§ Commons Amendments to Amendments last made by the Lords, and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the said Amendments, and Commons further consequential Amendments, considered (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)My Lords, I have to move that the House do not insist upon the Amendment in page I, line 10, Clause 1, to which the Commons have disagreed. That is, the Amendment with regard to the limit for the Parish Councils.
§
Moved, that the following Amendment, as proposed by the Lords, be not insisted upon:—
In page 1, line 10. Clause 1.—("(1.) There shall be a parish meeting for every rural parish, and there shall be a Parish Council for every rural parish which has a population of two hundred or upwards: Provided that in every palish having a population of more than two hundred but less than five hundred, the parish meeting may pass a resolution that there shall be no Parish Council in that parish, and such resolution until rescinded shall have effect").
The Commons disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 10, for the following reason:—Because it is expedient that there should be a Parish Council for every parish with a population above two hundred.— (The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ Motion agreed to.
1106§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, the Resolution of the House of Commons in this matter is, I think, scarcely reasonable. The result of the Resolution, if it be accepted, will be that a very large number of parishes in the country, I think about 4,000, will be subject to the expensive provisions of this Bill. If you create a spending machinery that machinery will spend. You may put in what provisions you like: but if you force upon these little parishes Parish Councils, these Councils will spend up to the limit of 6d. in the £1. It is you, therefore, who will be responsible for imposing on all those 4,000 small parishes rates to the extent of 6d. in the £l, which they would not otherwise have been subjected to. I know that in this matter there is a very strong feeling among many County Members, and I have no doubt also among their constituents, and though I shall not go so far as to move to insist upon the Amendment I propose to amend it by inserting the words "three hundred," instead of the words "two hundred," in the clause.
§
Moved,
In page 1, line 11, to leave out ("two") for the purpose of inserting ("three"). — (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am very sorry to find that the noble Marquess is not disposed to accept this Amendment, and that he is going to pare down the advantages which we are proposing to give to the parishes by altering the limit from 200 to 300. No doubt the particular figure is not a matter of first-class importance, but we do hold strongly that it is very undesirable to deprive parishes of over 200 inhabitants of the advantage of getting Parish Councils. As to what the noble Marquess has said with regard to the certainty of their spending money, I do not know that it is at all probable that they will spend more than other bodies, but if they do-even spend up to 6d. in the £1 that is not a very alarming thing—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNot alarming?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYNo, certainly not. I do not think 6d. in the£1 is at all an alarming limit; and if they get from that expenditure, as I 1107 believe they will, very considerable advantages to the parish, I think the money will be extremely well laid out. I am sorry that at the outset of the consideration of these Amendments they have not been received in a more conciliatory spirit than has been shown by the noble Marquess, and I shall be compelled to divide the House upon the question.
§ EARL CADOGANsaid, the noble Earl had expressed regret that the noble Marquess had not shown a more conciliatory spirit in dealing with this Amendment, and, judging from the tone of the noble Earl's remarks, it would appear that the Amendment of the noble Marquess was entirely opposed not only to the spirit, but to the letter of the policy of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. Surely it was not out of place to remind the noble Earl that; this Amendment would leave the matter in exactly in the position in which it was when the Bill was brought in originally by the Government; and as the noble Earl had stated that in their view it was extremely important that all parishes down to the limit of 200 should have these Parish Councils, perhaps he would explain what had induced the Government to change their opinions and their policy upon this question.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON)My noble Friend who has just sat down seems to forget that in the Bill as originally introduced into the House of Commons there were provisions for compulsory grouping, and that it was in deference to the wishes expressed on both sides of the House that the Government removed those provisions with regard to grouping, and left the matter in the hands of the parishes concerned for their consideration. It was for that reason that they lowered the limit from 300 to 200. Consequently, the Amendment now proposed is not consistent at all with the original proposal of Her Majesty's Government, they having consulted the wishes of both sides of the House in making that amendment in the Bill.
§ *LORD NORTONsaid, their Lordships' Amendment would leave it to the smallest parishes themselves to form Councils if they wished to, but the object of the Government was to compel them to have 1108 Councils whether they desired or not. In many of these small parishes the only population was the principal landowner and his household, and dependents around him, and to have an annual election in those places would be a useless trouble and a great annoyance. The view of Her Majesty's Government of the blessing of perpetual electioneering was not taken by the whole country, and in many little parishes it would be felt, a curse instead of a blessing. He asked the noble Earl whether, if these parishes with 200 inhabitants did not wish to have annual elections, or these, to them, absolutely useless Parish Councils, there was any provision in the Bill to compel them to do so? If not, how was it proposed to compel these reluctant parishes against their wish to have Councils, and to incur the possible jobbing of annual elections? Was it to be done by a writ of mandamus, or what would be the method adopted?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI really do not see the connection between the reason given by my noble Friend opposite and the provisions it is intended to justify, either 200 or 300 as the rate in point of limit for the population to choose a Parish Council. It cannot make the slightest difference as to the circumstances which induce you to come to that conclusion, whether the 300 inhabitants are in an existing parish or in a parish composed of two smaller parishes fused together. It does not alter, either to diminish or increase, the arguments for putting the limit at 200 or 300. The truth is, that Her Majesty's Government in this, as in so many other matters, have changed their minds, and the limit of 300 which they originally adopted they have, in deference to the unfortunate counsels of those behind them, abandoned.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)I do not think that in this case, as in many others, the remarks of the noble Marquess are altogether accurate, because this limit of 200 was not, unless I am very much mistaken, really forced by the Government, or by the supporters of the Government, upon the other House. It was an arrangement come to in accordance with the general sense of the House, quite apart from any desire of the Go- 1109 vernment. Therefore, if ever an Amendment might be said to have come here founded upon the judgment of the other House, as distinguished entirely from Party arrangements or Tarty conditions, this is it, and that seems to me to he one very strong reason for not disturbing it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI have no doubt the noble and learned Lord speaks accurately from his belief; but I have been informed by those who should know what the intention and aim of the Opposition were better than any others that this Amendment is strongly desired by the Opposition in the other House, and that the idea that the limit of 200 was ever adopted with their consent or sanction is an entire mistake.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNESurely the Amendment should be to insert 300 instead of 500, not instead of 200, otherwise you will be obliging those parishes which have less than 300 inhabitants to have Parish Councils, and allowing those which have more to get rid of them.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)The 500 goes out altogether, because this House has not in. sisted upon the Amendment by which the 500 was inserted, and therefore as it stands now in the Bill it is 200. If you change 200 into 300 there will he a Parish Council for a population of 300, and then you provide subsequently that a population of 500 can have a parish meeting in order to determine the point.
§ On question, whether ("two") shall stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 55; Not-Contents 60.
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe next point is that the Commons disagree with the Amendment made in page 3, line 40, with regard to summoning the meetings; and they have disagreed because they share the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, which I have already expressed on a former occasion, that six parochial electors ought to be able to convene these meetings. I move, therefore, that the House do not insist upon its Amendment.
§ Moved, that the House do not insist upon its Amendment in page 3, line 40, Clause 4—
1110§ "(1.) In any rural parish in which there is no suitable public room, vested in the Parish Council or in the chairman of a parish meeting and the Overseers, which can be used free of charge for the purposes in this section mentioned, the parochial electors and the Parish Council shall be entitled to use, free of charge, at all reasonable times, and after reasonable notice, for the purpose of—
- (a) the parish meeting or any meeting of the Parish Council; or
- (b) any inquiry for parochial purposes by the Local Government Board, or any other Government Department or Local Authority; or
- (c) holding meetings convened by the chairman of the parish meeting or by the Parish Council, or otherwise, as the Local Government Board may by Rule prescribe, to discuss any question relating to allotments, under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, or under this Act; or
- (d) the candidature of any person for the District Council, or the Parish Council; or
- (e) any committee or officer appointed, either by the parish meeting or Council or by a County or District Council, to administer public funds within or for the purposes of the parish, any suitable room in the schoolhouse of any public elementary school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any suitable room the expense of maintaining which is payable out of any local rate."
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he could not agree with this proposal. The matter had not received in another place the consideration which ought reasonably and fairly to have been given to it. The object of the Amendment was simply that school managers should know who were entitled to convene the meetings for which the use of the school was to be allowed. He had proposed the Amendment that it should be by the Parish Council or the chairman of the parish meeting, or otherwise, as the Local Government Board might by Rule prescribe. By the Allotments Act of 1890 provision was made for the use of schoolrooms by consent for meetings called by any six parochial electors; but under this measure meetings could be held in schoolrooms without consent. By their Lordships' Amendment nothing would be required but a stroke of the pen by the Local Government Board to say that the 1111 same Rule in such a case should he observed. He had, however, no objection to amend the Amendment by putting in the words
or if as to allotments in manner prescribed by the Allotments Act, 1890,and then it would go onor otherwise, as the Local Government Board may by Rule prescribe.Their Lordships would hardly believe that the House of Commons had rejected the Amendment for the sole reason that it was expedient that six parochial electors should have power to convene these meetings. If the meetings were only under the Allotments Act one could understand that reason, although there was nothing whatever in the Amendment to prevent the Local Government Board repeating what was in the Act of 1890; but they were not meetings only for the purpose of allotments, they were also for the candidature of any person, and for committees and officers appointed by four different authorities for financial business. The provision as to six parochial electors was not made anywhere for any purpose whatever, except with regard to allotments. Surely, neither the Government nor the House of Commons could think it desirable that there should be no rule as to meetings of candidates, committees, and so on. When requested, school managers had a right to know that the meeting was proposed to be held for purposes and by persons authorised by the Act, but if the clause were left as at present no one could tell how meetings for candidates, committees, and officers, were to be convened. For aught that appeared, any single parochial elector, and not six, would be entitled to convene such meetings. He therefore asked their Lordships to disagree with the Amendment, and to insert those words.
§
Moved to insert,
("Or if as to allotments in manner prescribed by the Allotments Act, 1890").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord had met the point as to allotments, and he would, therefore, put that aside; but as to the other point, he had overlooked the difficulty that if in the case of a candidate's meeting it were left to the chairman to call it the power might not be always fairly used, because the chairman, if op- 1112 posed to the candidate, might not be disposed to give him an opportunity of presenting himself to the parishioners. For that reason it seemed essential that the six electors should, as provided in the Bill, have the power of convening a meeting.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that was not provided in the Bill. The Local Government Board would have power to provide for the case, and might say, if they thought right, that it should be done by six parochial electors. He felt compelled to take the opinion of the House upon the point.
§ THE DUKE OF RUTLANDdid not see why the chairman of the Council should be distrusted more than the Mayor of a borough.
§ On question, that the House do not insist upon the Amendment, with which the Commons had disagreed?—agreed to.
§ Amendment (The Earl of Selborne) agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved an Amendment of which he had not been able to give notice, but which was not at all controversial for the purpose of making Clause 9 clear as now amended, to insert at the end of the first sub-section, page 10, line 17—
And the Parish Council shall have the like power of petitioning the County Council as is given to six Parliamentary electors by Section 2 of the Allotments Act, 1890.It was intended by the Bill as now amended that the Parish Council should be able to petition the County Council. Under the Allotments Act six parochial electors might petition. This was purely a drafting Amendment to provide for the Parish Council going to the County Council, and was entirely in accordance with the Amendment of the noble Duke as adopted in substance in the other House. It would simply make it more clear than would otherwise be the case, that the Parish Council could go to the County Council for allotments, there being some doubt whether the clause as drawn by the noble Duke would sufficiently provide for it. These words would place it beyond doubt that the Parish Council had the same power as had the six Parliamentary electors under the present law.
§
Moved,
To insert in the first sub-section, page 10, line 17, the words "and the Parish Council shall have the like power of petitioning the County Council as is given to six Parliamentary electors by Section 2 of the Allotments Act. 1890."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Verbal Amendment.
§
THE MARCHESS OF.SALISBURY moved an Amendment to add, at the end of Sub-section 5 of Clause 9, the following words: —
Any Order made under this section overruling the decision of the County Council shall be laid by the Local Government Board before Parliament with their reasons for the same.
The clause as it had passed their Lordships' House had been altered by the Commons so as to give an appeal to the Local Government Board by the Parish Council if the latter did not obtain the verdict of the County Council on the subject of the compulsory taking of land for allotment. He would not raise an objection to that proposal, but he thought that it was very desirable, as they were giving very high judicial powers to a Government Department—to which ho had already explained his objection on principle—that all the securities that could be obtained from the full operation of public opinion should be secured in order to make as harmless as possible a process which was undoubtedly unusual—namely, that of giving to a Public Department the power of taking at their own will one man's land for the purpose of giving it to another.
§
Moved,
At the end of Sub-section 5 of Clause 9, to insert the words "any Order made under this section overruling the decision of the County Council shall be laid by the Local Government Board before Parliament with their reasons for the same."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he saw no objection to this Amendment if the noble Marquess would omit the words "with their reasons for the same." To call upon them to state the reasons seemed to be objectionable, but he would consent to the matter being laid before Parliament.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was willing to assent to that modification of his Amendment.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved, in Sub-section 6, with regard to the presentation of Memorials, to insert "by some persons interested therein." This would, no doubt, meet with their Lordships' assent, as it would only be done, of course, by persons interested.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved an Amendment to redeem a pledge given in the other House. The Government had given a pledge in the House of Commons that a maximum limit should be inserted for the term of hiring land under the Bill when the measure came before their Lordships. Some technical difficulty had arisen in the House of Commons which prevented its being put in there. He therefore begged to move in redemption of that promise. The period of 35 years had been chosen because that was the limit in the present Allotments Act.
§
Moved,
In Clause 10, page 10, line 29, to insert the words "for more than 35 years."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved several drafting Amendments to make the Bill clear. The House of Commons had agreed to their Lordships' Amendments for the purpose of placing the hiring of land upon the same footing as purchase.
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYtrusted that Sections 6 and 7 were not to be interfered with, because they were to save gentlemen's parks being turned into allotments.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, as far as he could gather, there was no alteration made. These Amendments were simply for the purpose of making the Bill clear, as regarded the Amendment of the noble Duke. There was no intention of interfering with anything.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL.)explained that they were entirely consequential upon what had been done elsewhere, as it was now necessary to take out certain words of reference where they occurred.
§ Drafting Amendments.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the next Amendment related to Clause 14 (charities). The Commons had disagreed with the Lords Amendment, and had substituted the word "may" for the word "shall," thus making the appointment of additional trustees optional instead of compulsory. He moved to agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I confess I think the Commons Amendment substituting "may" for "shall" is a very doubtful improvement. There is no doubt that in a great number of parishes the substitution will spare them the necessity of appointing trustees whom they do not wish to appoint, and whom they perhaps would have great difficulty in appointing. To that extent the alteration may make the clause more workable. But in the contentious parishes "may" is exactly the same thing as "shall"; but with this additional disadvantage—that in passing this word we shall be bequeathing a heritage of conflict to these parishes which will last for an indefinite period of time. Remember, my Lords, that these trustees are only appointed for three years; and if the Council is at liberty to reappoint or not reappoint them, if it is absolutely an optional matter at each election, the party which is in favour of the old trustees and the party which is adverse to the old trustees will come to fight again, and the whole intermediate period of three years will be occupied with the hostilities of the two parties to each other. The whole administration of the charity during that period will be coloured by references to the election which is coming and to the dispute which every three years has to be settled. There will be special modes of administering the charity recommended by the one party and the other. There will be special persons protected by the Church, let us say, and special persons protected by the Nonconformists; there will be special persons protected by the temperance advocates, and other special persons protected by the licensed victuallers, and so on. There will always be a cause of disturbance. Whether it will be an acute disturbance or merely a dull hostility will depend 1116 rather upon the part of the country in which the parish is situated and upon the race from which its inhabitants are drawn. But whether the dispute is violent or not, a dispute there will be, and a dispute that will be handed down, because you have left the decision in this question entirely to a vote to be taken every three years by the Parish Council. I infinitely prefer the clause as we sent it to the Commons; but I would rather make some sacrifice than leave the matter in this uncertain state. I propose, therefore, to move Mr. Fowler's clause as I moved it before, but to leave out the words
not exceeding in any case one-third of the whole number of the Governing Body.The effect of that omission will be that the Parish Council may, in the circumstances set out in the clause, appoint additional trustees not exceeding the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners. The matter will, therefore, have to be brought before the Charity Commissioners, and the number of trustees to be appointed will be decided by them. The Parish Council, of course, need not move in the matter unless they wish; but if they do, they cannot decide how many trustees are to be appointed. They will have to obtain the approval of the Charity Commissioners. I candidly say that I do not think the approval of the Charity Commissioners will be generally given to the extent of appointing a majority of trustees. But in cases where it is requisite, for the good administration of the charity, that a majority should be appointed, I have no doubt that the Charity Commissioners will give the necessary permission. The noble Lord opposite and the Lord Chancellor have always referred back to the previous action of the Charity Commissioners, and have said that in many cases the Commissioners have appointed elective trustees, and even a majority, to secure the better administration of a charity. But I hope that their argument will not be allowed to cover a larger amount of legislation than that to which it logically applies. I do not want the appointment of elected trustees and their substitution for the existing trustees to be made on grounds of mere caprice or any other less worthy motive. I wish by this clause as thus modified to have the security that the matter shall be considered by the Charity 1117 Commissioners, and that no action shall be taken in the way of appointing trustees except with their approval. If we obtain that approval, not only shall we have a security against capricious or undesirable motives influencing the Parish Council, but we shall have what seems to me to be of much more importance—a security for permanence of policy, so that that which has been once decided upon will not be altered again, and no standing cause of quarrel or conflict will be left between the parties who support the old trustees and the parties who support the new. I do not say that this is all I could desire, bur I am very anxious to bring this matter to a conclusion, and to offer a solution which may be tolerable to us without being intolerable to Her Majesty's Government. I hope the Government will consider it in that light, and not impose upon us the necessity of resisting more resolutely any change which will hand over to permanent conflict the charities in all the parishes of the country where differences of opinion may exist. I believe that is about the worst result of this legislation to which we could come, and, therefore, I earnestly press this remedy upon your Lordships.
§
Moved,
In page 15, line 1, to insert the words "and not exceeding in any case one-third of the whole number of the Governing Body."— (The Marquess of Salisbury.')
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYunderstood the noble Marquess to propose that the limit of one-third should be left out, and that the decisions as to the numbers should be left to the Charity Commissioners.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, in the first instance to the County Council and then to the Charity Commissioners.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am bound to say that, speaking on the matter with very little opportunity for consideration, it seems to me to be by no means an improvement on the clause as the noble Marquess originally proposed it. This proposal would practically deprive the parish altogether of the right to have a majority of elected trustees, and would throw the whole matter back upon the Charity Commissioners. That is really quite foreign to the policy of the clause. 1118 I can understand the view taken by noble Lords that there ought not to be a majority. That was the view taken by the noble Marquess in the Amendment he proposed the other night, and the view taken by others in this House. I understand, though I do not concur in, that view; but to say that we are to deprive the parishioners of the power we proposed to give to them, that they should be able to appoint a majority of trustees, seems to me to strike a very heavy blow indeed at the proposal in the Bill. I should have been very glad indeed to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess in the spirit of conciliation which ho himself ascribes to it, but I am bound to say that the gift which he tenders to us seems to contain elements which render it very difficult for me to say that we can accept it. I earnestly hope that the House will not insist upon putting aside the Amendment made in the Commons, which seems to me to meet very fairly the objections of those who do not like the principle of the clause as it stands—namely, that there shall be a majority of the trustees elected by the parish. Holding, as I do, entirely to the opinion which I expressed the other night, that there should be a majority of trustees elected by the parish to manage these parochial charities as being the right and sound principle, I admit that cases may, and probably will, arise where the clause as it stands would not work well, and where the appointment of a majority of trustees would be extremely difficult. These cases will arise in small parishes where there are not many people who can be entrusted with business of this kind, and, therefore, I think there is much to be said in favour of making this a permissive clause. But to cut at the root of the matter, and to say that the parishioners are not to have the power, seems to me to be open to the most serious objection. I am afraid I am one of those whose confidence in the Charity Commissioners is by no means unbounded, and I am quite certain that if there is one thing which would be obnoxious to the agricultural population throughout the country it is to compel them to go in these matters to the Charity Commissioners. Nothing that I know of would be more unpopular or would give rise to greater local jealousy. It would defeat the very object of the 1119 Bill, and deprive them of the liberty we propose to give them. Then, as to the desperate conflicts which the noble Marquess says he is afraid would take place, is it not a matter of everyday experience and a part of our social and political life to which we are accustomed that we should contest such questions? And is it not better that in these villages, so long stagnant, there should be introduced a little life? [Opposition laughter.] Noble Lords laugh, but that is one of the chief objects of the Bill, and their laughter only shows how utterly unable the Party opposite are to appreciate the legislation that is put before them. They tell us sometimes that they are in favour of the Bill. They may be in favour of the Bill in words, but they do not appreciate its spirit, or understand the ground or principle upon which it is based. So far as these terrible dissensions, which the noble Marquess holds up as his reason for not allowing parishioners to exercise their own discretion, are concerned, I think it is far better for the country, and for the prosperity of the agricultural population of this country, that they should occasionally arise than that the people should stagnate, that they should have no opportunity of exercising their own opinions, and that they should be prevented from having any control over their own affairs. There are many parts of the country where the population take no such interest in their own affairs; and I should only be too delighted to see them roused to a little more independent action, and a little more self-assertion in matters which concern themselves. I beg the pardon of the House for having gone perhaps rather beyond the immediate matter before us. I have no wish to interpose obstacles or to introduce controversial matters; but I earnestly entreat the House not to reject an Amendment which comes not merely from the Government, but from one whom noble Lords opposite value—Mr. Chamberlain. Although I am now, unfortunately, opposed to the right hon. Gentleman on many points, I may say that there is no man who is better acquainted with municipal life or better able to advise upon local government, and I attach the greatest weight to his authority upon a point of this kind. I do not hesitate, 1120 therefore, to commend this to the House upon that ground also.
*THE DIKE OF RUTLANDsaid, the noble Earl had commended this clause on the ground that it was likely to stimulate greatly strife and dissension throughout the country; but he should be very glad if an arrangement could be come to on this clause which would not necessarily and of malice prepense stimulate and exasperate dissensions throughout the country. The noble Earl had expressed no very great confidence in the Charity Commissioners, and he was disposed to agree with him; but in this very same clause those Commissioners were to be the supreme judges with reference to the number of trustees—whether the parish was largo enough to sustain the number of trustees given to it. If they were deemed worthy and capable of discharging so important a duty as that, they could surely equally well perform the duty which the Amendment of the noble Marquess would impose upon them. He considered that Amendment had gone as far as possible in the direction of conciliation, and he sincerely trusted it would be accepted.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEdeeply regretted that noble Lords should be put in the position of differing from the Government on this matter at the present stage of the Bill; but to him the question was not merely one of expediency, but something more, and he could not but think that the change from "shall" into "may" standing alone was of exceedingly small value. Lord Belper made that suggestion on a previous occasion, and also that trustees might be appointed not exceeding the number which would make a majority; but as the clause had come back to their Lordships no option was given. That was made still clearer by the latter portion of the clause. Under the clause the Parish Council or meeting, if they exercised their powers, had no option but to appoint such a number of trustees as would make a majority. To give no original authority to prevent an unreasonable state of things with reference to these charities but merely a subsequent authority to the Charity Commissioners to rectify it, as well as they could, at 1121 some future time, was so contrary to reason and principle that even at that stage of the Bill he could not consent to it. The operation of it would be more than double the number of trustees, great or small, in every case. The Bill took notice that the number of persons eligible to be trustees might not be sufficient within the prescribed limits of the parochial electors to make it suitable or convenient that the state of things which it called into existence should afterwards continue. If the Charity Commissioners were afterwards to judge whether, having regard to the funds to be administered, to the number of persons available as trustees, and to all the circumstances of the case, it was convenient and reasonable to give a majority, why should they not do so in the first instance, so as to prevent a state of things which might be inconvenient and unreasonable? Their Lordships had adopted the very words of the President of the Board of Trade expressly stating that the number should be such as the Charity Commissioners approved, not exceeding one-third; and the noble Marquess now offered a concession, by which that limit would be removed. When they dealt with the parish rooms reserved to the Church the Government insisted that the opinion of the Charity Commissioners should be obtained. The Amendment was both important on practical grounds, and right in principle. He certainly could not agree with the proposal of the Government.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out, in the absence of Lord Helper, that one very important part of that noble Lord's Amendment dealt with the number of trustees not exceeding a majority, and that the difference was, indeed, very material between his proposal and the proposal contained in the clause, which was, that if the Parish Councils elected any trustees at all they must elect a majority. He asked the Government whether they were prepared to accept the second portion of Lord Belper's Amendment as well as the first part, which altered "shall" into "may"?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas not sure that he quite clearly understood what the suggestion of the noble Lord was. The words suggested were "not 1122 exceeding a majority." Did that mean that there was to be a majority?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNreplied in the negative. Supposing the majority was four, the Amendment meant that the Parish Council might appoint one, two, three, or four trustees if they chose. As the Bill stood, in the same case it would be compulsory upon them to appoint four.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not understand that would be the effect of giving a majority of elected trustees.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl had stated that he could not imagine any proposal more unpopular, more hateful, or one more calculated to offend the agricultural labourers, with many other vituperative epithets, than this proposal to appeal to the Charity Commissioners. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to settle this question with Mr. Fowler, because it was the precise proposal which the President of the Local Government Board had placed on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons. Therefore, whatever there might bo of hatefulness in this proposal to the agricultural labourer, Mr. Fowler must bear a large responsibility for it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that as the clause now stood amended by the House of Commons, the Parish Council might elect a number of trustees forming a majority of the whole, but they need not elect any unless they chose. It was left optional to them. As he understood the noble Lord proposed that the Parish Council should have the option either to appoint a less number of trustees or to still retain the power to appoint a majority.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the House must first come to a. conclusion on the Motion before it.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREasked whether the House would vote first on the noble Marquess's Amendment, or on the Question of agreeing or disagreeing with the House of Commons?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the first Motion would be—
That the House do not insist upon the Amendment with which the Commons had disagreed.Then would come the Question of substituting "may" for "shall."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it would be necessary for him to insist in the first instance on their Lordships' Amendment, otherwise when the Division was taken upon "may" or "shall" they would have agreed upon the language up to that point. That was precisely what he did not want to do.
§ On question, that this House do not insist upon the Amendment with which the Commons have disagreed on page 15, line 1? agreed to.
§
Moved, in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, to reinsert Sub-section (3) with the following words omitted—namely,
and not exceeding in any case one-third of the whole number of the Governing Body."— (The Marques of Salsibury.)
§ On question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 83; Not-Contents 51.
§ On the Lords' Amendment providing that for the consideration of the affairs of the Church (including the election of Churchwardens) and of matters relating to ecclesiastical charities, separate meetings of the London Vestries should be held, and that the incumbents should be chairmen of such meetings,
§ Moved, "That their Lordships do not insist on the Amendment."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, this Amendment upon which the Commons had disagreed, because it was inexpedient to have separate meetings of Vestries in the cases referred to, was important. The Amendment dealt with ecclesiastical matters which at present went to the Vestry, but which would hereafter be dealt with by the Parish 1124 Council. In London it was proposed that the Vestries should remain as they were, and should have the same powers as they now possessed with a change in the mode of election, keeping in their hands ecclesiastical affairs, and the Incumbent no longer to be chairman. He had no desire whatever to contend that the clergyman should be chairman when the Vestry were dealing with civil affairs of whatever kind; but when they were dealing with the affairs of the Church, it seemed very unreasonable to dislodge the Incumbent from his position. Moreover, it was not consonant with the general principles of the Bill to oust the Incumbent from the chairmanship of a body which was still to be entrusted with ecclesiastical matters. He proposed in his Amendment that there should be separate meetings for the consideration of the affairs of the Church, and that the Incumbent should be the chairman of those separate meetings. He was quite willing to insert in his Amendment any words that would make the separation between ecclesiastical and civil affairs more clear and distinct; but he hoped the House would go with him in maintaining that it was not right to deprive the clergyman of his position in a body which dealt with matters so closely connected with his office, and which had been hitherto so largely left in his hands. It was objected that it would be inconvenient to have two chairmen, but he would remind their Lordships that there were two chairmen in the House of Commons—the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, and two in their Lordships' House, and no inconvenience was caused by that arrangement. He hoped the House would support him in insisting on this Amendment.
§ Moved, "That the House do insist on its Amendment."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there were considerable objections to what the right rev. Prelate desired, and one of them seemed well worth the consideration of the House. He was informed that very serious legal difficulties might arise if this provision were made, because it would be extremely difficult to know when affairs were purely ecclesiastical and when not. If the chairman presided on the wrong occasion the whole 1125 proceedings might be vitiated. This was a serious and weighty objection, and as these matters had hitherto been transacted under lay chairmen without difficulty the Amendment was altogether unnecessary, and he could not agree to it.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that if Vestries never concerned themselves at all with the affairs of Church there was no reason why they should be allowed to do so, but here and there Vestries would be found who very much concerned themselves with the affairs of the Church.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYventured to suggest to the right rev. Prelate that as many noble Lords who would naturally sympathise with him had left the House he should not challenge a Division.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that if the House had practically settled the question beforehand it would, of course, be foolish to go to a Division. Upon the whole, however, he would take the opinion of the House.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that if the Amendment were insisted upon it might endanger the Bill, and he did not think the right rev. Prelate could attach so much importance to it as to desire that that should happen. If the Motion should be carried there would hardly be time for it to be dealt with.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was because of the form—that their Lordships insisted.
§ On question? resolved in the negative.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved the consideration of the next Amendment providing that the expression "ecclesiastical charity" should include any building which, in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, had been erected or provided within 40 years before the passing of the Act mainly by any particular Church or Denomination. The Commons had reinstated the words "within 40 years before the passing of 1126 the Act," which had been previously struck out by the Lords. He moved that their Lordships agree to the reinstatement of the words.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsuggested that the Amendment of the Commons might be amended with advantage by substituting "60 years" for 40. The period of 40 years was too short, and many persons would be disturbed in their livings by its operation. At the expiration of 60 years there would probably be no living donors to deal with.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped the right rev. Prelate would not insert a proviso which seemed to go extravagantly in the direction of protecting these charities. The limit of 40 years was reasonable, and had been put in to suit all parties. To substitute 60 years would be going beyond anything that was reasonable.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, whatever precedent there might be for 40 years, he was surprised the Government had not followed that of 50 years in the Endowed Schools Act, which was in pari materia. It would have been much more reasonable to have adhered to that term than to have brought in this entirely new one.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that that precedent had been considered by the Government, but they could not depart from the words in the Commons Amendment, as a distinct understanding had been arrived at between all parties that they would be adhered to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdoubted whether the noble Earl's memory served him rightly when he said that a pledge had been given on this subject. The noble Earl's memory was hardly a photograph of what had been done as regarded the conduct of the Opposition.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEthought that the limitation to any certain number of years was against reason and principle, and that the difference between 40 and 50 years was not worth fighting about. It was with great reluctance that he yielded to the conclusion, forced against him by the Division in Committee, that 1127 submission on this point would probably be the course of wisdom.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, with regard to the origin of the Amendment, which the noble Marquess opposite seemed to doubt, it had been drawn by Members of the Opposition in the other House.
§ Commons Amendment agreed to.
§ A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords insisting on one of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.