§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the second reading of the Bill, and said, that it appeared from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Charitable Bequests, that there were 13,000 Charitable Trusts, whose annual incomes did not severally exceed 5l. per annum; 17,000 or 18,000 under 10l.; and nearly 20,000 under 20l. The powers of the Court of Chancery could not be, in consequence of the great expense, rendered available for superintending those crusts, and the consequence was, they were left without any control. That a sum exceeding 30,000l. a year should be left without any superintending control created surprise, and even astonishment; and the evil could only be provided against by giving to some tribunal a summary jurisdiction, to regulate those charities, consistently with the amount of their income as compared with the necessary expenses, The object of this Bill was to provide a proper tribunal and meet that evil. The Bill had a limited application, only applying to charities in which a certain amount of property was concerned, and thus applying merely to such cases as absolutely required this tribunal. The Bill proposed that Commissioners should be appointed by the Secretary of State with power to superintend these charities, and prevent abuses in their distribution; but he was ready, if any noble Lord proposed a better mode than that of meeting the evil, to adopt it and renounce his own. Their Lordships would admit that it was extremely desirable that some mode should be adopted of investigating the accounts of those charities, and obtaining returns, and he intended to propose a power to effect 1159 that. He proposed that an Inspector should be appointed to examine into the condition of the charities which would be affected by this Bill, and to make a report to the Commissioners, who would, whenever it was necessary, lay any particular case before the Attorney General. It was very desirable that the funds of such charities as those to which the Bill applied should be looked after, for in many cases the property had altogether been lost from want of such a controlling jurisdiction. It often happened that property vanished altogether, in consequence of the non-appointment of trustees after the death of the former trustees, and he proposed to give a power of appointing new trustees where it was necessary for the interests of a charity to do so. A power of that kind was now exercised by the Court of Chancery, but it was one of a very expensive nature, and, therefore could not be applied with advantage to charities in which only a small amount of property was involved. The appointment by the Court of Chancery was made by application to the Chancellor, who then referred it to the Master and the Master examined witnesses, and made his report to the Lord Chancellor, and the Chancellor finally gave his decision; but as all the parties concerned, or who thought they were concerned, had a right to be heard, it was an expensive proceeding, seldom costing less than 60l. or 70l. Now, he proposed a mode of obviating that by this Bill. It might, perhaps, not be the best mode which could be adopted, but when the Bill went into Committee he should be glad to adopt any suggestion with a view to obtaining a better mode. He wished to have it read a second time, in order that they might adopt any alterations which could have the effect of improving it.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, the country was indebted to the noble and learned Lord for taking up the subject, for there was no doubt that many of the smaller charities of the country had suffered greatly from the effect of the present mode in which they were regulated, and that much of the good which would otherwise arise from them was thus lost. He fully concurred in the principles laid down by the noble Lord; and, indeed, he concurred in the principles of the Bill, but he nevertheless would intreat the noble and learned Lord not to press it through Committee during the present Session. The object of the Bill was to prevent a continuance of evils which 1160 now exist, and it was therefore a good one, yet he feared that great evil would arise, and much injustice would be done, by an Act which was intended to prevent it, if they did not properly consider and deliberate upon its provisions before they agreed to it. The Bill, though limited to charities with particular incomes, yet included nearly all the educational charities of the country. The Bishops were visitors of those educational charities; fer where they were not officially or legally the visitors, Bishops or other ecclesiastics were bound by their duty to act as such, and he thought that no provision ought to be agreed to which would interfere with the influence which the Church had over charities which were established for educational or Church purposes. This was a period of the year at which many of the Bishops were called away from their Lordships' House to the country by their official duties, and he thought that no measure affecting the Church, or the interest of education as connected with the Church, ought to be passed at a period of the Session when they were unavoidably absent. He acknowledged the obligation of the country to the noble and learned Lord for his exertions to remove those evils which pressed like an incubus upon the charities of the country; yet he wished that the noble and learned Lord would not press the Bill through any further stage at this period of the Session. It ought, in his opinion, to be introduced at an early period next Session, when there would be sufficient time to consider its provisions, and when all those who were interested in the Bill could be present.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had considered the question to which the right rev. Prelate referred, and it was his intention to introduce a Clause for the purpose of preserving that control where there was a legal right to exercise it.
Lord Wrottesleywas anxious to see the Bill pass into a law, and he hoped that if it were not agreed to during this Session it would be introduced at an early period next Session. There were some important omissions in the Bill as it now stood. There was no power given, as he understood it, for the appointment of new trustees in cases of real estate, nor was there any authority given to the Commissioners to vary the directions of the founders of charities in cases where they were found impracticable, or unsuited to the present position and character of society. There 1161 was another point to which he would beg to call their Lordships' attention in connection with this subject. The distribution of certain trust funds at present was of such a nature, that although there might be no abuse in that distribution, yet it was calculated to be injurious to the interests of the poor for whose alleged benefit the trusts were intended, and to be destructive to their morals. Very large sums were given in small amounts, and without any due discrimination of the persons to whom they were distributed, or the selection of proper objects. Very important evidence was given on that subject before the Poor Law Commission, and in consequence of that the Poor Law Commissioners alluded to it in their Report; but nothing had been since done with reference to it. He thanked the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the 26th Clause gave a power to appoint trustees as well with regard to real estate as personal estate. There was also a provision with respect to cases in which the intentions of the founder were not carried into effect under certain circumstances. In cases where the income of Charities was beyond the limit proposed by the Bill, the subject could be brought before the Court of Chancery.
Lord Campbellsaid, they were all indebted to his noble Friend near him for the information which he had given them upon this subject. He (Lord Campbell) felt strongly the importance of legislation on this subject, and he believed that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, with alterations and amendments, would be a great improvement as regarded the branch of charities to which it was to be applied. He concurred with the right rev. Prelate in requesting the noble and learned Lord not to press the Bill this Session. It was of infinite importance that such a number of trusts, involving so large an amount of property, should be subjected to a proper regulation and supervision. He believed that there were some important omissions, but they might afterwards be supplied. He thought the matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and he (Lord Campbell) would willingly serve upon it, and afford all the information which he was capable of giving. He felt that, in the present Session, it was impossible that justice could be done to the subject, as it was so far advanced, and so many right rev. Prelates 1162 were necessarily absent. A similar Bill had been introduced last Session into the other House of Parliament by Sir George Grey, but withdrawn on the assurance that, early in the present Session, the Government would bring forward a Bill on their own responsibility. On the meeting of Parliament, Sir George Grey asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Bill would be brought forward, and he said it would be brought forward at an early period of the Session. The inquiry was several times renewed, and a similar answer given, and it was not until the 22nd of June last that a Bill of such vast importance was introduced — a Bill which proposed to deal with about 13,000 trusts, and property to a vast amount. The noble and learned Lord would consider next Session whether the power which he proposed to give to the Commissioners was not a formidable one. He (Lord Campbell) considered the principle of the Bill unobjectionable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he wished the Bill to be read a second time, and allowed to go through Committee, in order to see what amendments might be suggested from any quarter; and if there was anything suggested which he thought would be an improvement, he would show the utmost readiness to adopt it. Some such measure had been recommended eight or ten years ago by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Charitable Bequests, but nothing successful had been done as yet with respect to it. He had framed the Bill at an early period of the Session, but their Lordships were of course aware, that when in order to make the Bill as good as possible he laid himself open to any suggestions to that effect, that weeks or months might elapse before he had an opportunity of carrying his object into execution. In consequence of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he would propose to read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee, with a view to consider and improve the Bill, and when that was done, in all probability the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate would be adopted. It was desirable to make the Bill as perfect as possible during the present Session, in order that it might be proceeded with next Session without delay.
The Bishop of Londonthought, that the worst course they could adopt was to go into Committee, when those who would be the most likely to suggest advantageous alterations would be unavoidably absent. 1163 He should be sorry to see it pass through Committee, because he knew from experience that a Bill having once passed through Committee, would be looked upon as a deliberate act of their Lordships and would not be likely to receive much further attention.
§ Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellorthen stated that it was not his intention to take any further steps with respect to the Bill this Session.