Lords Sitting of 12 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Stolen Goods (60); Charitable Trusts Acts Amendment (59); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (68); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane) * (69).
Committee—Report—Inland Revenue Buildings * (73).
Report—Municipal Franchise (Scotland) * (55).

FRANCE AND TUNIS—THE FRENCH INVASION.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the despatch of Lord Lyons containing an assurance that the object of the French invasion of Tunis was not the occupation or annexation of any part of the territory of the Regency; also, whether the noble Earl was able to confirm the statement which had been made in the newspapers, that the French troops were within 17 miles of the city of Tunis?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have reason to think that the French troops are very near Tunis. I propose in the course of next week to lay Papers on the Table of your Lordships' House relating to this matter.

STOLEN GOODS BILL.—(No. 60.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLORin moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as he desired to remove considerable misapprehension on the subject, he would say something both as to the reasons for the introduction of the measure and the provisions which it contained. It was a Bill to increase the powers now possessed by the police authorities with regard to the recovery of stolen goods, and to make other provisions calculated to discourage the receiving of such goods, and to facilitate their recovery. He thought that everybody would admit that this was desirable. It had frequently occurred
254
that very valuable property which had been taken by robbery had never been traced, a fact which showed that the law in its present state was less efficacious in assisting in the discovery of stolen property and throwing difficulties in the way of thieves than it should be. The police authorities of the Metropolis having communicated with those in various parts of the country elicited a unanimous opinion that further legislation was necessary, and that such a Bill as that before their Lordships would give increased facilities for checking the evils complained of. He was told that at present there was no real check on the receivers of stolen goods, and no actual facility for the recovery of goods which had been stolen. For that state of things he did not throw blame on anybody, but it was necessary to find a remedy. A very respectable trade, the pawnbrokers, were, it appeared, greatly alarmed at this Bill, as if it were directed against themselves. When its provisions were carefully looked into it would be found that, though some amendments might be desirable, there was no ground for that alarm. The first set of provisions were perfectly general; the second applied to second-hand dealers; and the third to second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. The pawnbrokers as a body were a highly respectable body of men; but, of course, in so numerous a class there must be some persons less scrupulous than others, while some who were scrupulous might unwittingly receive articles which had been stolen. He had seen it stated in a printed circular which professed to give reasons why the Bill should not be passed, that its provisions were based on the idea that pawnbrokers and receivers of stolen goods were identical. That was an error into which certainly neither he nor Her Majesty's Government had fallen. No one could be more sensible than he was of the high character of the pawnbrokers generally, and of the high standing of many of them, and nothing could be further from his intention than to throw any slur upon them. It was, however, certain that even the most upright pawnbrokers might sometimes take in pledge articles that had been dishonestly obtained, without knowing that they had been so obtained; and that all pawnbrokers should be exempted from the operation of the Bill was a

255
suggestion which they themselves could not expect to see realized. Ire had had great satisfaction in receiving a deputation, who very ably represented them. That deputation had made many suggestions; and, as he was not desirous of unnecessarily harassing the trade, he proposed, if their Lordships were pleased to read the Bill a second time, to pass it through Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of having it reprinted with some Amendments, founded on those suggestions, which he was willing at once to introduce, and afterwards to have it re-committed to a Select Committee, which would have power to take evidence, so that every opportunity might be given to those who were interested to show how they would be affected by it. The main alteration made in the existing law by the first part of the Bill was in respect to search for stolen goods. At present it was necessary, in order to obtain a search-warrant, that a police-constable should state on oath reasons for believing that articles stolen were in the place proposed to be searched, and should specify what those articles were; and the magistrates did not like to grant such a warrant without proof of a primâ facie case, which it was often impossible to establish before search. The 3rd clause of the Bill would enable a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to grant a special warrant on the oath of an officer of the police, being an inspector, or an officer of equal or superior rank to an inspector, that he had received information, from which he believed that stolen articles—without specifying them in detail—were in a particular place. On the authority of this warrant the officer could search, and on discovery of the property and on proof that the person in possession of it had reasonable grounds for believing it to have been stolen, and had, nevertheless, made no communication to the police, penalties would be inflicted. In this respect the Bill did not go beyond the provisions of some local Acts already passed—the Glasgow Police Act, for instance. The provisions of the 4th and 5th clauses rendered it penal to deface or alter goods purchased or received by a person who might have some reason to suppose that they had been stolen. Gold and silver articles were not to be melted down within three days of the time of purchase. The 8th and 9th clauses had
256
reference to the assistance in recovery of stolen articles to be given by pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, and to the duty of those classes of traders to answer the inquiries of constables. By the Pawnbrokers' Act of 1872, pawnbrokers were under an obligation to keep books, with particulars of the pledges received by them. This Bill extended that obligation to second-hand dealers in precious metals. They were also empowered by the Act of 1872 to hand over to the custody of the police any person whom they suspected of offering stolen goods for sale or in pawn; but that Act contained no indemnity to them in case the person suspected should prove to to innocent. It was proposed by this Bill to give such an indemnity, and the 11th clause gave compensation to pawnbrokers and others for loss of time, and the expense they might be put to in giving information. Secondhand dealers were to be required to take out a licence, which, in the first instance, was to be obtained on the certificate of a justice; and by Clause 14 it was enacted that no second-hand dealer should purchase an article from a child under 12 years old, or from a person appearing to be intoxicated, or employ any person under the age of 16 to receive goods. Similar provisions to these were already in force as to pawnbrokers. By Clause 15 it was provided that where a pawnbroker was convicted of an offence punishable under the Pawnbrokers' Act of 1872, or this Act, and had previously been convicted of the same or any other offence under either Act, or where a second-hand dealer was convicted of an offence under this Act, and had previously been convicted of the same or any other offence, the Court before whom he was convicted might direct his licence or certificate to be endorsed with a record of the conviction, and if any conviction had been endorsed against him within five years previously might direct his licence or certificate to be forfeited. It had been represented to him that, as that clause stood, it was too severe, as the previous conviction under the Pawnbrokers' Act might be for noncompliance with regulations in some matters of detail not seriously affecting the public. He therefore proposed to amend it by providing that the former penalty must have been over £5, which would exclude penalties for any but

257
serious and repeated offences. There were three other clauses of great importance, which he could not help thinking were those which chiefly alarmed the pawnbrokers. It was proposed in the Bill that after any conviction, either under the Pawnbrokers' Act, or this Act, or the Public Stores Act, a Court might direct the person convicted to be registered, the effect of which would be to put him under certain specified restrictions, and the commission of any further offence would entail further restrictions. It had been represented that some of those restrictions were of a kind which, if applied to pawnbrokers, would make it impossible for them to carry on their business. He thought, on consisideration, that the objects of these clauses would be sufficiently attained, without extending them to pawnbrokers: he intended, therefore, to limit them so as not to include pawnbrokers. There was also a provision as to the liability of agents and servants of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, which he thought would be found useful. By Clause 22 an appeal to Quarter Sessions was given where a fine exceeding was imposed; and Clause 23 provided that a conviction for any offence under this Act should not after five years be receivable in evidence against the person so convicted. He would only add, in conclusion, that the Bill was conceived entirely in the public interest, to facilitate the recovery of stolen property; and, looking to the fact that its provisions would be examined by a Select Committee, he trusted their Lordships would now give it a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the Bill his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had introduced might be accurately described as being of the same class as another Bill which he would bring forward shortly—namely, as an effort on behalf of a Department of the Government to increase its powers, and consequently to diminish, in a corresponding degree, the rights and privileges of the other subjects of Her Majesty. Everybody knew that Departments of the State often conceived it to be for the interest of the public that their powers should be increased; but it was their Lordships'
258
duty to watch vigilantly proposals of this kind, and to see that they were not adopted without careful inquiry. The public necessity of this Bill rested almost entirely on the evidence of the police authorities. He had great respect for the police as a body; but a Bill to give the police so much more power required some other testimony of its necessity. This Bill had given great alarm to that very respectable body of traders, the pawnbrokers; but he was glad to find from the observations of his noble and learned Friend that the representations of that body had had some effect with him. If his noble and learned Friend had proposed to push the Bill through the House in its present form, he should have felt it his duty to say that their Lordships ought to examine the evidence in its favour with great care; but as it had passed from the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department—where he supposed it originated—to his noble and learned Friend, who was willing that it should be considered by a Select Committee, he need not detain their Lordships further than to express his opinion that the wisest course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS AMEND MENT BILL.—(No. 59.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he was aware that the Bill was objected to by many excellent persons who thought that it might have a tendency to injure certain charities, and particularly to encroach upon charities supported by voluntary contributions; but, in his opinion, the alarm which had been created was not justified by the clauses of the Bill. At all events, he should be sorry to be responsible for any measure which could injure any of those excellent institutions which were petitioning against this Bill. It was never intended to affect that portion of their funds which was derived from voluntary subscriptions. The only

259
ground for any apprehension on that score was a provision adopted from a Bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) in 1878, that permanent investments of savings from subscriptions should, after the lapse of a certain number of years, be regarded in the same light as original endowments. He was willing to modify that clause, if necessary, by extending the time, and also to provide that it should not apply to a reserved fund set apart to meet future deficiencies of income. He disclaimed all intention of injuring these charities. It had been said that ever since the passing of the Act of 1853 the Charity Commissioners had been seeking to increase their power and extend their operations. No doubt they had always endeavoured to extend their operations within proper limits; but no one ought to blame them for that, because if such a body as the Charity Commissioners was to exist at all it must be their duty to exercise their functions in all cases in which they found charities improperly or unwisely administered, and to seek from Parliament the removal of all impediments to their efficiency. Without question, the operation of the Act of 1852 had been most beneficial. The manner in which the Charity Commissioners had discharged their duties entitled them to public confidence. The Commission had been in existence for 28 years, and out of 7,100 orders which they had made only six had been appealed from, and out of those six appeals only two had been successful. That showed the value of their labours. The present Bill proposed, in several respects, to extend their powers, but not, he thought, in any way which the experience of the past did not justify. It contained 26 clauses, of which 16 were taken from the Bill of 1878, introduced by the late Government. The most important of the proposals not taken from the Bill of 1878 were, to enable charity funds to be vested in the official trustees, without in any way interfering with their administration, by the authority of the Commissioners, though no application might be made to them for that purpose; to enable the Commisssioners to settle schemes for the better administration of charities, according to existing trusts, subject to an appeal to the High Court of Justice, though the trustees of the charities might not themselves desire it, and
260
though the income might exceed £50 a-year; to enable the provisions of Acts of Parliament—he proposed to limit this to Private Acts—to be altered by such schemes; to enable the Commissioners, when it appeared by the accounts of charities rendered to them that monies had been misapplied, to order payment of such monies, subject to an appeal to the Court; and to place the appointment of new trustees of charities by co-optation under such regulations as would secure the appointment of fit persons, and prevent unnecessary expense to the charities. He should be willing to exempt incorporated charities, such as the great hospitals, and others like them, from those provisions which seemed to have excited their alarm, and which were really intended for cases of a very different kind. The objects of the Bill had been very much misunderstood in certain quarters; and he thought that, when this misunderstanding was removed, on a fair consideration of the provisions of the Bill, it would be approved by the country.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, his noble and learned Friend had given a faithful account of the Bill; but by a dexterous distribution of light and shade, in touching on its various provisions, he had withdrawn from the view of their Lordships the enormous change it made in the position of the Charity Commissioners towards the various charities of the country. Their Lordships must remember what wore the original functions of the Charity Commissioners. The function of the Commissioners was, with the consent of the trustees, to deal with charities all over the country, modifying provisions which had come down from remote times and were no longer suitable to the circumstances of the localities. Absolute power was subsequently given to them to deal with charities of a lower value than £50 a year. For that there was a great deal to be said, because it could not be expected that charities of an insignificant value would receive the same attention as larger ones at the hands of trustees. But what was proposed now was to take all the charities of the country, from the largest hospital to the smallest village foundation, and hand them over abso-

261
lutely to the direction of the Charity Commissioners. When he said direction, he did not mean that their daily administration would be in the hands of the Charity Commissioners; but if this Bill passed, the Charity Commissioners would have the power of re-writing the will of the founder, and not only that, but of re-writing the Statutes made since in respect of those charities, and even the schemes which had been sanctioned by the High Court of Chancery. It came to this—that whereas before they required that the trustees and the Charity Commissioners should concur, they now set the trustees aside and gave general and absolute power to the Commissioners. He was not arguing in favour of what was called the "dead hand," or of an absolute unalterability of the provisions of a trust, for he was well aware that as time went on the alteration of circumstances was such that trusts must frequently need modification; but he argued against the assertion that the Charity Commission were so very superior to the trustees of the great charities that it was right to dethrone the trustees and set up the Charity Commission in their place. While entirely agreeing that the Charity Commissioners had done good service, and disbelieving that they would make any misuse of powers placed in their hands, they could not, on the ground that the present members were excellent men, justify giving them such vast powers. It was impossible not to see that the effect of this great change would be to diminish everywhere the local supervision of the charitable trusts, and sweep them all under the direction of one central body—a central body which would be appointed by the Minister of the day; and the persons who enjoyed the benefits of these trusts and those who took an interest in them would see with alarm the result that the private and independent exercise of these trusts would disappear, and the vast revenues of the charities would be more and more administered in obedience to the behests of the central authority. There were clauses in this Bill for providing new schemes, which would have a very considerable effect. The trustees of all charities, however large, respectable, or important, must in future have their names sent up to the Charity Commission to be approved.
Distinguished gentlemen, who devoted a great deal of
262
their time and attention to these charities, might very well decline to have their names sent up to the Charity Commission, who, like other mortals, might cast a slur upon candidates by objecting to the names sent up. If it were not sufficient to be elected by those who were entitled to elect them, such gentlemen would, of course, retire. That would be the very general feeling; and great discouragement to the elected trustees would be the result. Again, some of the charities had a large property in land; but under this Bill in the smallest reference to a Court of Law, for getting the rent, perhaps, of a 2s. 6d. cottage, it would be necessary for the Charity Commission to institute a suit; and where injunctions were required, for instance, to prevent the value of house property being destroyed by building in front of it, it would be necessary to go to the Charity Commission to allow immediate reference to be made, lest delay should make the process useless. He thought the Bill would produce alarm and disgust among a large number of those who took pleasure in the administration of these trusts; and he believed that those who now conferred a great public benefit by much self - denying sacrifice of time and labour would withdraw from their independent administration when they found it transferred to the management of a Central Board in London. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might have every confidence in the excellent intentions of the Charity Commissioners, and he did not wish to doubt their good intentions; but he could not help calling attention to one recommendation in their last Report, which showed the kind of spirit by which they were actuated. They recommended that a number of inspectors should be appointed, and they added that it would be a matter for consideration whether it would not be advantageous that they should be ex-officio governors of the educational endowments in the district. The result of this proposal would be that the officers of the Commission would have votes, and might be supreme in the government of those educational charities. He did not wish to say a word disrespectful to the Charity Commissioners; but with all their burning desire to do good, and their seeming confidence that they alone could do good, they still required the greatest

263
vigilance to be exercised towards thorn on the part of their Lordships' House.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 24 th instant.

IRISH LAND BILL, 1870.
MOTION FOR A PAPER.
Moved, for a print of the Irish Land Bill, 1870, as read a first time in the House of Lords, showing by difference of print or ink, or by both methods, the amendments made in the Bill as returned to the Commons, and what afterwards became of such amendments, i.e., whether agreed to or disagreed to or further amended.—(The Earl Cairns.)
EARL SPENCERsaid, he thought such a Return rather unusual; but it was not the intention of the Government to offer any opposition to it. But there might be some difficulty in carrying it out. He desired to know if the noble and learned Earl wished to have a facsimile of the Bill, so as to show its complete history, or whether he only wished the Bill to be shown with the Amendments after it left the Commons and was presented to their Lordships' House, and the state in which it left on its return to the other House? He hoped the noble and learned Earl would allow the words to be added—"or otherwise."
EARL CAIRNSsaid, all he wanted was a print of the Bill as it was introduced in that House, and as it was afterwards when sent back to the Commons.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered to be laid before the House.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.