The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1536.

porations. are exactly in the same situation as the corporations
would have been in if a new charter had been granted to them
by the • Crown. All that the corporations were seised and
possessed of before, they still continue to be seised and pos-
sessed of, where there is no Legislative enactment to the
contrary. Then, when-the Ist of ugust arrived, this 71st
section ceased to have any operation, and all those estates
which were before in individuals who were the members of
the old corporations, I humbly submit to your Lordships,
were vested in the new corporations, and the town councils
all over England Wales would become charity trustees. Your
object, therefore, would be entirely defeated; you would thus
thus mix up what your Lordships have been so anxious to
keep separate—namely, the municipal funds, with the funds
belonging to the charities.
But, my Lords, there is another difficulty in the clause as it
now stands, because your Lordships would not only continue
this power in the persons seized and possessed of them, as
trustees, at the time when the Act passes, but, along with
them, your Lordships would point out that those trustees who
have been approved by the Lord Chancellor, or who may be
approved by the Lord Chancellor, should be co-trustees, and
should have co-ordinate power. I humbly suggest to your
Lordships' consideration whether this would not lead to very
great confusion and litigation. The clause would admit of
various constructions ; no one would be able to tell in whom
the legal estate was, who were the trustees who would have
the power, who would be responsible, and who must be con-
sidered the administrators of these charities.
I must likewise point out another consideration for your
Lordships before I conclude, namely, that even if this clause
were adopted, by the proviso at the conclusion of the 71st sec-
tion, which is not repealed, the Lord Chancellor would still
have the power of making any orders with regard to the re-
gulation of the Charities. I very respectfully submit to your
Lordships, therefore, that even your own object would be
defeated if the Commons were to agree to this clause, and
that from its vagueness and uncertainty it would leap to the
most serious mischiefs. Upon the whole, we trust that your
Lordships will not insist upon this clause, so that a Bill, which
was anxiously framed to raise no point on which there was a
difference of opinion between the two Houses—a Bill admitted
on all hands to contain provisions of the greatest importance—
may not be lost to the public.
Lord ABlNGER—Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
I prop' to trouble you with a very few words, which shall be
confin ntirely to the argument which has been just ad-
dressed by the Learned Gentleman who spoke last. It the
clause would be so inoperative as that Learned Gentleman has
represented, it seems to me that we are debating upon a sub-
ject which is not worth a debate. If the clause would have the
effect of transferring the power and the property in these cha-
ritable funds in the municipal Corporations as they now exist,
which appears to be the opinion of that Learned Gentleman,
then undoubtedly that would not meet the view of the House
of Lords ; but I apprehend no such consequence. lam well
aware of the position in which both Houses are placed by the
Bill having been detained in the House of Commons until
after the Ist of August expired. This Bill was the subject of
consideration in the House of Lords in the month of May, and,
if I am not mistaken, in the early part of June it went down
to the House of Commons ; certainly the House of Lords did
not contemplate at that time that the 13111 would not have been
brought back before the Ist of August.
But, nevertheless, the observations made by the Learned
Gentleman have not escaped the attention of the Lords. I
cannot concur with him in the opinion that the trust estates
would be transferred either in law or actually to the new Cor-
porations. The words of the clause he will find are, " those
who are possessed of the moneys, and were seised of the estates
at the time of the passing of the Act." Now who possessed
the moneys, and were seised of the estates ? If the money is
in their hands they are possessed of it. They can be pos-
sessed or.seised in no other capacity but that of trustees, for
though their power of administration may have expired on the
Ist of August, yet the possession or seisin which they retain,
could not be on their own account, but must be on account of
the objects of the charity. And the result of the clause which
has been commented upon would only be that when this clause
passed those powers would be confided to those persons. The
clause would act upon their possession and upon their seisin in
the same manner as if they had been possessed or seised in
;rust after the expiration of the Ist of August.
With respect to the observations on the first amendment,

I understand the argument of the Learned Gentleman, it is
this :—That there has been an apprehension entertained that
by allowing a lot to be drawn for the presiding officer, and
giving the presiding officer so drawn by lot the casting vote,
you expose the Corp@ration to the risk of being either in the
power of one party or the other. That is the supposition,
that is the evil apprehended as the result of this clause, if it
be an evil. If there be a contest between two parties equally
divided, at least there is fair chance between the two. But
how is the evil avoided, by referring the election to the bur-
gesses ? In the case put of Rochester, by way of example,
the number of persons elected being equal, it is fair to suppose
that the burgesses will be nearly equally divided. But sup-
pose they are not; if the electors preponderate on the one
side or the other, the effect will be to throw the whole Cor-
poration into one party, which is the very result that the
Learned Gentleman proposes in his argument as an objection
to the clause as it stands. Therefore I do not see that there
is anything gained in that respect, by its being transferred to
the burgesses at large.
But he has not adverted to that which was the substantial
principle of the first Bill, which was to throw the election of
the Town Council into the burgesses at large, by distributing
them into wards, but not to permit the election of the alder-
men or the election of the mayor to be popular. It has hap-
pened, unfortunately, by the cases not being provided for,
that in a few cases, in consequence of the equality of the
Town Councillors, the election of the mayor has not been
accomplished. Then is not it more consistent with the Mu-
nicipal Corporations Bill that the election should be conducted
by the Town Councillors, es that Bill intended it to be, than
to transfer it to the burgesses, which was opposed, and suc-
cessfully opposed, by the House of Lords on the former occa-
sion ? We, therefore, think that it would be contrary to the
burgesses principle ofthe l
to
interfere i Bill, as as i
n the
p
ht
eealses election ed
bo
th f Houses,
the
mayorto allow the
ref
the
aldermen. And the only other expedient was that which has
been adopted by this clause, to allow the election to be con.
ducted as the original Bill intended it to be conducted, but to
provide for the case of an equality of votes, and, adopting a
provision from a part of the same Bill, the Chairman was
allowed to have a casting vote, as lie is to have in all future
elections.

One other remark I wish to add, and it is this :—Upon
the subject of the trusts, the Learned Gentleman who has
just spoken appears to think that some compact existed be-
tween the two Houses upon the subject of the 71st clause.
I cannot see myself that there is any force in that argument,
because every clause is as much the subject of compact as that
particular clause, and the argument, therefore, that the com-
pact should not be violated by making the matter of the
clause the subject or legislation again, in the sense in which
he takes it, would be an argument equally against all the
amendments which are not under consideration, and against
the whole Bill.

Lord Viscount HO WICK—I would take the liberty of re-
marking that what has just been said by the Noble and
Learned Lord with respect to the legdl construction of the
clause (L), inserted by your Lordships' House, appears rather
to confirm than to answer the argument urged on the part of
the Commons ; that argument being that there would be so
much doubt and difficulty as to the real meaning and con.
struction of the clause that its adoption would not diminish,
but, on the contrary, tend to increase, that litigation and con-
sequent expense which your Lordships hold would be one of
the principal inconveniences resulting from the emission of
that clause.

But, my Lords, there is one point connected with this ques-
tion which does not appear to me to have been adverted to in
the observations which have been made on the part of your
• Lordships. Many reasous have been stated, showing the
• grounds upon which your Lordships have formed the opinion
that it would be highly inexpedient to leave the administration
of the charitable trusts in corporate towns in the state in which
they would be left if this clause should not be inserted in the
Bill. Your Lordships hold that this inconvenience would be
greater than that which the Commons, on their part, think
would result from allowing the management of the charities
to continue in the hands of those whose administration has for
a series of years given such universal and such just dissatis-
faction. But your Lordships have not adverted to this fact,
that the-consequence of this clause being insisted upon by
your Lordships while the Commons have felt that, in the dis-
charge of their duty, they cannot concur in it, will be to leave
the administration of these trusts precisely in that state in
which it would be in the Bill, with the oalission of that clause
were to pass into a law.
The Bill for the amendment of the Municipal Act of last
year contains many other very important provisions—provisions
for obviating very great difficulty, litigation, and expense—
which must, without, be occasioned in many of those towns :
and also some valuable clauses with respect to the administra-
tion of justice, and the management of prisons, and the dis-
cipline to be observed in them, which your Lordships' House
introduced into the Bill. With respect to all these provisions
both Houses are agreed that they would be highly useful and
advantageous to the inhabitants of the corporate towns in
England. But then your Lordships are of opinion that this
clause (L) should be introduced. The Commons, in their
duty, feel that they are not at liberty to assent to it ; and the
consequence of the disagreement upon that point is, according
to the view hitherto taken by your Lordships, to be, that the
improvements which would be effected by the other clauses of
the Bill are to be abandoned and thrown away, because the
Commons cannot, as they think, properly consent to what
your Lordships require upon this point.
It appears to me that your Lordships cannot have given full
consideration to the question viewed in this light; for it is
certainly impossible that your Lordships can wish to take a
course which will bu open to misrepresentation, and which
will be liable to be misunderstood by the inhabitants of the
towns interested in the passing of this Bill, as intended to visit
and mulct them vindictively, because their representatives
hare not been able to agree to the propriety of clause (L.)
It may be understood by the inhabitants of these towns as a
refusal on the part of your Lordships to agree to admit im-
provements and regulations of acknowledged utility and ad-
vantage to all parties, because upon another point the House
of Commons does not feel at liberty to concur with the Lords,
although this refusal will not prevent the administration of
charitable trusts from remaining precisely in the same state as
it otherwise would. The question being, whether this Bill
shall pass without that clause, or whether the Bill shall fail
altogether, your Lordships have thought proper to insist that the
Bill shall fail altogether; and upon this point I would take the
liberty of observing, that if you would concur with the House
of Commons in adopting these improvements, on which both
Houses are agreed, it would be perfectly open to your Lordships
to introduce any measure in your discretion for making such
temporary provision for the administration of charitable trusts
as in your Lordships' judgment might appear best calculated

to attain that object. This one consideration appeared to
me not to have been adverted to by your Lordships; and I
therefore thought it right to mention it; for whichever opi-
nion may prevail as to the propriety or the impropriety of
the introduction of this .clause, it appears to me that all
must at least concur in this, that it would be much to be
lamented that on account of this unfortunate disagreement
the other provisions of the Bill should be lost.
Lord J. RUSSELL—There is one suggestion which fell
from one of your Lordships, which ought perhaps to be no-
ticed by the managers for the Commons. It is, whether the
Commons could make an amendment of clause (L), by pro-
' posing that an audit and superintendence should take place
with respect to these trusts, leaving them in the hands of the
present trustees, It seems to me that it would not be respect-
ful to your Lordships that I should not endeavour to inform
you what, in the judgment of the managers, would be the
opinion of the House of Commons upon sueh an amendment.
As far as the managers for the Commons are enabled to state
the opinions of the House of Commons, they believe that it
would not be acceptable or satisfactory to those whom they
represent to leave, on any terms or conditions whatever, those
charitable trusts in the hands of those who were the trustees
till the Ist of August for another year. With respect to any
future arrangement of those trusts, an inspection, audit, and
general superintendence, such as was suggested by the Noble
Lord, may be a very fit provision to make in respect of all
charitable trusts in general, and one to which the Commons
would be well disposed to agree ; but it appears to me, that
it would be a matter rather for a general regulation in a Bill
with respect to charitable trusts. The Commons cannot but
regret the more, from what has now passed, that the Lords
did not introduce some clauses in the Bill which they sent up
with respect to charitable trusts, by which this object might
have been provided for. It was in the expectation that that
Bill would be returned to them, that the consideration of the
Lords' amendments in this Bill was delayed from time to time.
I have now only to add to what has been already stated by
one of the managers for the Commons that the House of Com-
mons have passed a Bill, containing a great number of clauses;
that they have agreed to many clauses added or altered by the
Lords; and that upon the whole there are no less than fifty
clauses of considerable importance agreed to by both Houses
of Parliament. That the Commons have likewise endeavoured
to provide for the subject of charitable trusts in the measure
which they sent up to the other House of Parliament, and,
having so done, while they lament that this Bill should not
pass into a law, they feel that they have done everything in
their power to provide for this matter of legislation, and they
must now be contented to let the matter abide as it is, having
little or no expectation that the Commons will be disposed
either to accept the clause as it now stands, or to recede in any
manner from their disagreement to the clause in question.