron | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Monk, Charles James |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w) | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George | Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Harwood, George | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Murnaghan, George |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hazell, Walter | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Helder, Augustus | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
| Coddington, Sir William | Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.) | Newdigate, Fras. Alexander |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Howard, Joseph | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) | O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Oldroyd, Mark |
| Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Jacoby, James Alfred | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W. |
| Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Percy, Earl |
| Curzon, Viscount | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Denny, Colonel | Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a) | Purvis, Robert |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Randell, David |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lafone, Alfred | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'bl'nd) | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Leighton, Stanley | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T. |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) | Robinson, Brooke |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Runciman, Walter | Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth) | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Steadman, William Charles | Welby, Lt. -CI. A. C. E. (Taunt'n) |
| Rutherford, John | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Samuel H. S. (Limehouse) | Strachey, Edward | Williams, J. Carvell (Notts) |
| Savory, Sir Joseph | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.) |
| Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Thornton, Percy M. | Wyndham, George |
| Sidebettom, William (Derbysh.) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Mr. Austen Chamberlain |
| Skewes-Cox, Thomas | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H. | and Mr. Lowe. |
| NOES. | ||
| Asher, Alexander | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Morrison, Walter |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gunter, Colonel | Myers, William Henry |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Baker, Sir John | Haldane, Richard Burdon | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hardy, Laurence | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Bethell, Commander | Heath, James | Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlington) |
| Bill, Charles | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Penn, John |
| Billson, Alfred | Hobhouse, Henry | Pilkington, Sir Geo A (LancsS W) |
| Blakiston-Houston, John | Holland, William Henry | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Price, Robert John |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Horniman, Frederick John | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Howell, William Tudor | Pym, C. Guy |
| Burt, Thomas | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Caldwell, James | Kinloch, Sir John George S. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Knowles, Lees | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Labouchere, Henry | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lewis, John Herbert | Souttar, Robinson |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lough, Thomas | Stanhope, Hon Philip J. |
| Colville, John | Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent) | Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) |
| Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. | Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'land) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Crombie, John William | Maclean, James Mackenzie | Stock, James Henry |
| Dunn, Sir William | M'Crae, George | Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr) |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | M'Ewan, William | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd) |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Laren, Charles Benjamin | Wallace, Robert |
| Engledew, Charles John | Malcolm, Ian | Wason, Eugene |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Fenwick, Charles | Mather, William | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r) | Monckton, Edward Philip | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | |
| Flower, Ernest | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarth'n) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Fry, Lewis | Morley, Charles (Breconshire) | Mr. Bond and Mr. Joseph |
| Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley | Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose) | A. Pease. |
Original Question put, and agreed to.