Lords Sitting of 24 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* (93); Local Government Provisional Order (Birmingham)* (94); Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford &c.)* (95).
Committee—Charitable Trusts Acts Amendment (59–96).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (79); Bridges (South Wales)* (83), and passed.

TURKEY AND GREECE—THE CONVEN TION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the rumour that there has been a delay in the signing of the Convention between Greece and Turkey has any foundation?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question put by the noble Earl, I have to state that there was a little delay owing to a point of form; but I understand that the Convention has been signed this afternoon.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS AMEND MENT BILL.—(No. 59.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Provision for transfer of property to official trustees).
THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after ("charity,") to add—
("Of which the trustees or other persons in whom such real or personal estate is vested are not incorporated.")
Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
EARL CAIRNS,in rising to move the omission of the clause as amended, said, he was quite aware that the Government had inserted this power at the request of the Charity Commissioners, who, in their Report, had signified a desire to possess it; but he (Earl Cairns) contended that the granting of it would be attended with so much inconvenience that their Lordships ought not to comply with the request, seeing that there could be no doubt it was a power the Charity Commissioners meant to exercise all round. As he understood it, there were two reasons put forward as to why the Government asked for this power. In the first place, because it was thought that charity property would be much more safe in the hands of the Charity Commission than in those of the various trustees scattered up and down all over the country. In regard to landed pro-
1184
perty, that was not the case—for the trustees could not make away with it—it was perfectly safe where it was; and with regard to personal property, he wanted to know if there had been any loss owing to the action of the present trustees? The Charity Commissioners did not give any case; and he thought it was too much to say that there was any real danger in leaving it where it was. Then, again, it was urged, in the second place, that the large expenditure now incurred under a change of trustees would be lessened; but if a Bill, which had already passed their Lordships' House became law, the cost of transferring trust-property would be made an insignificant matter, as it would be diminished by three-fourths. He was, moreover, not at all sure whether it would not, on the whole, be better to adopt the Scotch system of making a simple minute of appointment of new trustees in their Minute Book valid for the passing to and investment in them of all the property in the possession of the old trustees. He thought the clause, as it stood, was something in the nature of a rebuff to all charity trustees throughout the Kingdom; and it would also have the effect of retarding charitable bequests, since it would encourage the apprehensions which were always felt, not only by the trustees of charities, but by many who gave charitable bequests, that there existed a design on the part of the State at some time to get charity property under its control for the purpose of taxation or manipulation of some kind; and nothing would tend to excite that feeling more vividly than the centralization of the property in the name of one of the officers of a Public Department in London. Another point in favour of the change was the question of expense, owing to the change of trustees. But, he asked, would the expense and trouble not be much greater than anything which would arise from change of trustees? The consequence of vesting estates in an official trustee would be that every lease of property in the country, and every document of letting, must be sent up to London to be executed by the official trustee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdissented from the statement.
EARL CAIRNSbelieved his view was correct; and would also point out that in the case of funded property, the offi-

1185
cial trustee would receive the dividends; and there must either be a power of attorney from him to the acting trustees to receive the money, or else, when the official trustee had received the money, he must in some way or other remit it to the actual trustees. It was absolutely certain that this operation must occasion a great deal of expense, annoyance, and personal trouble, and no more violent shock could be given to that very numerous and competent body of gentlemen who acted as trustees of charities than to suddenly, by an Act of Parliament, strip them of the legal holding of all the real and personal property which they had hitherto held, and which they had hitherto administered to the general satisfaction of the public. He therefore hoped their Lordships would agree that it was desirable to leave the property as it stood at present, and he would ask them not to pass the clause, on the ground that it was a needless interference with charity trusts, with no corresponding advantages.
Moved, "To leave out the Clause as amended."—(The Earl Cairns.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) had spoken in forgetfulness that incorporated charities were now exempted from the operation of the clause; and he had also proceeded upon the assumption that because this power was given to the Charity Commissioners, they would immediately proceed to put it in operation with regard to all the charity estates in the Kingdom. Practically, however, their Lordships knew that general powers of this sort were not so exercised; and it would only be when particular circumstances brought particular estates and funds to the knowledge of the Commissioners that they would exercise their judgment as to whether it was expedient to take advantage of this power. He entirely demurred to the proposition that the object of the clause was to vest in the Charity Commissioners, through the official trustees, ipso facto, all the estates and funds of all the charities in the country. Its object was the removal of restrictions in the way of doing that which, in certain circumstances, was done already. His noble and learned Friend had asked what was the necessity for the clause, and had said that no loss had been shown under the present
1186
system. Did not his noble and learned Friend know that the records of the Court of Chancery were full of cases of applications to the Court, and litigation arising out of, he would not say the fraud, but the misappropriation of the capital of trust funds by trustees of charities—misappropriations due, in most cases, to misconceptions of their duty? Beyond all question, if these funds were vested in an official trustee, that practice would be effectually stopped. He referred his noble and learned Friend to the 12th section of the Act 32 & 33 Vict. c. 110, as showing that the vesting of the dry legal estate in the official trustees did not deprive the trustees of the charity of the power of making leases and other agreements. There would be no difficulty in having dividends paid to the trustees of the charity; and he denied that there was anything in the arguments of his noble and learned Friend founded on expense and sentiment. It appeared to him, that transferring the legal estate in charity funds and lands to a central authority, instead of increasing, would very much lessen the expenses, except when the trustees were incorporated. The real power would still remain with the trustees. He could not see any argument against the clause in the fact that it had been recommended by the Charity Commissioners, a public Body who had the interests of the charities at heart. All that was proposed to be done was to render more available for the security of charity property, and for the reduction of the cost of managing it, machinery devised for the very purpose and already in extensive operation.
LORD CLINTONsaid, that, as one who had been a Charity Commissioner, he heartily supported the clause. The sole desire of the Charity Commissioners in promoting it was to prevent abuses and the waste of charity property. In reality, no new power was conferred by the clause, the object of which was to remove certain restrictions in the exercise of powers already conferred upon the Commissioners. £10,000,000 were already vested in the official trustees, and the system was found to work beneficially, and interfered in no respect with the administration of the income by trustees of charities. As a proof of the necessity that existed for such a provision, he would refer their Lordships

1187
to the numerous cases in which loss had occurred in consequence of the misappropriation by trustees of the funds of charities under their control; and he earnestly hoped their Lordships would take that opportunity of preventing a recurrence of those abuses which in the past had constituted a sad chapter in the history of the charitable institutions of the country.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that if there existed the danger which his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), and his noble Friend (Lord Clinton), had pointed to, it would be the duty of the Charity Commissioners to make the clause one of universal application, and they would be bound in every case to transfer the property to the official trustee, lest by any chance there might be misappropriation. Incorporated bodies were to be exempted by his noble and learned Friend's Amendment; but why? Might not misappropriation be made by one of those Corporations, or by their officer? At that moment there were a great many charity properties vested in the official trustees by desire of the trustees of the charities. He had no objection where charity properties were so invested at the desire of the trustees of the charity, or by order of a Court of Equity; but, without some further reason, he was unable to see why Parliament, by a universal clause like this, should take property from a great number of persons who did not wish to part with it, and to place it in the hands of officials. He conceived that in doing so Parliament would be acting in a manner of extreme violence to the trustees of the country, who had not asked for the intervention of official trustees.
LORD ABERDARE,in supporting the clause, said, that, so far as could be ascertained, the amount of trust money in charitable funds was about £17,000,000, of which £10,000,000 was in the hands of the Commissioners. He would ask their Lordships to consider whether the funds in the hands of the Commissioners were not in the highest degree carefully and conscientiously managed, while the funds that required to be looked after most zealously were those which the Commissioners had been unable to reach—namely, those in the heads of corporate bodies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, with reference to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) they applied entirely to personalty; but the realty would equally, under the clause, be swept into the net of the official trustees. It was the experience of many of their Lordships that no clause of the Bill excited so much aversion among the trustees of charities throughout the country as that which was before the House. [Ministerial cheers.] He could understand those cheers. They meant, no doubt, that it was the intention of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), by the clause, to frustrate any guilty intention on the part of trustees; but it was precisely those trustees who had taken the greatest interest in their charities who considered the proposed clause would be specially prejudicial and most obnoxious. He thought it very undesirable to drive away from the management of charitable trusts the men whose co-operation was most valuable, as the clause most assuredly would do.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the reason of their aversion was that the clause had been totally misunderstood, it having been thought that it was intended to take the whole management of trust property out of the hands of trustees, which was an entire mistake.
On question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 75; Not-Contents 106: Majority 31.

CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Minto, E.

Morley, E.

Northbrook, E.

Bedford, D.

Onslow, E.

Devonshire, D.

Spencer, E.

Grafton, D.

Sydney, E.

Somerset, D.

Powerscourt, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Sherbrooke, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Northampton, M.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

London, L. Bp.

Airlie, E.

Camperdown, E.

Aberdare, L.

Clarendon, E.

Annaly, L.

Derby, E.

Ashburton, L.

Devon, E.

Belper, L.

Ducie, E.

Blachford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blantyre, L.

Granville, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)[Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Lovelace, E.

Carew, L.

Carlingford, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carrington, L.

Carysfort,L. (E. Carysfort.)

O'Hagan, L.

Penzance, L.

Churchill, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Clinton, L.

Romilly, L.

Colchester, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Coleridge, L.

Crewe, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Fitzhardinge, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Sandhurst, L.

Sandys, L.

Greville, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Lawrence, L.

Sudeley, L.

Leigh, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Lyttelton, L.

Meldrum, L.(M.Huntly.)

Thurlow, L.

Truro, L.

Methuen, L. [Teller.]

Waveney, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monde.)

Wenlock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Sondes, E.

Verulam, E.

Beaufort, D.

Wilton, E.

Marlborough, D.

Norfolk, D.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Portland, D.

Richmond, D.

Gough, V.

Hardinge, V.

Abergavenny, M.

Ha warden, V. [Teller.]

Bristol, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Bute, M.

Salisbury, M.

[Teller.]

Winchester, M.

Melville, V.

Strathallan, V.

Amherst, E.

Annesley, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Ashburnham, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Bathurst, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Beauchamp, E.

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Belmore, E.

Bradford, E.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Cadogan, E.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Cairns, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Cathcart, E.

Coventry, E.

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Denbigh, E.

Aveland, L.

Feversham, E.

Brabourne, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Braybrooke, L.

Haddington, E.

Braye, L.

Harewood, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ilchester, E.

Jersey, E.

Byron, L.

Lucan, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Manvers, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Nelson, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Clifton,L. (E. Darnley.)

Colville of Culross, L.

Ravensworth, E.

Congleton, L.

Redesdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Romney, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Selkirk, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Digby, L.

1190

Dinevor, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Donington

Penrhyn, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Plunket, L.

Forbes, L.

Poltimore, L.

Gage, L.(V. Gage.)

Scarsdale, L.

Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Harris, L.

Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

Hawke, L.

Hylton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kenlis, L.(M. Headfort.)

Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lamington, L.

Tredegar, L.

Leconfield, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Lovel and Holland, L.

(E. Egmont.)

Windsor, L.

Northwick, L.

Winmarleigh, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Resolved in the negative.
Clause 3 (Extension of jurisdiction under 23 & 24 Vict., c. 136, s. 2).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 20, to insert after "Act," the words "other than orders for the establishment of a scheme for the administration of the charity," said, the meaning of his proposed Amendment was veiled in technical language; but it was this. At present, under the existing law, the Charity Commissioners had the power of framing schemes for charities with incomes under £50 per annum, and might do so without the concurrence of the trustees. That exceptional power was conferred upon the Charity Commissioners by Parliament, in reference, in the first place, to charities with incomes under £30 per annum, an amount that was afterwards raised to £30; because it was thought that these charities were too small to attract sufficiently the attention of their trustees in country districts, and that such charities were exceptional in this—that they were open not so much to malversation and abuse as to neglect, and because they were mostly established for purposes the utility of which had disappeared. It was now proposed by the clause under consideration, as it stood at present, to extend the power of making new schemes, now limited to the case of small charities vested in the Charity Commissioners, to the case of all charities throughout the country, without any regard to the amount of the charity funds, or whether the trustees were consenting parties to the proposed

1191
change or not. The "making of new schemes" was the largest possible phrase that could be applied to the manipulation of charities. The power which it was now proposed to confer upon the Charity Commissioners to make new schemes would place them, as regarded all charities, in precisely the position occupied by the original founders, whose wills and deeds of gift they would be able to re-write. They would be able to divert the funds of the charities, not only from the immediate objects which it was the desire of the founders to carry out, but to apply them to objects of a totally different character. It was perfectly true that, through the lapse of time, the object which a founder might originally have had in view might become obsolete, and that a change in the direction in which the fund should be applied might become necessary. But sufficient provision in that respect was already made by the existing law. As the law now stood, the necessary change could be brought about by a majority of the trustees making application to the Charity Commissioners to draw up a new scheme. The present clause, if agreed to without Amendment, would practically put aside the trustees altogether, and would hand over the whole control of the charitable funds of the country to the Charity Commissioners. His Amendment did not propose to maintain unalterably the application of the funds of either the old or the new charities of the country; while the clause, as it stood, proposed to set aside the trustees altogether, and to put the Charity Commissioners in their place. In fact, it was an attempt to set up a gigantic scheme of centralization. Now, although he had confidence in the present Charity Commissioners, he was not prepared to place unbounded confidence in all those who came after them. While he did not for a moment doubt the bona fides of those who had made this proposal, he desired to point out that the Charity Commissioners were appointed by the Government of the day, that their composition varied from time to time, and as they might be selected to carry out the ideas of the Government, it would be impossible to forecast what policy would direct them in framing new schemes for all the charities of the Kingdom, which, in the
1192
end, might lead to great abuses. He, therefore, moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Moved, In page 1, line 20, after ("Act"), to insert ("other than orders for the establishment of a scheme for the administration of the charity.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in opposing the Amendment, said, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) was fully justified in expressing confidence, not only in the present Charity Commissioners, but in those who had preceded them; for they had hitherto discharged their duties in a manner that entitled them to general confidence. He (the Lord Chancellor) would call attention to the fact that since they had been established the Charity Commissioners had before them 7,100 appealable cases. Out of that large number, there had been only six appeals, and only two of their orders had been discharged on appeal. With such an example of what these Commissioners had done in the past, he thought it was unfair to suppose that they would act differently in the future. Upon grounds of public policy he protested against the view being put forward in either House of Parliament that a Body of this character was to be distrusted, merely because some of its members were, from time to time, appointed by the Government of the day. If that argument were once seriously entertained, it was difficult to see where its application would end, as it might be used against giving power to a Court or to a Judge, and many other great officials of State. The effect of the Amendment would be to give a veto to the trustees of every charity above £50 a-year, whatever scheme of administration might be devised by the Charity Commissioners. Now, it was not when the trustees were zealous and enlightened, but when they were the reverse, that a scheme might be most wanted; and, in that case, the trustees would be the last persons to apply for it. The clause, if adopted, would not, as was supposed, give the Charity Commissioners power to reconstruct charities. It would simply enable them, upon the motion of the Attorney General, or of two persons interested in the charity, to settle a scheme which any persons who were dissatisfied with it,

1193
and especially the trustees, might make the subject of appeal to the Chancery Division. The want of the proposed power was constantly a source of embarrassment, obliging the Commissioners to do their work by halves.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he did not deny that the Charity Commissioners had done very good service in past times and in relation to many things; but it did not, therefore, follow that they would act with equal efficiency if a totally different work was assigned to them, as was proposed in the present Bill; and he therefore, while approving generally the clause, thought it ought not to be passed unless it was modified in the form suggested by his noble Friend. What the present clause did was to give power to any two discontented parishioners to appeal to the Charity Commissioners; and he doubted whether there was a parish in England in which two persons could not be found to complain, and he thought that when there was any dispute it ought to be settled face to face in the way in which any disputed question could best be settled—namely, before a responsible tribunal. Nothing would lead to more heart-burning and more unpleasantness to those who had charge of the duty of administering charities than that statements should be made behind their backs, and that the Charity Commissioners should proceed to settle a scheme which would change the administration without both sides being openly represented in Court.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no intention of proposing that the Charity Commissioners should go behind the backs of trustees; but that they should act after communication with them, and in such a manner as to provide for the best result being obtained at the smallest cost. In the case of complaint, the Charity Commissioners would communicate with the trustees, who would be fully heard. If the two persons were merely impertinent intruders, their complaints would not be taken any notice of. The objection to forcing all cases of dispute into Court was the enormous expense involved. What was done before the Commissioners, in their private room, was done at vastly less expense than in open Court, and in the great majority of cases there was no appeal from the decision of the Commissioners.
LORD CLINTONsupported the clause.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, it had been stated that under the clause the Charity Commissioners could rewrite the will of a founder. He did not for a moment think they would do so; but he desired to know whether such a power was conferred upon them?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply to the right rev. Prelate, said, that under the Bill a new scheme might be settled in cases contemplated by the section under consideration by the trustees, or by the Court of Chancery; but it was only in the event of there being surplus funds to dispose of that the will of the founder could be departed from. When there were no such surplus funds, the Commissioners would have regard to the intentions of the founder, and simply put the mode of executing them on a proper footing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it had been intimated that the question raised by the clause was not one of great importance. If that were so, it was hardly worth while to alarm and distress all the trustees of charities in the country by this provision. But Parliament, in 1860, did not consider it of small importance, otherwise they would not have given the trustees the power which they did at that time. As the law stood, the trustees were able to express their views; but when the law was altered the charities would be entirely handed over to the Charity Commissioners.
On question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 96; Not-Contents 55: Majority 41.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Bradford, E.

Cadogan, E.

Beaufort, D.

Cairns, E.

Marlborough, D.

Carnarvon, E.

Norfolk, D.

Coventry, E.

Portland, D.

Denbigh, E.

Richmond, D.

Feversham, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Abergavenny, M.

Haddington, E.

Bristol, M.

Harewood, E.

Bute, M.

Jersey, E.

Salisbury, M.

Lucan, E.

Winchester, M.

Manvers, E.

Nelson, E.

Amherst, E.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Annesley, E.

Ashburnham, E.

Ravensworth, E.

Bathurst, E.

Redesdale, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Romney, E.

Belmore, E.

Rosslyn, E.

1195

Selkirk, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Sondes, E.

Dinevor, L.

Verulam, E.

Donington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Forbes. L.

Granard, L.(E. Granard.)

Gough, V.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Grey de Radcliffe, L.(V. Grey de Wilton.)

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Harris, L.

[Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Melville, V.

Hylton, L.

Strathallan, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Lamington, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Leconfield. L.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Lovel and Holland, L.(E. Egmont.)

Ely, L. Bp.

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Northwick, L.

Oranmore and Browne,

Llandaff, L. Bp.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Ormathwaite, L.

Plunket, L.

Airey, T.

Poltimore, L.

Arundell of Wardour,

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Braybrooke, L.

Braye, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Chelmsford, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Clements, L.(E. Leitrim.)

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Tollemache, L.

Tredegar, L.

Congleton, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Cottesloe, L.

De Lisle and Dudley,

Windsor, L.

Winmarleigh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Annaly, L.

Ashburton, L.

Belper, L.

Bedford, D.

Blachford, L.

Devonshire, D.

Blantyre, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Northampton, M.

Brabourne, L.

Carlingford, L.

Airlie, E.

Carrington, L.

Camperdown, E.

Churchill, L.

Derby, E.

Clinton, L.

Ducie, E.

Colchester, L.

Forteseue, E.

Coleridge, L.

Granville, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Kimberley, E.

Lovelace, E.

Lawrence, L.

Minto, E.

Leigh, L.

Morley, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Northbrook, E.

Meldrurm, L. (M. Huntly.)

Spencer, E.

Sydney, E.

Methuen, L. [Teller.]

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Powerscourt, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sherbrooke, V.

O'Hagan, L.

London, L. Bp.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Aberdare, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

1196

Remilly, L.

Sudeley, L.

Rosebery, L. (D. Rosebery.)

Sundridge, L. (D.Argyll.)

Sandhurst, L.

Thurlow, L.

Skene, L,(E. Fife.)

Wenlock, L.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Resolved in the affirmative.
On the Motion of the Marquess of SALISBURY, clause further amended, in page 1, line 25, by leaving out from ("pounds") to end.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 (Approval of schemes made under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, ss. 54–60).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 27, and throughout the clause, to substitute "the Committee of Council on Education," for "one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State," said, he was not quite clear how the clause was intended to work. Before proposed alterations were laid before Parliament they were to be submitted to the Home Secretary; and he was not aware that at the Home Office there was any machinery corresponding to that of the Education Department for inquiring into the details of educational schemes. He did not know whether the Home Secretary was to have the power of altering or modifying any scheme before it was petitioned against that was now exercised by the Education Department. The Home Office did not seem to be a very suitable Office for such revision; it had no sub-departments to which the work could be referred. The practical result would be that the work of the Charity Commissioners would be entirely unsupervized, and the Home Office would practically allow them to do pretty much what they pleased. This method of proceeding by schemes required to be watched with much jealousy, or it would result in giving a Public Department unchecked power to make Acts of Parliament. He feared the effect of the proposed change would be to diminish the checks which now existed upon the acts of the Commissioners, and that there would be no check left over any proposals, except the power of moving an Address during the 60 days that a scheme was before Parliament. For the several reasons he had given, he would move

1197
the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
Moved, In page 2, line 27, and throughout, to substitute ("the Committee of Council on Education") for ("one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that all that was done was to substitute the Home Secretary for the discharge of functions which, under the Endowed Schools Act, were assigned to the Education Department, in respect of proposals which were not educational in their character, and in which, therefore, the Education Department was not concerned. Already the Home Office exercised, as to Scotland, not merely a concurrent, but, in some respects, an overruling supervision, even in regard to matters that were educational; and in many local matters of another kind, such as were usually made the subject of Provisional Orders, it had machinery which enabled it to do exactly what was done by the Education Department with regard to educational charities. The action of the Home Office in such matters was well known and understood, and it would be less anomalous to charge the Home Office with this business than to devolve on the Education Department responsibility for charities that were not educational.
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the majority of the schemes in question were connected with education; and, as far as he was acquainted with the Home Office, he could not help thinking it was unfitted to deal with them.
EARL SPENCERsaid, the Education Office might feel flattered by the way it had been referred to, and the confidence that had been expressed in it; but he did not relish the suggestion that it should deal with charities not connected with education. There might, perhaps, be some convenience in having educational schemes referred to the Education Department; but there many other charity schemes in no way connected with education, and he would rather not have them referred to the Education Department. While, however, he objected to the clause as altered by the proposed Amendment, he was perfectly willing to consent to such a modification of it as would provide that if the Home Office wished to divert or change any endow-
1198
ment, or part of an endowment, to educational purposes, the scheme, or part of a scheme relative to it, might be referred to the Education Department; but, with the large mass of business already on its hands, he should object to what was not germane to it being thrown upon the Department.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he could not agree to the suggestion of the noble Earl the President of the Council. They knew something of the Education Department, which, on the whole, had given satisfaction; but the Home Office, so far as it had meddled with this sort of business, had not been so successful.
On question, resolved in the affirmative.
Words substituted accordingly.
On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made:—
In page 2, line 40, after ("either") add ("on such (if any) of the grounds of appeal mentioned in that Act as may be applicable to the case, or.")
On the Motion of Lord CLINTON, the insertion of the following Proviso in page 2, after line 36, was agreed to:—
"Provided that no scheme shall be approved or certified by the Board under this clause which deals with any property originally given to charitable uses less than fifty years before the date of the approval or certifying of the scheme, except upon the application of the trustees of the charity, or a majority of them, made in the manner prescribed by section four of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1860."
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Act of Parliament relating to charity to be alterable as provisions of founder).
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 9, after ("any") add ("private"); line 14, after ("founder") insert ("in the case of a charity having a founder").
On the Motion of Earl CAIRNS, from the word "Provided" in line 15, to the word "Court" in line 20 was struck out of the clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Modification in certain cases of objects of charity) agreed to.
Clause 7 (Recovery of money improperly expended out of charity).
EARL CAIRNS,in moving the omission of the clause, said, that there were not sufficient safeguards for the protection of trustees and others. It provided for the recovery of money improperly expended out of charitable funds; but it would make the Charity Commissioners both the prosecutors and the judges.
Moved, "To leave out the Clause."—(The Earl Cairns.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the power proposed to be given by this clause would, in all cases, be subject to an appeal to the Chancery Division. Without it, there would be no effectual audit of the accounts, now required by law to be rendered to the Charity Commissioners; and it would save the expense of litigation, in cases of clear and undisputed liability. It was only in cases in which a primâ facie case had been made out that the Board might make an order, and if it were found that there was any real ground for contesting the matter in a Court of Law no order could be made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsupported the Amendment.
On Question, resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 8 (Power of Court to remit to Charity Commissioners to frame scheme) agreed to.
Clause 9 (Power of Board to apply to Court respecting property of charity).
EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the Charity Commissioners had not got a staff of solicitors or counsel; but by the clause, for the first time, they were themselves to appear in court. He wanted to know whether the Attorney General was superseded? If the Charity Commissioners were to be heard, they would have to employ counsel, and then would arise the question of costs, as to which he wished to have some information. On the whole, he regarded the clause as unsafe, and he therefore moved its omission.
Moved, "To leave out the Clause."—(The Earl Cairns.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that there were similar clauses to those
1200
which followed this in the Bill introduced in 1878, with which he believed his noble and learned Friend had been satisfied; and this clause was wanted, to enable the Commissioners to have access to the Court in cases, with the circumstances of which they were already well acquainted, and also for the security and proper management of charity funds which might happen to be in Court. He thought it desirable that in certain cases the Charity Commissioners should have power to apply to the Court for directions as to the management of property. The costs would be paid out of the funds only when the Court so ordered.
EARL CAIRNSrepeated his belief that, as costs would be incurred in every case, the difficulty he anticipated would be certain to occur.
On question, resolved in the affirmative.
Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, Clause 13 (Production of deeds), struck out.
Clauses 14 to 25, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following new Clause added, to follow Clause 25:—
(Appointment of inspectors.)
"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by warrant under Her sign manual, to appoint such number of Assistant Charity Commissioners, permanent or temporary, as Her Majesty may think necessary for the purpose of enabling the Board to perform the duties for the time being imposed upon them under any Act of Parliament.
"The Assistant Commissioners appointed under this Act shall perform such duties as may be assigned to them by the Board with the sanction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and shall be possessed of the same powers, authorities, and jurisdiction, and be entitled to the same privileges as the inspectors appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.
"There shall be repealed the third section of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1855, and so much of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, as relates to the appointment of inspectors, and so much of section three of the Endowed Schools Act, 1874, as relates to the appointment of Assistant Commissioners, without prejudice nevertheless to any appointment made previously to the passing of this Act, in pursuance of the enact-

1201
ments so repealed, or any of such enactments."
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 96.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.