The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-09 00:00:00

The bill was then read a third time.
that the bill do pass,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved an amendment to
the 13th clause, which was agreed to. The hon. and
learned gentleman also moved an amendment to the 63d
clause, which was agreed to, as was also a clause relating
to differences and disputes among the members of a charity,
and providing that two-thirds of the members of any
charity shall have power to refer the matter to the com-
missioners for decision.
The clause was then added to the bill.
Mr. PRICE moved a clause, providing that in all cases
where the trustees of an incorporated charity exceeded six,
five of the trustees should have power to execute any deeds
that might be necessary.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the clause
might operate very dangerously, since it would enable a
clique to execute deeds in the absence of the majority of
their co-trustees. The saving of expense which the clause
might occasion was a matter of minor importance, com-
pared with the injurious effect which it would have on the
administration of these charities.
The clause, on being put, was negatived without a divi-
sion.
Mr. HUTT moved the omission, in clause 5, 'of " paid
commissioners," and the addition to the clause of the fol-
lowing words : " And such commissioners to be appointed
under this act, as shall hold their office during good beha-
viour, shall be subject to the provisions of the 26th section
of the 7th chapter of the statutes made in the sixth year of
the reign of Queen Anne." His object was to allow these
commissioners to hold seat in the house, which would
enable the house, when questions came before them affect-
i nee these charities, to meet such questions in a manner
satisfactory to themselves, and to the best expectations of
the public. He considered that the case of the poor-law
commissioners formed a very strong precedent for not dis-
qualifying this officer.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said, that he quite agreed
that in general it was very desirable to have in the house
some person representing every department, but he was
afraid that a candidate would acquire too much influence
at an election from the circumstance of his holding office.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, generally speatting, he
was in favour of removing restrictions in the shape of dis-
qualifications from holding seats in that house, but he did
not consider it would be advisable, at this stage, to make
such an important alteration in this bill. The case of the
poor-law commissioners, instanced by the honourable mem-
ber, was not an analogous case, for these commissioners
formed part of the Administration, and their presence in
the house was necessary that they might have an opportu-
nity of defending themselves.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment. He did
not see why a copyhold commissioner should be excluded,
when a poor-law commissioner was allowed to hold a seat.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the whole benefit of this
measure depended upon the persons appointed as commis-
sioners, and who ought, he considered, to be brought as
immediately as possible under the control of the public.
The question raised by the amendment was, however, in
his opinion, premature, until they had settled the general
question as to who ought to hold seats in that house.
Mr. MALINS opposed the amendment. If the honour-
able gentleman the member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt)
pressed his motion to a division, he would vote against it.
Sir R. INGLIS said he objected to the motion, as it
would have a tendency to increase the number of placemen
in the house.
After a few words from Mr. BUTT, in explanation,
Mr. B. CARTER referred to the decision of the Master
of the Rolls, in St. Cross Hospital Charity, and said that
had there been a responsible officer in that house, of whom
questions could have been asked, that charity could not
have been abused as it had been.
Mr. J. BALL said as he read the amendment, it had not
that unlimited scope which the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Walpole) had attributed to it.
Mr. BUTT said as there was scarcely a town in England
is which there was not a charity established, he thought it
Would be very wrong to allow these commissioners to have
an °l,Partunity of canvassing those boroughs, in order to
oamtainr. ;ea in this house.
mr. T. YWOOD supported the amendment.
exereise• CAMBERS ERS considered, as these officers had the
their duties, it tarp large discretion in the performance of
to the reaps' be right that they should be subject
in this honse, ti which would arise from having seats
Mr. BARROW "la
been expressed by theue agreed in the opinion that had
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) that
the clause involved to
duced at that stage, ~,hien:c_'ortant a principle to be intro-
discussion.
e
uludthoenly be subjected to one
The house then divided,
were—
For the amendment numbers
Against it ................... . ................... 32
Majority against the .............. ....... 113
The SOLICITOR-GENERA.L ent.•*-81
amendments, which were agreed to. moved some verbal
Mr. HADFIELD proposed, as an am.-11
46th clause, that the words " any role or7;unetit to the
Court of Chancery" should be omitted. 'tactic° in the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the
mutt as tending to unsettle rules that have longbeCnifi,nd-
law. The only effect of the amendment would be tocet""ed
mel the commissioners, and to introduce uncertaintArt
the law.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE thought that the words of the
clause were of an intolerant character, and ought to be
chided from it.
The house then divided, when there appeared-
-41
For the amendment 9O
Against it
—49
Majori ....................................
moved that Durham should not be
pr
Lord J. RUSSELty L
exempted from the ation of the bill. He therefore
moved that Durham shouldoe be placed in the same position
as the University of and
to
.
Sir R. INGLIS objected t the striking out of the word
Durham.
After a few words from Lord JOHN RJSSELL and Mr.
MOWBRA.Y,
Mr. THORNLEY considered that there s
, did
u
houlbdubebnot
exemptions whatever from the operation of the
tedhe
so long as Oxford and Cambridge were exemp,
not see why London or Durham should be included. If
there wore any exemptions, he should certainly move, at
the proper time, that London be one of them.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the University
of Durham did not at all correspond with the colleges and
halls in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Tho
Univer,sitwihesichofwCambridgebodies, and Oxford were. corporate
bodies. Both the Unicerasitiael
sl
ot the e
Oxfordcase waintdh
Cambridge
the et he r
must become the subject of more special examination and
appropriate legislation than they could receive under the
bill, whereas if Durham and London were excluded, they
would. be altogether deprivedh hon. member
legislation. He trusted the
in the the benefit of any
and the house would acquiesce for Durham
of
Liociroposition of the
noble lord the member for the city
Mr. CHAMBERS thought the University of London
just as much a body corporate as either thetil
ty of
c d .C 1
Oxford or Cambridge. The same law should. Illevieeri,
the oolleges and halls, all being included underaoYe-x.'
from the operation of the bill.
Mr. INGHAM denied that the colleges and halls of the
University of Durham were on a different footing from
those of Oxford or Cambridge. He was in favonr of
exempting Du/haul, but he thought the ezewptiou should