Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

12 erthygl ar y dudalen hon



CHARITY COMMISSION INQUIRY AT SLJAVID'S. YERBATIM REPORTS. [Cvnti/iued frvm last issiit. ] The Sub-Chanter: I did. Mr. Williams: Did you in the usual way conveae a meeting The Sub-Chanter: I did. The Commissioner: When you convene a meeting, do you endeavour to make it con- venient for youi co-trustees, or do you hx a date to suit yourself ? The Sub-Chanter: I try to get it as soon as possible. The Commissioner: Do you fix the date on your own motion ? The Sub-Chanter: That is the usual thing. The Commissioner: Do you put it at an hour convenient for them to attend { Mr. Williams: They were there. The Sub-Chanter: They have always been there. Mr. Williams: I need hardly say you would attend to any representations made to you, and endeavour to make it convenient ? The Sub-Chanter: Certainly. The Commissioner: Did you fix it yourself? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: Did you fix upon the 29th Arpil ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: Did you give notice to your brother members of the Chapter, and to the overseer trustees ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: At what hour was it called? The Sub-Chanter: At 10 o'clock. Mr. Williams: I should likt; to ask you this: I may take it that the revision of the lisC occupied a considerable time The Sub-Chanter: About six hours. Mr. Williams: That is about the average time you spent ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: You called the meeting for 10 o'clock. Were the parties punctual? The Commissioner: Where was it held ? The Sub-Chanter: In the reading room. Mr. Williams: That is absolutely unsec- tarian ? Mr. James:, It is only the place of distribu- tion which is objected to. I Mr. Williams: Were they punctual? The Sub-Chanter: Within a few minutes. Mr. Williams: Just tell me this. You took the chair as usual. What took place then ? The Sub-Chanter: As soon as the overseer trustees came in; three attended and another (Mr. W. B. Morgan) was represented by his father. The Commissioner: That was irregular. Mr. Williams: Very well; three of them at- tended. What took place ? The Sub-Chanter: Mr. Howard Griffiths at once got up and made a great oration. (Laughter.) Mr. Williams: Was it lengthy f The Sub-Chanter: Yes, it was. Mr. Williams: What was the purport of it; we need not have it all ? The Sub-Chanter He demanded an explana- tion as to their status; my right to the chair; the right of appointing a correspondent, the time and place of distribution, and the right to be present at the same. Mr. Williams: He raised these points? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: What did you tell him as regards chairmanship, Mr. Gabriel? The Sub-Chanter: I told him I meant to stop in the chair that day, as head of my Chapter. I was going to carry on the prac- tice as heretofoie. That, in short, was what I said. I meant to carry on my work as it had been done hitherto. I did not mean to deviate one jot. Mr. James: Right or wrong. (Laughter.) Mr. Williams: We are right, Mr. James. Mr. J. Howard Griffiths: Physically or otherwise ? The Sub-Chanter: I tried otherwise. Mr. Williams: Did you try peaceful persua- sions, endeavour to induce them to go on with the business ? The Sub-Chanter: I did. Mr. Williams: Did vou fail? The Sub-Chanter: i failed. Mr. Williams: How long did this argument last? The Sub-Chanter: About two hours. The Commissioner: Were you arguing for two hours? The Sub-Chanter: We tried to argue. Mr. Williams: Did you appeal to them seve- ral times to go on with the business? The Sub-Chanter: I did. Mr. Wiiliama: Did they refuse? The Sub-Chanter: They did, sir. Mr. Williams: They refused unless their concessions were granted? The Commissioner: What were the conces- sions ? The Sub-Chanter: They wanted to nominate a chairman, to appoint a correspondent, and to attend at the distribution. Mr. Williams: Was there any objection on the ground that the distribution took place in a sectarian place of worship? The Sub-Chanter: They said something about a common place of distribution. We consid- ered all the points they raised, and the great point was, especially, a right to be present at the distribution. Mr. Williams: And as you said you took up the position that you intended to follow the lines laid down by your predecessors I The Sub-Chanter: That is so. Mr. Williams: The meeting was called purely for the purpose of selecting the recipients and fixing the amounts ? The Sub-Chanter: It was. Mr. Williams: And you were prepared to concede them their full rights in fixing the amounts ? The Sub-Chanter: We were. The Commissioner: The jnost important point was as to who should sit in the chair. Mr. Watts Williams: The most important point was the distribution, sir. Mr. Williams: As you were unable to make any progress, what was done ? The Sub-Chanter: The meeting was ad- journed. The Commissioner: At the end of two hours ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. The Commissioner: No business was done ? The Sub-Chanter: We could not do any. The Commissioner: Was it adjourned sine die ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: Was it ever suggested that the poor would be sufferers by this wrangle? The Sub-Chanter: I think it was. Mr. Williams: Did you take any part in the wrangle ? The Sub-Chanter: I tried to go on with the business. Mr. Williams: Did. anyone propose that you should take the chair? The Sub-Chanter: Never. Mr. Williams: You simply stood on what you considered to be your rights? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: I think several of your col- leagues were awy from home. The Commissioner: Was it adjourned? For- merly moved? Was there a resolution? rp, e "Chanter: I put it to my colleagues. There were three present, and myself made four, so we were in a majority. )1r.. ^lliam?.: Did thle overseers take any part in the motion for the adjournment ? Did they vote for it or against it? or did they decine to take anv part? The Sub-Chanter: I di<l not put it to the meeting. V a™/ EVanS: bU8i"ess »» The Commissioner: Then the meeting »<- solved itself? The Sub-Chanter: Business was quite im- possible. Dr. Propert: I was present. I suggested at an early stage of the meeting to put the question of chairmanship to the vote. I jested it, but I was not listened to. to you?°mmiSSi0ner: Did neither Party listen The Sub-Chanter: The feeling ran too high. Mr W W at the back of the room. ~Ir. Wilfliams-. If it had been put to the vote you (the Sub-Chanter) would have been elected, as you were in a majority ? The Commissioner: A legal brain'suggested that it should he done. (Laughter.) Mr. Williams: Some of your colleagues were £ ify Vr'ng the early part of the summer. When did you summon another meeting? The Sub-Chanter: On July 24th. Mr. Williams: In the- meantime some cor- respondence had taken The Sub-Chanter: Yes. The Commissioner:*With our office? The Sub-Chanter: Yea. Mr. Williams: Where was the second meet- i!1E: called? The Sub Chanter: In the same place-the readme room. Mr. William' Did you inform the proper parties ? Hmw many caine to the meeting? The Suit Chanter: The same overseer trustees. Mr. Williams: Now rather a funny process was gone through at thl; rnppfing. 0 of the overseer; trustees at back.' The Sub-Chanter: They sat on one side. Mr. Williams: Did you go through tkeTi-t? The Sub-Chanter: I did, sir. Mr. Williams: Did the overseer trustees who sat with you (Mr. Howard Griffiths) carry messages to and from his brother trustees ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: That is the way the business went on? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: For how long? The Sub-Chanter: Up to one case, about half-way through the list. I could mention the case. By the lime we got to this case the other overseer trustees (Mr. John Owen and Mr. John Thomas) had left. The Commissioner: Did they express any opinion about the people selected before their retirement? The Sub-Chanter: No, not at all. They helped Mr. Griffiths to go on with the work. Mr. Williams: Up to that time of leaving they had expressed no objection to any other name ? The Sub-Chanter: Not one. The Commissioner: You were in the chair? The Sub-Chanter: I was. Mr. Williams: When Mr. Owen and Mr. Thomas left, did Mr. Griffiths remain be- hind ? The Sub-Chanter: Yes. Mr. Williams: Did he stay for the whole list f The Sub-Chanter: Not for the whole, but up to the time of leaving he raised no objection to any name. Mr. Williams: He objected to the ameunt in one case, and because he could not have his own way he left. The Sub-Chanter: He did. Mr. Williams: After he left, did you and your brother trustees finish the list ? The Sub-Chanter: We did. Mr. Williams: And was the list signed by your colleagues, and then sent to Mr. Harris! The Sub-Chanter: Dr. Propert signed after- wards. He knew all the list. Mr. Williams: Did you ask the overseer trustees to sign it ? The Sub-Chanter: I asked one, Mr. Griffiths, to sign it, and he looked it over, and hummed and hahed, and then said, I don't quite ap- prove of this list." I said, "I am sorry; for why?" He said, "May I show it to my colleagues?" I said, "I cannot allow that, because I must send away the list to- day." Mr. Williams: Then what happened? The Sub-Chanter: I came away without his signature. Mr. Williams: Did he refuse to sign, or what did he say? The Sub-Chanter: He refused to sign. The Commissioner (to Mr. Griffiths): Did you refuse to sign, and if so, on what grounds ? Mr. J. Howard Griffiths: The reason was I did not agree with the list, and I would I not sign it until I had consulted my col- leagues in the matter. I could not agree with it. I did not consider it a fair distri- bution. I wished to consult my colleagues but he would not give me the oportunity. The Sub-Chanter: Since that day the list has not been shown to the overseer trustees. I did not think they had the right, having re- fused to act. The Commissioner: What were your grounds? Of course they had the right to select beneficiaries. The Sub-Chanter: They had refused to act with us. The Commissioner: Did you consider the business of the meeting was at an end? The Sub-Chanter: I did. Mr. Williams: These two gentlemen (Mr. Owen and Mr. Thomas) took no part in the meeting. They sat back. The Commissioner: You did not question their right to take part in the meeting? The Sub-Chanter: Not at all; I invited them to take part. Mr. WilJiams: Did Mr. Howard Griffiths tell you in what respect he objected to the list ? I understand that at the meeting, with the exception of this one name he raised no objection at all. The Sub Chanter: I don't remember, but should say not. Mr. Williams: Did he at the meeting say anything about the list for 1904 ? The Sub-Chanter: He approved of it. Mr. Williams: What did he say ? The Sub Chanter: He said, taking the list as a whole, it is a good list. He had no complaints to make. Mr. Williams: Since you have been Sub- Chanter have the distributions always taken place in the National School, which is a public elementary school ? I The Sub-Chanter: Yes. The Commissioner: At what time does the distribution take place ? The Sub-Chanter: At 11 a.m. on a Saturday morning, a holiday. Mr. Williams: Is it part of the complaint that invidious distinctions are made? Too many people of one denomination are se- lected? The Commissioner: I don't think that is part of the complaint. Mr. J. Howard Griffiths: We may have our opinion, Mr. Commissioner, but we don't put it forward as a complaint. The Commissioner: The main point is the question of procedure. Mr. James: And that the busines:; was done at a meeting not properly constituted. The Commissioner: Is there any gentleman in this room who has evidence that this Charity is distributed on sectarian or politi- cal principles, because if so it is important that he should come forward and give it. One of the objects of my being down here to-day is to ascertain whether there are any complaints as to the administration of this Charity for the poor. The only consideration that ought to be observed is the deserving character of the recipients, and his or her re- spectibility; not whether he or she be a member of the Church of England, a Non- conformist, or a Roman Catholic. The only question to be taken into consideration is whether he or she is deserving. Does anyone wish to suggest to "me that the distribution is based on political or sectarian grounds? Mr. Williams: That is purely a matter of opinion. Dr. Propert: I can show that it is not on those lines. The Commissioner: I want to have this point cleared up, if there is any ground for such an assertion the parishioners must state M.. J. Howard Griffiths: I am prepared to say this: I do not consider this a fair list, but I am not prepared to say that it is based upon motives of partiality or for political purposes. There are names on this list I would not approve of. The Commissioner: But can you prove the omission of any deserving case or the inclu- sion of any case not deserving? Mr. Griffiths: From my own observations and knowledge of the persons. Whether I could imply that they are of a certain de- nomination or political bias I don't know. I don't say that. Mr. W ilJiams: I ask you to take this. People's opinions are fairly well known, and if you make enquiries into the list of 1905 you will see there is no ground for implying any invidious distinction. Dr. Propert: In 1905 of the poor recipients of the Charity, 43 may be said to belong to the Church of England, 127 to the different Nonconformist bodies; four cannot be labelled, and four are Roman Catholics. Of the ap- prentices, as far as we can get at them, six belong to the Church of England and 12 Nonconformist, and of the paupers 10 belong to the Church of England and 42 to the Non- conformists. Mr. Williams: You believe that to be ac- curate? Dr. Propeit: I have got out the figures my- self. The Commissioner: The return does not give the amount. Dr. Propeit: The average per head works out as follows:—Church people, £1 2s. 10d.; Calvinistic Methodists, £1 4s. 10d.; Congic- gationalit: £1 4s. 4d.: Baptists, £1 2s. 3d.; Wesleyans, £1 6s.; Roman Catholics, 15s.. doubtfuls, 18s. 9d. I hould not have made that calculation, and I attach very little im- portance to it, but at the Inquiry in 1893 Mr. Hovward Griffiths made a charge of favorit- ism, and that the Church people received i larger share of doles than Dissenters. He asserted that Church people received 27 per head and Dissenters 16s. per head. That sug- gested this calculation. ° Mr. John rfThomas: If you go hack to ihe lists before 1893 you will find the Church people were favouied. The Commissioner 'to Mr. Gabriel): So fa" as you are aware-in selecting the recipients, do you pay any regard to their ieli"ious de- nomination The Sub-Chanter: Never. I might know their denomination, but we never regard that for a moment. Eadl ease is dealt with on its merits: their religious opinons are never brought forward. The Commissioner: There was only a gene- ral charge in 1893, and that wa., disproved. In order to find out whether there is favor- itism a good many thins, would have to be considered, Out of 207 people who received doles you would have to hlld out how many were really deserving, and jou would also have to lind out whether in any particular denom- ination there were more poor reople than another. Mer" numbers, therefore, cr the amount per head. j; nt a good test. Dr. Propert In 1893, we had several meet- but it did not alter the matter. Mr. Williams (to the Sub-Chanter): One other question. Since you have been Sub Chanter did you post one list of recipients on your church doors; also send a copy to the Parish Council? The Sub-Chanter: I did. The Commissioner: I notice among the re- cipients a certain number of people who are in receipt of poor law relief. That is un- usual, is it not? The Sub-Chanter: I have not taken a note of that since I have been Sub-Chanter. (To be Continued.)







HEIRS TO £ 30,000,000.


[No title]