The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-12 00:00:00

FREE CONFERENCE

BETWEEN THE COMMONS AND THE LORDS
ON THEIR DISAGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL CHA-
RITY ESTATES, AUGUST 11.

After the usual preliminary messages and forms, an ordi-
nary Conference took place about six o'clock, between the
two on the clauses in dispute, relating to the Cha-
ritableiolTursuesslees, and the mode of filling up vacancies in the
choice of mayor and aldermen in councils where the mem-
bers could not agree in selection. The Conference was nu-
merously attended by Peers and Commoners.
Lord John Russell, on behalf of the Commons, read their
reasons for dissenting from some of the Lords' amendments
on the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill, and stated
that they felt it necessary to persist in the rejection of the
provisions introduced by their Lordships for the election of
the mayor and aldermen by lot in the " tie" boroughs, and
for the continuance of the ex-Corporators in the office of
Charitable Trustees for a second year.
The Earl of Ripon then read from a paper the reasons
of the Lords for adhering to their amendments.
The first Conference thus terminated, and their Lord-
ships reported the continuance of the disagreement to their
own House. The debate which followed will be seen in our
Parliamentary. report. The Lords then, by the Masters in
Chancery, agreed to the request of the Commons to
meet in

FREE CONFERENCE.

Between eight and nine o'clock the meeting took place
in the Lords' committee-room No. .5, the largest room of
the Upper House. On the announcement in the Corn
mons that the Conference was agreed to, managers were
appointed, as will be found reported in the debates, five
Members, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Loch, Mr. C. Per-
gusson, and Mr. Warburton, having been added to the
original number appointed. A general rush to the Upper
House then took place, only two Members remaining on
the Ministerial side, and the Opposition benches being
entirely deserted. The rapid passing of the Members of
the Lower House before the Bar of the Upper presented
a singular spectacle ; and on the rendezvous of the Com-
mons in the place of meeting, the Peers also left their House
to join the Conference, their managers marching in proces-
sion, with cocked hats in band, preceded by the gold stick.
The House of Lords was at this moment almost as much de-
serted as the Lower House, the Chancellor and two lay Peers
only remaining with Lord Melbourne on the Ministerial
benches, while about half-a-dozen Bishops seated in their cor-
ner, and the Doke of Wellington alone occupying the Opposi-
tion benches between two Aides-de•Camp, Lord Wynford and
Lord de Grey. Parliament was thus apparently forsaken
by its Members, and two hours nearly elapsed before the
Conference terminated. The doors of the Conference-
room were closely kept from the intrusion of strangers,
and the gravest curiosity and anxiety seemed to prevail
among those assembled outside, not only on account of
the importance of the proceedings, but partly perhaps
from historical recollections of the rude transactions
which took place at some of the last Free Conferences
held between the Houses now nearly a century ago.
The discussion at this meeting was oral instead of written.

The Earl of RIPON briefly stated that the Lords would
not surrender their two amendments, but that they had
agreed to mcet the Commons, and give them a Free Con-
ference. His Lordship shortly stated his reasons for taking
part with the majority of the Peers in opposition to the
Commons, but avowed their Lordships' anxious desire to be
on good terms with the Commons.

Lord J. RUSSELL replied with point and brevity to Lord
Ripon. The Noble Lord echoed the sincere wish of the
Commons to agree with the Lords ; but on the part of the
Commons he had to state that they would not sacrifice
principle, or the interests of the people, to the mere expe-
diency of such agreement. His Lordship recapitulated in
firm language his general arguments, in opposition to the
two amendments of the Lords, in regard to election by lot
and the continuation of the Charity Trustees, and inti-
mated to the Peers that the Representatives of the People,
by communication with their constituents, (an advantage
not participated in by their Lordships) and by personal con-
nection with the boroughs, were better informed than their
Lordships could be supposed to be of the evils in the ad-
ministration of the charities, Which the Lords wished to
continue for another year to the ex-Corporators ; he alluded
to the fact of the cx-Corporators continuing in their trusts
during the past year to the Ist August. when their service
expired, as a mutilation of the original Corporation Reform
Bill of last session, and stated that he never could induce the
Commons to accept on any terms this further extension of a
defective and frequently-abused charity administration. His
Lordship further intimated that if the Peers conceded this
amendment an accommodation would not be impracticable
on the other amendment of election by lot in three or four
boroughs, where the councillors first elected had been even
in political party numbers ; that the latter difference might
be arranged with some modifications, if the Lords abandoned
the ex-eorporators. His Lordship closed his reply to Lord
Ripon, by pledging himself, on behalf of the Commons, not
to give way to the Lords in matters of political principle
and the interest of the nation. Ile further deprecated espe-
cially the attempt 'to revive and perpetuate the old trustees
as a provision altogether inconsistent with the object of the
Municipal Amendment Bill, which was simply applicable
to informalities and defects in the first municipal elections,
and contended that the Peers ought to have made their
amendment o❑ the Ministerial Bill the subject of a se-
parate measure in their own House if deemed so important.
Lord John further contended that the attempt to maintain
the defunct Corporators in the charity administration was
a direct violation of the Corporation Act of last Session,
which only vested the trusts in those persons specifically
for one yedr.

. -
Lord LYNDHURST answered the Noble Leader of the
House of Commons in a reclierch speech, repeating his
twice-told argument on recent debates in the Lords on the
two amendments. The Baron magnified greatly the evils
which would arise from the expense and delay of resorting
to the Court of Chancery for a re-creation of the municipal
charity trusts, in case the Commons adhered to their reso-
lution of rejecting the Lords' amendments. He repre-
sented the amendments as esential to the administration of
those charities, now that the Ministerial Charitable Trustees
Bill was thrown out by the Lords. His Lordship gave a
legal opinion, that the trusts could only he revived by
petitions to the Chancellor, and references to the Masters'
offices, legislation being preferable to equity, and the latter
involving loss of time and :sacrifice of charity funds, by the
unavoidable cost, and the robbery of the poor. The lia:on
professed the deepest interest in the welfare of the objects
of the charities and the people at large, which appeared to
create no little excitement in the Conferees among the
Commons. He particularly contended, that as
of administration were alleged to have existed during the
past year, that the ex-trustees ought not to be thus sum-
marily cashiered without proof of delinquency and unfitness
for the trust. The Noble Leader of the Opposition Lords
lastly reflected strongly on Ministers for delaying their
Charitable T putting off for 'Trustees Bill, and for no abuses
weeks the
consideration of the first alterations of the Municipal
Amendment Bill by the Lords, and made other complaints

against, the Ministry and the Lower House. His Lordship
slid little in defence of determining popular elections by lot.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied in a
spirited speech, defending the Government and the Com-
mons, and renpitulating the facts respecting the different
Bills before the Legislithsse.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH assumed a mediatory position, and,
seeing the fixedness of the Commons, suggested a middle
course. He suggested that there was still ground for com-
promise open for the opposing Houses, that the Commons
might amend the Trustees' continuation clause, by imposing
restrictions on the ex-Corporators, if allowed to resume the
administration one other year. The Noble Lord declared
that he never contemplated the continuance of the old
Corporators as Charity Trustees without additional re-
sponsibility. He suggested that the Commons should de-
vise some guards for their integrity, appointing Auditors or
Controllers, or Commissioners of Revision. His Lordship
recommended to the Commons to apply themselves to
some such plan in lieu of rejecting the amendment of the
Upper House, btit the proposition did not seem to take.
Mr. HUME, in a characteristic speech, protested against
r.greeing with the Lords in the matter in dispute. The
Hon. Member advised the Commons to stand their ground,
as they had the ball in their own hands. He described
" election by lot" as directly contrary to the principle of
election, and as substituting chance for the will of the ma-
jority. If, however, the Lords would exhibit a real spirit
of conciliation, and give up their idea of resuscitating the
old Municipal Charity Trustees, he thought the lot clause
not so essential a part of the Bill as to prevent a settle-
ment, but, on the contrary, he thought that it was capable
of being arranged. The Hon. Member denied Lord Lynd-
hurst's assertion of the non-existence of abuses in the past
year's administration of the trusts. Such abuses must have
and had occurred, and he had heard constant complaints of
abuses, especially of political abuse, of the charities. No
borough suffering under the defects of the late Charity
Administration could endure the revival of the trusts in
the same partial bands. The necessity of calling in aid
the powers of the Court of Chancery, and of the Chancel.
for acting under the powers of the Corporation Reform Act,
which enabled the Lord Chancellor to order the trustee-
ships, might beget evils, but they were evils of no moment
comparatively with the evil of inflicting on the country the
curse of calling back to power the ex-corporators. That
the burgesses would never admit, nor their representatives
consent to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Campbell) made
an excellent speech in answer to the legal points of the
Tory Peers. He observed that he felt it of great impor-
tance that a good understanding should be kept up between
the two Houses of Parliament, and he should carefully ab-
stain from saying anything inconsistent with this object.
He hoped that on both the clauses which were under con-
sideration the Lords might be induced to yield. To the
first of these the Commons did not attach any great impor-
tance, as its operation was limited and temporary ; but in
cases where upon the election of aldermen and a mayor,
the councillors were equally divided, lie thought it much
better that the choice should be referred to the constituent
body than be determined by lot. This mode of decision
was wholly new in legislation, and was quite inconsistent
with the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill, which was
that those who were to manage the affairs of the boroughs
should be placed in 'authority by the free choice of the
inhabitants. The consequence of the Lords' amendments
would be, that where the councillors were equally divided,
the aldermen and mayor would. necessarily all be of one
party. Suppose the members of the council now to be 9
and 9,they will be 15 and 9, and the borough is by chance
permanently given up either to one party or the other.
Would it not be much better to resort to the
great body of the electors ? In that plan there would
be no innovation, for according to the most ancient
charters, the right of electing the Mayor and Aldermen
was vested in all the Burgesses. But as the clause ap-
plied only to one election, the original Bill havinc, provided
for all subsequent elections when the new Corporation
was made complete, the Commons, to show their anxiety,
to give satisfaction to the Lords, would probably be wil-
ling to agree to it. With respect to clause L, regulat-
ing the charities, he was sure the Commons were inflexible ;
and he trusted that on consideration the Lords would see
that it did not come properly within the scope of the Bill,
that. it ought not to have been introduced, and that its ope-
ration would be injurious. Before the Municipal Reform
Bill passed it was proved, to the entire conviction of both
Houses of Parliament and the public, that the Trustees of
Corporation charities had grossly misconducted themselves,
had perverted to private and party purposes those funds
which were destined to the support of the destitute and to
promote the cause of education and religion. It was only from
the impossibility of making a new arrangement when the
Bill was passing that they were continued for a single hour.
But there was a solemn compact between the Legislature
and the public that they should, at all events, go out
of office on the Ist day of August, 1836. The 71st sec-
tion of the Bill says that all their powers shall then wholly
cease and determine, and that from that day, unless
Parliament shall have legislated upon the subject in the
meantime, the management of the charities shall be in the
Lord Chancellor. A Noble and Learned Lord had ob-
served that nothing had been proved against the present
Trustees from which it might be supposed that they were
individually selected and approved of. But, in reality, by
a sweeping enactment, all the individual members of all the
old Corporations were, without distinction, continued
Charity Trustees, and, from the information received by
the. Commons from their constituents, there was no reason
to Suppose that they had improved in purity or impar-
tiaDty in the distribution of the Charitable Funds. The
Commons had sent up a Bill to their Lordships for regu-
lating these charities ; but this their Lordships had refused,
and they had absolutely refused to legislate on the subject,
otherwise than by introducing this clause for continuing
the ex-Trustees for another year. He was afraid that in
another session .or, Parliament the same course might be
pursued, and that the consequence would be the perpe-
tuation of the abuses had been so loudly
complained of. He had no lioubt that the Lord
Chancellor would devise a mode by }which, with little
delay, and little expense, proper trustee; would be
appointed, who would administer the charities in !In up-
right manner, without regard to political objects. But s'le
begged leave to point out to their Lordships, that, as their
clause was framed, it would not answer their,own purpose;
it would throw every charity in the kingdom into confusion,
and it would occasion infinitely more litigation and expense
than had been apprehended *by the Noble and Learned
Lord who described so powerfully the delays and expense
of the Court of Chancery. Clause L provides that the
trustees who may be seised or possessed of the real and
personal property of the charities, at the passing of the
Bill, shall be continued for another year. Who would be
the trustees so•seised ? Not the individual members of the
old Corporations. On the Ist of August they were all
fuacti qfficio, and the property vested in the new Corpora-
tions. The property would have continued all along in the
new Corporations but for the .71st section, and when the Ist
of August arrived, that section ceased to operate, and things
were in the same situation as if it had never been introduced
into the Bill. The old and the new Corporations were identi-
cally the same, just as if the changes had been introduced
by a new charter from the Crown. Therefore, at this mo-
ment, all the estates and all powers of the old Corporations
connected with charities are in the new, and so will con-
tinue at the passing of this Bill. The result would, there-
fore, be, that the Lords would, without intending it, consti-
tute the new town councils the Charitable Trustees, and
would mix up the municipal charity funds, which all were
agreed should be kept separate. But the clause %vent on
to join with them the trustees •appointed by the Lord
Chancellor, and it still left in the Lord Chancellor the
power of creating an entirely fresh body of trustees, con-
ferred upon him by the proviso added to the 7 lst section
of the Bill. No one could, therefore, tell what construc-
tion would be put upon the Lords' amendment, or what
would be its operation, But so much was certain, that it
would cause much more litigation and waste of the chari-
table funds than could be apprehended from rejecting the
clause, and suffering the Lord Chancellor to appoint trus-
tees, and issue orders for the regulation. of the charities.
For these reasons he hoped the Lords would not insist on
the clause, and that by waiving it they would allow the
community to enjoy the important benefits which it was
universally allowed the other. parts of the Bill were calcu-
lated to confer.
Lord ABINGER, in an ineffective specchof legal casuistry
and unsound argument, questioned the points in the At-
torney-General's reasons for opposition to the Lords'
Amendments. The Learned Judge contended that the
trustees last in possession were legally seamed, and that the
trusts could not be conveniently severed from them. There
were technical difficulties in the way of transferring the
administration, which he hoped would be avoided by the
Commons consenting to replace the excellent trustees
whose powers had just expired. His Lordship made.some
refined objections to the Court of Chancery acting on its
powers, which some of the Opposition Peers seemed to
consider no service to their argument. The Learned
Miro', lastly advocated the soundness of the principle
or lot in the " tie " boroughs, with divided and incom-
plete coun,,ilA. Ho thought the principle an equal and
chance for either party, and was a mode of deter-
mining; the political preponderance preferable to the popu-
lar election provided in the first Commons' Municipal
Amendment Bill.
Lord Howtcx made an admirable reply to Lord Abin-
ger. The Noble Lord remarked, that what had been said
by the' Learned Lord who preceded him, in reply to the
arguments of the Attorney-General as to the legal construc-
tion of the clause introduced by the House of Lords,
seemed rather to strengthen what he (Lord Howick) un-
derstood to be the or jeetien.urged hysthe. Attorney-Gene-
ral, namely, that there was so much doubt as to what would
be the true construction of that clause, that its introduc-

tion into the Bill would increase, instead of diminishing..
that litigation and expense, the apprehension of which was:a
one of the main reasons urged by their Lordships against
ainifsion of their amendment. But there was one point:
which Empeared to him (Lord Howick) not to have been.
adverted to by any of the managers of their Lordships, to.,
which be was particularly anxious to call their attention..
The question which had been discussed had been only,.
whether it would be expedient to introduce into the-
Bill the provision contended for by their Lordships.
The House of Lords were of opinion
,that greater
inconvenience would result from leaving the admi-
nistration of charities in the corporate towns on:
the footing on which it would remain if the clause•
were omitted, than for continuing for another year the exist-
ing Trustees ; while the House of Commons, on the other
hand, thought that they could not, consistently with their
duty, allow the management of these charities to remain for-
another year in the hands of those whose administrations
had so long excited such general and such just dissatisfacti:m.
Upon this question there seemed, unfortunately, little chancy
of the two Houses coming to the same• conclusion ; but:
Lord Howick thought that their Lordships had failed to-
advert to the fact that,. with regard to this question, the
result would be precisely the same, whether the Bill were
passed with the omission of the clause, or whether, in cora-
sequence of their Lordships insisting upon its retention:
while the House of Commons felt bound not to accede..
to it, the Bill should be lost altogether. In either case,
the charities must be left to be administered in the man-
ner pointed out hr the Municipal Act of last year ; and
in either, all the difficulties and inconveniences, so strenglyi
insisted upon by their Lordships as likely to result:;
from the omission of the clause, would equally arise..
Bat it should be con3idered that there were many citl:e;
exceedingly useful and important provisions in the Bill,
of which both Houses agreed in approving. There were
enactments intended to obviate many serious inconveniences
which had arisen in the working of the law passed in the
last session—there were some exceedingly valuable clauses
respecting the management and discipline of prisons and.
the administration of justice, which had been introduced
into the Bill by their Lordships—and upon the advantage
of all these parts of the Bill both Houses were per-
fectly agreed. He therefore felt convinced that their
Lordships, when they considered this, would not think it
right to throw away and entirely to reject all the admitted
benefit of the rest of the Bill (without in any degree gaining
the object they had had in view ), merely because the House
of Commons felt that they could not conscientiously adept
another clause" which did not necessarily belong to it. hie
thought that their Lordships
.could not take this course,
because it would obviously be liable to the misinterpre- •
tation of being a vindictive refusal on the part of their
Lordships to the towns interested in the passing of the Bill,
of all the advantages they could derive inea it, in order to
punish them for the resistance of their representatives to tile
clause in question. He would farther observe, that if their
Lordships were of opinion that such serious inconveniences
would arise from that mode of temporally administering
these charities which was provided by the Act of last year,
it was perfectly competent to them to introduce any other
measure for the purpose of meeting this evil, without em-
barrassing the present Bill with a clause which must prove
fatal to it. Their Lordships might send down to the
Rouse of Commons another Bill providing in such man-
ner of in their judgment might be most expedient for the
temporary administration of these charities ; and such a
proposition, he was sure, would receive the best attention
of she House of Commons ; while there was no reason.
ivbether this measure should succeed or should fail, why the
important advantages which all acknowledged would result
limn the remaining portions of the present Bill, should in
either case be abandoned.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL (no other Opposition Peer renewing
the discussion, or replyine.'.to Lord Howick) closed the Con-
ference by expressing his deep regret at the apparent impos-
sibility of agreement with the Lords. He repeated that the
objectionable amendment which sought to re-instate the
old Corporators in the administration of the Charitable.
Trusts, was not consistent with the principle and object of
the Bill into which it had been introduced by the Lords as
an " amendment." He defended the Government against
the charges of delay in the return of the amendments. He
could not have anticipated the summary rejection of the
Charitable Trustees Bill, in which latter Bill, rather than
in the other, the Lords might with some consistency have
mooted the point then in dispute. However much he might
regret the loss of many necessary and valuable provisions
in the Municipal Amendment Bill then in conference, he
neither could nor would, consistently with his duty to the
Commons and the borough towns, agree to its reception on
the terms of the "amendment" proposed by the Lords.
The Conference then broke up—the respective parties
not more satisfied with each other at the end than at the
beginning. The unusual nature of the meeting, and the
existing relations of the two branches of the Legislature,
rendered the scene exceedingly curious. It was observed
that numbers of the Commons kept their hats on in the
presence of the Lords, and an eminent Noble Leader of
the Opposition was heard to say, that a repetition of such
a discussion would not serve the hereditary legislators.
The forms of Conference were otherwise most decorously
observed on this occasion, though, from the superiority dis•
played by the Con:mons in argument, the principle of a
" Free Conference" kid down by Hatsell could hardly be
preserved, viz., that of "allowing a sort of superiority to
the Lords." There was, however, an entire absence of •
those " scandalous reproaches" and " false expressions" by
the Lords, which the Commons resented in 1701.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on his return to the House of
Commons, stated at the bar the reasons urged by both par-
ties, -and that the Managers had failed to agree. Subse-
quently his Lordship moved that the Lords' Amendments
be read that day three months.