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

The house went into committee on the Customs Bill.

Mr. PE LLATT moved to insert in clause 1 the following
words :—" And that no persons who have not undergone a
long training in the lower classes, such as weighers, locker,
or superintendent locker, shall be eligible for the office of
landing-waiter or gauger; that all vacancies in these de-
partments be filled by well-qualified and experienced officers
only."
Mr. W. BROWN could bear his testimony to the benefit
which the present measure would confer, having sat upon
the committee which the House of Commons appointed to
consider the subject. There was scarcely a suggestion
which that committee made but was embodied in the
present enactment, and there could be no doubt that so
far as it went it would be a measure of the most useful
character.
Mr. WILSON said the subject of the amendment of the
hon. member for Southwark had been taken into consid-
eration, in fact, it was provided for in the bill, and he did
not, therefore, see that there would be any use in pressing
the motion he had put upon the paper.
Mr. MICHELL bore his testimony to the benefit the
measure would confer on the mercantile and trading
classes.

Mr. HORSFALL could not allow the opportunity to
pass without thanking her Majesty's Government for this
measure, certain as he was that it would bo a great benefit
to the trade to which it more particularly applied.
Mr. GEORGE DITNCAN also considered the measure
of a most beneficial character. _

Mr. PELLATT then withdrew his amendment, and the
clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses up to clause 140 were then agreed to.

On clause 141 being prOposed,
Mr. BLACKETT proposed to add, at the end of that
clause, the following words :—" And in the case of coals
such transire or pass shall contain the distinct name of the
coal and of the colliery from whence it has been wrought
and gotten, and such transire or pass shall be signed by the
coal-owner or his authorised agent, in addition to the sig-
nature of the master."
Mr. WILSON said he did not think the addition to the
clause at all necessary, inasmuch as under the present law
there could be no fraud practised in the respect the hon.
member referred to.
The amendment, after a few words from Mr. BROWN,
was withdrawn.
The bill then passed through committee, and the house
resumed.
The house then went into committee on the Customs
Acts Consolidation Bill, which passed through that stage.
THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Mr. LUCAS wished to remove a colourable impression
on the minds of some parties, that the Catholics wished
for exceptional legislation on the subject. He considered
it would be a great blunder in the Roman Catholics to
seek for such legislation, and that they should stand on the
common law with every other class of their fellow-citizens.
He had a clause which he meant to propose, respecting the
regulation of Catholic trusts, and the placing Catholics on
the same footing with all other denominations with respect
to their charities and their uses.

Lord J. RUSSELL concurred with the hon. gentleman,
that some such clause as that which he referred to was ne-
cessary ; but he was afraid that it was now too late in the
session to effect the object which the hon. gentleman had
in view. It was also to be observed, that several hon. mem-
bers, who were interested in the subject, were now absent
from the house. He begged to say, that in the next session
of Parliament, he would introduce a bill which would
place Roman Catholic trusts on the same footing with other
charitable trusts.

Mr. HEADLAM considered it right to introduce a
clause on the subject into the bill, and would be happy to
render any assistance in his power in effecting the desired
change.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD could not entirely agree with
his hon. friend (Mr. Lucas) on the subject. He was not
one of thoie who thought this bill ought not to apply to
Roman Catholic charities. He looked upon it as an ex-
cellent bill, and he should like the house not to pass any
act merely for the management of Roman Catholic chari-
ties ; but to legislate for charitable trusts of all denomina-
tions, whether Protestant, Dissenter, or Roman Catholic.
Mr. HADFIELD referred to the difficulty of getting
land with a proper title for benevolent purposes, whether
for an infirmary, a school, or other institution. He felt
that mortmain never intended to create those difficulties,
which were almost insuperable, and were very expensive,
Ho, therefore, trusted that the difficulties would be re-
moved.
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.

On the question

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, corn-
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-
ing 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 speaking, he
was in favour of removing restrictions in the shape of dis-
qualifications from holding seats in that house, but be 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 placeinen
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.
Walpo]e) had attributed to it.

Mr. BUTT said as there was scarcely a town in England
in which there was not a charity established, he thought it
would be very wrong to allow these commissioners to have
an opportunity of canvassing those boroughs, in order to
obtain seats in this house.
Mr. J. HEYWOOD supported the amendment.

Mr. T. CHAMBERS considered, as theseo-Ec;;S had the
exercise of a very large discretion in the performance of
their duties, it would be right that they should be subject
to the responsibility which would arise from having seats
in this house.
Mr. BARROW said he agreed in the opinion that had
been expressed by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) that
the clause involved too important a principle to be intro-
duced at that stage, when it could only be subjected to one
discussion.

The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment -81
as an amendment to the
dALto. moved some verbal
amillenedmeSnOtr's
46Cotuhrtcloafuoseh,atnhcaetrytIrshwoouriddsb‘e` any rule or practice in the
T3lhre. SOLICITOR-RGENERAL objected to the amend-
mentlaw asT
The
t ee nodnilnyg
etffo
one unsettleerulese
nthat
ehnatv
we longould bbeee a
tos
te
rt
at lme d
m.
law.
ltahecommissioners, and to introduce uncertainty into
the
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE thought that the words of the
clause were of an intolerant character, and ought to be ex-
cluded from it.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 4l
Against it
Maj ority —49
emxoLesymioerrpdanttpJ.hal.as.
fromportr LuSri
sltEahmLoebLjsoehpenloetuer
aoldvdteti
boolnett
hhoelafatsc:enhd.Durham
n.
bn
gitihlo.eus
sthHaoomure letctlhhpeeonrsoweittfoiorobrdnee
as the University of London.
P
Durham.fteAr
few wards from Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr.
MOWBRAY,
iIItiYORNLEY considered that there should be no exemptions whatever from the operation of the bill, but
so long as Oxford and Cambridge were exempted, he did
not see why London or Durham should be included. If