The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-20 00:00:00

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Mr. V. SMITH moved the further consideration of
the Report on the Charitable Trusts Bill. The framer of
the Bill had endeavoured to meet every objection
that had been urged upon the subject ; Lord Lyndhurst
in the House of Lords bad objected to many of the clauses
of the Bill, because they were similar in their nature to one
then on the table of the House, introduced by Lord
Brougham ; that Bill, however, had not been proceeded with,
and the present embodied almost all its important provisions.
The great principles of this Bill was certainly the elective
principle—but it was not the same in this Bill as that which
had been adopted by this House in the regulation of political
bodies. The distinction was manifest, but the principle was
not a new one, as it had been adopted in the choice of officers
in corporate towns, and the consequence was that those
elections had proceeded much more quietly than any of the
other elections. The principle was that each burgess should
have the right of voting but for one half the number of trus-
tees to be elected. It was obvious that this was to provide
against cases where parties were evenly divided. He was
very unwilling to introduce the word " party " at all, or to
bring into discussion the agitation of party questions ; but
he must necessarily mention it, as the principle of the Bill
was against party decisions. Where parties were somewhat
evenly divided, the result would be that the minority would
by this Bill have a representation,and it was only in cases where
the majority was so great that the minority had no chance of
competing with them that the contrary practice could pre-
vail. He was not aware that there were any objections to
this principle, but, however, as the main principle of
the Bill he was prepared to adhere to it. The Bill
also provided, that those only who were locally re-
sident and interested should have the right of voting for the
trustees. He was not aware that there was any objection to
the right of voting being confined to this class of persons ;
but there were objections to that right being extended to
those persons who would specially benefit by these charities,
and who were more or less paupers—he meant the freemen.'
The Commissioners had reported very strongly against the
conduct of Corporations, and it would be 'inexpedient,
therefore, to continue the charitable trusts in the old
Corporations. A very important principle in this Bill was,
that it would give the property to those Corporators who
were charitable trustees, with charges on it for charitable
purposes. He considered the property ought to rest in the
Council, and that the charge should be paid by the
Council to the charitable trustees. It was clear it
would be their business to increase the surplus as much as
possitile, in order that they might take advantage of what
was above and beyond that which it would be necessary to
appropriate to charitable purposes.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
There was one point connected with the principle of
the Bill on which he wished to touch, which was
that of the Mayor being the Chairman of the charitable
trusts. He wished to state the reason why he had intro-
duced the Mayor as Chairman, which was, that it would have
been absurd to make the number who were to elect even,
and therefore it had been deemed expedient to appoint some
person as Chairman who would be in a situation to make an
odd number. It was generally thrown upon the conductor
of a Bill, or the party from whom it emanated, that they
wished to serve their own interests. He repudiated his having
any interest in the matter, for, as was well-known to Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, the Mayor of the Borough he had the
honour to represent held very different political opinions
from' himself. He had struck out the second vote which the
Bill formerly gave the Chairman, so that now he would
merely preside and vote only in the event of the trustees
being equally divided. He would be most happy to
adopt any suggestion by which the Chairmanship might be
better filled ; for instance, he might agree. that the
trustees should have a month in which to elect their
own Chairman, and then if they did not agree, that
the Mayor should preside, or anything of that kind.
He had introduced an amendment—an amendment which
would allow the old trustees to carry on suits now
in progress, and nearly concluded. These were all the
amendments made in the Bill, and he hoped it would now
be satisfactory.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was rather surprised at the re.
monstrance the Hon. Member had made against taking
the discussion on the principle of the Bill at an
early hour. If he had at an early period of the
evening asked for leave to bring in the Bill,
or had given notice of its second reading, giving ample
time to consider it, then he admitted that the Hon.
Member would be justified in making use of the expres-
sions he had done.—(Hear, hear.) But when he found
that leave was given to bring in the Bill after midnight, and
read a second time nearer one in the morning than twelve
o'clock, and that, on both occasions, it had escaped the
vigilance of the Honourable Member for Salford,
he must not be surprised that it should be asked that some
earlier hour than twelve o'clock should be given to discuss
its principle.—(Hear, hear.) The great question for the
House was, whether or not they would now make or
permit to continue some temporary arrangement for the
administration of charitable trusts in Corporations, or
whether they would establish finally and irrevocably
the principle not only of popular election, but indissoluble
connection between the political body, the Corporation,
and the trustees of charities.—(Hear, hear.) This Bill
certainly in some respects was permanent ; and he
quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that it would
be preposterous to revive the old Corporations, for the
purpose of vesting those trusts in them.—(Hear, hear.)
He wished to disconnect the administration of charitable
trusts from the political functions of the Corporations. The
advantage of leaving matters as they stood would be this,
that the arrangements would be necessarily provisional,
such as the appointments by existing trustees of secretaries ,
and clerks. It would be open to Parliament. in the next
session to consider the whole of the case connected with
charitable trusts, and then to make a permanent arrange-
ment. He entreated the House to consider maturely the
considerations which presented themselves in favour of this
mode of proceeding. It were better to have some provisional
arrangement, rather than decide that the administration of
charitable trusts should be connected with popular and ne-
cessarily political bodies. He need hardly tell the House
that patronage in the hands of local particular bo-
dies would be almost sure to be applied to
strengthening their political interests. All he wanted
was to prevent the Charities being injured by the misap-
plication of Charity Funds to political purposes.—(Hear.)
The destruction of self-election, and the substitution of
popular control, would not give a check to these abuses.
A clause in the Bill gave the Council complete control
over the charitable trusts, as the books were ordered to be
open at all times in proper hours for the inspection of every
member of the Council. • The Bill enabled the Town
Council of every borough to specify who should be the
trustees for carrying into operation the purposes of this
Act. Whether they nominated six, twelve, or eighteen,
was a matter of indifference, as the effect would still be the
same. The burgesses who formed the Town Council
elected the trustees, and thus the elections for political and
charitable purposes became identified. Now he particu-
larly requested the attention of the Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site, the Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. Harvey), to
this subject, as he bad already paid so much attention to
it, and brought it under the notice of the House last year.
He would suppose that the charitable trustees. were twelve

in number, and that six were elected by one political party,
and six by another. Each party would then be represented,
but by a provision of the Bill a certain number would go out
at the expiration of every year. The three or the four who
had the smallest number of votes would go out, and their
places would be supplied by others who, if they happened to
represent at the time the popular party, would, if they were
four in number, at once give to the board a preponderance
of as ten to two. It was therefore quite clear that, not-
withstanding the efforts of the Right Hon. Gentleman to
obtain impartiality, it was impossible but for a period there
ould be a predominance of political feeling one side
or the other. True it was that the party defeated might
regain their power, but that did not matter. His fears
would still be realised, and the administration of charitable
funds would sink into a struggle for patronage.—(Hear,
hear.) This Bill stated that the hereditaments and real
estates, after having wholly satisfied the nominally specified
purposes of the founder, the residue of those estates should
he vested in—what ?—why, in those political bodies ; and the
charity would thus become a mere annuitant, dependent
upon a political Corporation. The Right Hon. Baronet
here read the clause in the Bill which vested the power of
appropriation in the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses. It
would thus be seen that the remainder of the estate might
be paid over to a borough, and- made applicable for the
purposes, not of charity, but of lighting, paving, and all
other local purposes ; and provided the original bequest
of the specific charge, according to the nominal intent of
the donor, a transfer of the whole of the remainder of the
property might be made to the borough fund, and, if so, it
would be impossible to levy a borough rate unless there were
a deficiency of this surplus. The freemen had thus been
deprived of all voice in local matters, provided they could
satisfy the specific charge of the donor, and thus assert the
right to appropriate. Great questions would arise upon this
subject, and he would have the House weigh well the re-
commendation of the Commissioners who had made their
report upon public charities. What had been their own
proceedings in connection with this subject ? Last year a
Select Committee had been appointed for the purpose of
inquiring into the disposition of charitable funds, and the
motion for its appointment had been cordially seconded by
the Noble Lord and the Attorney-General opposite. The
instruction of that Committee as to the nature of the duty
that devolved upon them was to report their opinion on the
best mode for the prompt and economieal disposition of
those funds. But were they not funds for charitable pur-
poses ? were they borough funds for lighting and paving ?
(Hear, hear)—and did the Committee recommend that the
funds, when the object of the donor had been satisfied, should
be transferred to a town council ?—( Hear, hear.) Those
funds amounted to above a million per annum, and related
to matters of national importance, which were to be admi-
nistered by the present body of the Commissioners. He
was quite ready to admit that these funds could not be pro-
perly administered without calling in the aid of local
authorities for their guidance, In a Bill prepared upon
the subject, by one whose name he would not mention as
connected with this subject but with the highest respect,
and whose present retirement from political life he most
sincerely regretted, and whose improved health he hoped
might enable him to afford them the benefit of his advice—
he alluded to the Bill prepared by Lord Brougham—( Hear,
Lear)—it was provided that the Commissioners should be
assisted by the Privy Council, and that all vacancies which
occurred should be filled up by the Council. This was at
variance with the present Bill, which gave the administra-
tion of these funds and the appointment of trustees to the
burgesses. If it was, however, seriously meditated to
establish a permanent board, would any man gravely say
that it would not be more advisable to settle such a per-
manent measure in the course of the ensuing year, and
thus give time for deliberation, rather than pass it in the
present period of July ? He disclaimed altogether the de-
sire of seeing the funds of charities appropriated to pur-
poses of political patronage.
Messengers from the Lords came to appoint a Confe-
rence with the Commons on the subjects of the amend-
ments to the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act
(England). The Members for the Conference being ap-
pointed, the Conference was held, and the Attorney-Gene-
ral, as manager on behalf of the Commons, reported to the
House that certain amendments made by the Commons
the Lords had agreed to ; but that on certain amendments
made by the Lords their Lordships insisted ; and that on
amendments upon amendments their Lordships insisted
upon some, and did not insist upon others.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in considering the reasons given
by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, could not throw
out of sight the history of the party opposite in times
passed connected with charities. The Hon. Gentleman
opposite had not proposed a plan for the future administra-
tion of charities, but had asked for delay, without being
prepared with any plan for alteration, leaving it to be sup-
posed that they were unwilling to adopt any improvement.
In the same spirit evinced by the Right Hon. Gentleman
he would appeal to the House. The Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman would leave the charities still to
be improvidently administered. By the report of the Com-
missioners the funds of these charities left to be administered
for great and benevolent purposes had in numerous in-
stances been employed for advancing political interests, and
promoting the success of one political candidate in prefe-
rence to another. The Noble Lord then referred to the
evidence of the charity Commissioners, showing that in the
case of Sir I'. White's Charity, at Coventry, the funds
left for the purposes of charity were applied in rewarding
those who voted a particular way at an election, 41 a-head
having been given to those who voted against the popular
candidate. The Noble Lord then said that if the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out any other plan
he should have heard it with attention, but when he said,
" Reject this Bill, and adopt my proposition for delay," he
could not consent. The Bill, with respect to the election
of the trustees,* was on the same principle as the Muni-
cipal Bill of last year, with respect to the auditors and as-
sessors, which the Noble Lord contended would have an
effect far otherwise than that of giving a preponderance to
one political party. But these complaints and objections
he thought came ill from those who, for a period of twenty
or thirty years, supported a system which allowed the poor
and worthy householder—no matter what his misfortunes or
respectability—to be deprived of the charitable funds of a cor-
poration like Coventry if he did not vote against Mr. Ellice
or Mr. Bulwer. That was the system which the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite had connived at—(" No," from Sir It.
Peel)—and he had never beard from him any proposition to
amend those abuses. Those funds had been applied to the
most corrupt and unworthy purposes, and was it for them
on that side of the House to impute motives to those who
now brought this measure forward The Right Hon.
Gentleman denied that assertion. He should be happy to
learn from the Right Hon. Gentleman a statement of any
of the instances in which he had taken precaution to pre-
' vent such abuses, either in relation to Sir Thomas White's
charity, or any other Corporation funds. Quite sure he
was that if the Hon. Gentleman had ever attempted to
take such a step, they had acted with the most successful
caution, in concealing it from the whole body of reformers,
who would have been most happy to have given them their
assistance in so praiseworthy an object. As to the com-
plaint that the management of those funds would be by
the operation of this Bill placed in the hands of political
partisans, he did not concur in that objection. He saw
no reason why the six or twelve or eighteen persons
elected should not be elected fairly and equally from
amongst the parties ; and he declared himself now, as he
did last year, ready to assist in any plan to prevent the in-
terference of any political bias. The plan now proposed
seemed to him the one best calculated to effect that object,
for when they had persons thus chosen presided over by the
mayor, the most responsible of officers, whose conduct would
necessarily be most narrowly watched and scrutinized,
he did not think it possible that any great or glaring abuse
could take place.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had objected to the mode detailed in the Bill for
declaring and filling up the vacancies. This, however, was
a mere question o detail, and if felt to be objectionable
might be met in various ways, such as that, instead of al-
lowing a third part every first and second year, they should
all remain till the end of the third year, and go out to-
gether; or that, instead of those parties having the smallest
number of votes going out first, the parties going out should
be chosen by lot, or that one of the highest and one of the
lowest should go out together. There was another point
of which the Right Hon. Gentleman complained, viz., that
in certain cases where charitable donations were left out of
certain estates, to be distributed by corporations, the whole
estate would be transferred to other hands than those in
which the donors intended it to be vested. Now this
clause was intended to provide against a point omitted in
the Municipal Reform Bill; to provide for such a case as
this, where 1,0001. a year was left to the corporation, sad-
dled only with fixed charitable payments, such as 21. a year
for four almsmen ; and he asked the House whether it
would be right that such an estate should be transferred to
the charitable trustees, who had an interest in it of 81. a
year only, and taken from the corporate body, whose inte-
rest in it amounted to 9921. a year.—(Hear, hear.)
He certainly was much surprised at the argument ad-
vanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that, because Lord
Brougham intended to bring in a Bill which contemplated
a general supervision of all charitable trusts, they were,
therefore, to postpone the present measure.—(Hear.) Why,
the Right Hon. Baronet had himself stated that no such
general supervision as that Bill contemplated was necessary,
and that extra powers in the Secretary of State and so on
would be quite sufficient to answer every purpose. In short,
the Right Hon. Baronet threw out so much of doubt re-
specting it, that he (Lord J. Russell) had a right to expect,
when it should be brought forward, that it would meet with
the Right Hon. Baronet's opposition. The Right Hon.
Baronet, however, thought it a very excellent Bill, if he
could use it to defeat the present measure, whilst the other
might be without difficulty either taken up by him, or be
abandoned in a future session, as might best suit his then

views. This Bill was directed only to a particular object ;
it would not at all interfere with or impede' any general
measure of the kind that might be brought forward in a
future session, and he saw no reason to reject it where no
better plan was proposed. The arguments against the Bill
had no foundation in fact.—( Cheers.)
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that Hon. Members on his
side of the House had sortie reason to complain of the
statements of the Noble Lord. It was not correct to
charge those on that side of the House with being
pledged, or with entertaining any desire, to uphold the
abuses of existing Corporations respecting these funds.
It was not denied that much mismanagement and abuse
had existed, nor that the time was now come when a
sufficient remedy must be provided. All that was
wished was, that a well-digested and not a tardy scheme
should be adopted, and that if, as a temporary arrange-
ment; the suggestion of the House of Lords did not meet
the views of the Noble Lord, he should, until Parliament
should be able to provide more sufficient general measures,
place the temporary management and controul of these
funds in the hands of one of his own colleagues, the Lord
Chancellor, in whom the Noble Lord surely must have
confidence, and in whom, from his high legal responsibility
he (Sir J. Graham), though not too ready to place confi-
dence in the Noble Lord's colleague, was, in this respect
well disposed fully to confide. There was a very strong
feeling entertained by one party that a predominance would
in point of fact be given by the Bill to the party opposed to
them. The trustees were to be chosen by the same per-
sons 'as those who chose the Town Council ; the Town
Council was to fix the number of the charitable trustees ;
the presiding officer of the Town Council was to be the
presiding officer of the charitable trustees, and in the event
of an equality amongst them even, he would give the pre-
ponderance to the wall of his own political party ; and yet
it was pretended to say that no advantages was given by
the Bill to the predominant political party in the. borough.
The Right Hon. Baronet then proceeded to quote from
Lord Brougham's speeches, to show that he had been per-
fectly alive to the distinction taken by the Noble Lord, be-
tween charitable trusts generally and cases when a fixed
sum only was given out of a Corporate fund to purposes
of charity, and that Lord Brougham's opinion was against
the course pursued by this Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied at considerable
length to the arguments advanced against the Bill. He
denied what was assumed on the other side, that this Bill
necessarily identified the charitable trustees with the town
councils. The constituency might be the same, but the
mode of election was totally different. He remembered
that, during the discussion of the Reform Bill, the Hon.
and Learned Member for Yarmouth proposed that for the
counties three Members should be elected, but that each
electot should only vote for two, and this the Honourable
and Learned Member said would give a fair representation,
because the minority would be fairly represented. Now, in
the present instance, the electors only voted for half, and
how much more fully was the minority represented, inas-
much as they were sure to return as large a number as the
majority. What was the alteration proposed? To leave
it to the present parties for one year longer. Why, it was
admitted on all hands that they were the only parties who
had been guilty of great abuses. " Leave it to the Lord
Chancellor, then," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " he has
power to appoint those trustees." Yes, so he had, but just
in the same way as he had power to appoint new trustees
of the Right Hon. Baronet's marriage settlement on tedious
and expensive proceedings being first taken, proceedings
which, in one of these small cases, would eat up the
whole estate—( Hear, hear, hear)—and then when they
were brought, the question would be referred to the
Master, who would receive proposals from the different
parties in the town, and, if he did his duty, wouldi he did
not hesitate to say, apportion the trustees equally between ;
thus, after a long and expensive process coming to precisely
the same result as that provided for in the Bill. As to the
casting vote given to the mayor, it was not intended that
he should have two votes, but merely that, as there must
be an odd number and a presiding officer, he should preside
over the meetings of the charitable trustees, as the Speaker
presided over that House, and should only vote when the
trustees were equally divided. He denied most distinctly
that the Bth clause alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet
would take away one farthing from the poor for the benefit
of the rich.

Mr. WILLIAMS should cordially support the Bill.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that' the Bill before the

House was the inevitable result of the Municipal Corpora-
tion Reform Act. It purported to transfer charters from
the Corporations to the councils ; and a more desirable
object could scarcely be contemplated. Any change in
that respect would be for the better. The only question to
be decided, was whether the plan proposed by the Bill under
consideration was the hest which could be devised ? He
was sorry to say he believed it was not. The Hon. and
Learned Solicitor-General had spoken severely of the Court
in which be practised, the Court of Chancery. He (Mr.
D. W. Harvey) was delighted to witness the well-merited
chastisement bestowed on it by him, and to perceive the
able exposure of its absurdities Which he made ; but he
could not help expresSing his wonder that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, with all his power and all his experi-
ence, had allowed the subject to slumber for the two past
Sea:ions. With regard to the question before the House,
he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) would admit that there was some
difficulty in the wav of transferring charitable property to
new hands. By the Bill before the House the trustees
were to be equally drawn from two parties, and the mayor
Was to be the judge between them. It was, therefore,
presumed that the mayor was to be an impartial person.
Now it was a well known fact that of all men in a city
or borough the mayor was generally, indeed always, the
most of a party man, and the least impartial in party
matters.(Cries of " Hear, hear," and great laughter.)
That was a very undesirable mode of administering
charity funds it should be admitted ; but still, as no
better was suggested, he would be satisfied with it, provided
there was some other authority to supervise the actions of
the trustees. He trusted that his Majesty's Government
would bring forward in the course of the next session a plan
by which all charities, corporate and others, should be
placed under the controul and regulation of one general
board. With respect to the Bth clause, alluded to, he felt

bound to say that it did not effect the purposes for which it
was stated to be introduced. There were many charities
in the kingdom where the value of the estates bequeathed
having increased by time, the relief extended was not com-
mensurately increased. In other words, where the letter
and not the spirit of the bequest was adhered to. The
Coventry charity of Sir Thomas IVhite, and Sir J. Mor-

land's College charity for decayed Turkey merchants, were
cases in point. But, perhaps, one of the strongest he

. •
could adduce was that of a case relating to the town of
Colchester which had been long in Chancery. Some four
hundred years since, a small estate was left, which pro-
duced at that period the sum of 15s. per week. Of that
sum eighteen-pence per week was paid to each of five poor
persons, on condition that they received no other charity.
At that time eighteen-pence might have been sufficient
to provide comfortably for a poor person ; at present
it was not. The residue was to be given to the par>
son to take care of their souls. In the lapse of time the
estate had increased, and it was now worth 4001. a year.
How was it disposed of? Was the number of poor in-
creased at the original amount of relief, or was the original
number retained, and the increased sum distributed among
them? No ; five poor persons got eighteenpence a week
still, and the residue was pocketed by the parson, for tak-
ing care of their souls. The Court of Chancery was ap-
pealed to, but it decided according to the letter, and not
the spirit of the donor's bequest. The clause (the Bth) did
not remedy the evil. It took away even the chance of
coming before the Court of Chancery. He therefore sug.
gested that terms to the effect of giving Corporations no
greater right in charters administered by them should be
incorporated in it. He was not by any means enamoured
of the scheme of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, for
keeping the administration at' charitable trusts in the
hands for Corporations for another year. He did not be.
lieve that Tories would abuse them more than Whigs, but
he objected to either party having the opportunity of
doing so.

Mr. PEMBERTON coincided with the opinion, that
under the old system of Corporate management charities
were not as well administered as they might be, in conse-
quence of being under the same Administration as the Cor-
porate and political funds. That was the cause of the evil.
The simple remedy was to take the charitable property
from the political, and place the administration of it in
other hands. Did the Bill before the House do that ?
Quite the contrary. It only changed the name, and not
the nature, of the administration. The Bill was defective-,
in so far as it was founded on the Municipal Corporations
Act. The Bill proceeded on no just analogy, and it con-
tained no principle of true Reform. It was a system preg-
nant with evil, and one by which it was impossible the cha-
rities could be administered justly or honestly.
Mr. L. CHARLTON said that the Bill would subject
charities to enormous expenses in the Court of Chancery.
On that ground, he trusted the House would pause before
it subjected them to such an evil.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the present
state of the charitable trusts was most deplorable, and the
Bill before them was intended to remedy the evil, as far
as possible. If the Bill were. thrown out all the argu-
ments now used against the old system would then be
applicable with twofold power, and it strongly manifested
that there was a lurking desire to perpetuate these trusts
on the part of those who had abused them. The other
House had stated its intention, if this Bill did not pass, to
let the present trustees exercise their power for another
year ; but the passing of this Bill would disappoint them.
The Bill proposed that a body distinct from the Corporation
should administer these funds, elected for a limited time,
subject to popular controul, and to account to the public
when called on. The evils of the present system arose

from a want of popular controul. TO? rsmedi- this they
proposed that all the ratepayers of the borough should
have the power of voting for the trustees, but for only one-
half, to render party influence the less liable to interfere in
the result. It was true they were not appointed for life,
but if they did their duty they would be re-elected. It
was said that the Mayor would rule the Council ; but the
Mayor would have no voice therein, except in cases of an
equality of votes. The Mayor might, it was true, be a
party-man. The Speaker of the House of Commons was
a party-man ; but that did not prevent him from doing his
duty impartially in the office to which he was elected.
Mr. SCARLETT disclaimed any intention to perpetuate
misrule in his opposition to this Bill, but if the question
went to a division he should vote against it.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that the Hon. Gentleman
opposite did not expect any division, but he could not tell him,
that he (Colonel Sihthorp) bad come down to give his vote
for its postponement to that day three months, and he had
heard nothing that could induce him to alter his opinion.
He therefore begged leave to move to that effect.
Mr. YOUNG said that the object they had in view
was to remove the charitable trusts from all political in-
fluence, but on the best view he could give of the provi-
sions of the Bill, he thought it could not have the effect,
and therefore he could not support it in its present shape.
If the House went to a division, he must vote against it.

-
Mr. V. SMITH replied. The Opposition had only
replied to the advocates of this Bill by cavils, and without
adducing a single fact or argument against it.—(" Question"
—" Divide.") He would propose that the trustees should
appoint their own chairman, or if the failed to do -so within
a month, then that the council should do so.
Mr. YOUNG explained.
The House then divided--
For the original motion
For the amendment ...
Majority 45
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.

On our re-admission to the Gallery we found
Lord J. RUSSELL moving the third reading of the
Established Church Bill.

Mr. HUME objected to this Bill being proceeded with,
until the full report of the Church Commissioners should
be made.

Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his determination to
proceed with the Bill, so as to have it passed in the present
session.

Mr. HUME persisted in his objection, as the Bill did
not afford any relief to the Dissenters from Church cess ;
and he therefore moved that the Bill be read a third time
that day six months.

Mr. .LENNA RD objected to the Bill, on the ground
that it went to continue the system of translation for
Bishops, and an increasing scale of income.
Sir R. INGLIS said it was clear the 811 l would not
satisfy a great body of those opposite. He opposed_ the
Bill because it would give them the vantage ground, by
'conceding the principle that Church property is public
property. In this he could never concur. He Would not
undervalue the destitution of the poorer Clergy, but it was
not fair to commit injustice on one party to relieve another.
If distress was to be relieved, it should be by other means.
The Church was not endowed by the State, and the State
had no right to interfere with the distribution of its pro-
perty. On these grounds, though not coming to the same
conclusion as the Hon. Member for Middlesex, he should
concur in the amendment.

Mr. F. BUXTON need not say that the indefeasible
,right insisted on by the Hon. Baronet would put an end to
all improvement. That was a Roman Catholic doctrine;
and Protestant practice was opposed to it. No reform
would be satisfactory which did not remedy glaring defects ;
and in the present case the defects pointed out could not
be denied, because those who called attention to them could
not be supposed to be actuated by any other than a friendly
spirit. It was shown that there was a large proportion of
the clergy who had excessive duties with little incomes, and
it was shown that there were large portions of the popula-
tion unprovided either with churches or pastoral superin-
tendence. Instead of going too far the Bill did not go far
enough, for if the incomes of the Bishops were reduced, the
difference would raise to something like a proper amount
the incomes of the working clergy.
Mr. C. BULLER would beg to call the attention of the
Hou:e and the country to the extraordinary and not very
creditable position in which his Majesty's Ministers had
placed themselves, a position for which there was to be no
parallel found in the history of the country. They had by
their course of blundering proceedings alienated from them
their best friends, and hung for support on their enemies.
They were evidently in too great haste to push forward their
crude measures to a close, Now, he would assert publicly,
that in this Bill of theirs there was not one substantial or
useful enactment.—( Hear, hear.) It was a Bill compiled
from the blue book which was placed on the tables of the
Members ; yet, strange to say, this very blue book was not
furnished to the Members till after the Bill was read a
second time.—(A laugh.) When the Right Hon. Baronet
opposite (Sir R. Inglis) asked the House to point out one
single instance in which the State bad given one farthing to
the Church, he would beg to mention to him the bishoprics
created in the time of Henry VIII., when revenues were
alienated, under the sanction of Government and the Par-
liament, from the Catholic Church to the newly-created
Church. But, to revert to the Ministers. By what
species of insanity, he would ask, was it that they deviated
from their principles, alienated themselves from their
friends, and espoused the principles and acted on the re-
commendations of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R.
Peel), after they leagued with the Liberal party in that
House, and drove him from office, from power, and from what
was an important consideration, the emoluments of office ?
(1' Oh, oh !" " No, no.") He begged pardon—he meant no
offence—he did not think that the emoluments of office were
an object to him. He really meant no offence. But he
would say, that though he lost the emoluments of office he
still retained its substantial power by having all his mea-
sures carried. There could not be a more effective impeder
of Reform than the Right Hon. Baronet. By allowing Go-
vernment, and, indeed, urging them on to pass sham mea-
sures of Reform, he was giving Reform a vital blow. The
present Bill was not consistent with the principles of either
party. The other side, through one of their organs,
,(Sir R. Inglis) said, " We must not touch the property of
the Church." So say we, except for something good ; but
this was not given by the Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet
truly said that those measures could not conciliate political
opponents t if so, then those measures for abolishing plu-
ralities, translations, and the equalisation of livings would
only legalise the vices of all these. As to the Dissenters,
they would act pitifully if they accepted the boon held out
to them. They should require that the revenues of the
Deans and Chapters be not distributed in the Church, but
distributed to relieve them from onerous taxes. The
maxims of Government were only calculated to alienate
their friends. He was sure they would not take his words
in a very friendly spirit. But he should tell them not only
his own opinions, but those of many of their best supporters,
They might have worse friends than him. They opposed
his principles, and those of their best friends, and leant for
support on the other side. This was a line of policy that
would not conciliate their political opponents, while it would
disgust the country against them. It was this vacillating
policy that turned them out of office in 1834 ; and would
detach from them the support of the people now. He
never spoke so strongly before ; but it was necessary to
recal Ministers to a sense of heir own principles and
pledges to the people ; and in place of proposing bad and
inoperative laws let them propose sound effective measures,
and they would rally round- them the co-operation and
sympathies of the country.
Lord .I. RUSSELL could not be silent after the re-
marks of the last speaker. He pleaded guilty to the charge
that he did not propose the Bill from party views. lie al-
ways thought it his duty, Whether in or out of office, to
correct the abuses of the Church. if he bad proposed the
lowest emolument for the Bishops he would have been filet
by the taunt that nothing but extreme Reform would please
He, therefore, took a middle course, without regard
to the feelings, of party. Now, when concession was made
on the other side, it would be detrimental to the public in-
terest not to meet it, rather than fesiOt for party purposes ;
especially as the proposed plans had the concurtetiee'ef the
Bishops, and theft was an opportunity of bringing those
questions to an amicable adjustment. If he proposed to
give the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, 8,0001.
a-year, and the Bishop of London 4,500/. a-year, he
might have saved some 25,000/. a-year; but then that
proposition would have met with effective opposition.
It was better to reform temperately and satisfactorily,
and meet concession in the same friendly spirit.—(Hear,
hear.) It was unfair to charge Government with crea-
ting evils which they designed to remedy. So far from
legalising translations from very small to very emolu-
mentary bishoprics, they had actually taken treasures to
equalise the revenues of the sees. He would further say
that he did not think it right to bestow, for the benefit of the
Dissenters, the surplus revenues of the Church, when there
were small livingsito be enlarged. At present pluralities
could not be dispensed with on account of the smallness of
the emoluments of some livings. Though he Jegretted the
opposition of some of his Hon. Friends, v he would
maintain the principles of the Bill, which he contended were
based on a solid foundation. It was the duty of Parliament
to defend the Church, and he was sure the present measure
tended to secure the interests of the Establishment and pre-
vent long contention. He would, therefore, persevere in
pressing the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL could assure the Hon. Member (Mr.
Buller) that the Bill was no triumph to him ; that he did not
look upon it as any concession to his views or his party.
Neither was there any reanceuvre on his part to have
such a Bill introduced. If the Commission was purely
his Commission there might be grounds for attack,
but it was not. When he filled the highest office of
the Governwnt he advised the friends of the Church

to appoint such a Commission, as he thought that if
thi.dignitaries and other friends of the Estahljshment gave
their sanction to a plan of adjustment it would be more
likely to be successful than if proposed by any other party.
When he retired he did notrecOmmend a continuation ot"the
Commission. The present Government continued it front
their own judgment. For his part he disclaimed all politi-
cal motives in suggesting the Commission at first, or act-
ing on its recommendation now, and he surely never had
any communication with the Noble Lord about it. What
could be stronger evidence of the disinterestedness of Go-
vernment in appointing the Commission than that they re-
signed to it patronage to a large amount, which they could
use to their own useful purposes ? Not only did the Go-
vernment act thus disinterestedly, but the Bishops resigned
the patronage that belonged to them, and which they
could, and were justified if they did, use for the benefit of
the meritorious portion of their own families. Nothing
was easier than to say that a Bishop should not have
more than a certain sum annually ; but Parliament
would not, he was sure, confine the dignitaries of the
Church to a paltry pittance. From the claims there
were on the hospitality and charity of the Bishops,
and from the positive necessity there was that they
should uphold the decorous dignity of their high sta-
tion, Parliament would not, and ought not, dole out
to them their emoluments with a niggard hand. Now,
suppose they cut down the income of the Archbishop
of Canterbury to 10,0001. per annum, they would still find
persons ready to cavil with even that income, and to en-
large upon the advantages of reducing it to .5,000/. a year.
The only way in which to consider incomes was with respect
to the station of the individual". Considering the extent of
patronage that had been given up, and believing the Bill to
contain the principle of a useful reform of the Church, he'
certainly should give it his pupport.. He thought that the
course which the Noble Lord had taken was the right
course, and he trusted that the compliment which he had
paid him, would not have the effect of prejudicing the
process of the measure.

Lord EBRINGTON would support the third reading
of the Bill, because he concurred in its general principles
and objects, though there were some of the details which
did not meet his approbation. He would have been better
pleased if they had reduced the larger salaries, and, made
a provision to secure the residence of the Bishops in their
dioceses when they were not engaged in other duties.
He would also have been better pleased, if the territorial
possessions of the Bishops were placed in the manage-
ment of a Board of Commissioners, and a regular and
fixed income paid to the Bishops in lieu thereof. He
considered it would be more advantageous to the Church
as it would enable the Bishops to discharge their episcopal
duties without the anxiety attendant upon the ma-
nagement of large landed estates. He hoped that this
suggestion would be considered worthy the attention of the
friends of the Church in the other House of Parliament.
With respect so another Bill before Parliament, namely,
that which took away the patronage of the Deans and
Chapters, and transferred it to the Bishops, he trusted that
at this period of the session his Noble Friend would not
press that measure, as they would not have time to give
it sufficient consideration. He had moved for a return on •
the subject. , He considered the measure before the House
would be found beneficial.—(Hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. DUNCOMBE rose -
together. The former Hon. Gentleman moved the ad-
journment of the debate.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Mr. GOULBU RN stated that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury having been named by the Speaker, and being in
possession of the House, and the Hon. Member for Salford
having, notwithstanding, made a motien, he did not think,
under such circumstances, a motion so made was regular.
The SPEAKER made no observation in reply, and
Mr. DUNCOMBE proceeded to address the House,
amid cries of " Adjourn" and " Go on," and considerable
noise. He expressed his disappointment and disgust at the Bill
before the House as a measure of Church reform, and in
that feelinr, he was joined by every real Reformer, both in
and out of that House. He acquitted the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth of all responsibility with respect to
this Bill. His Majesty's Ministers were alone responsible
for it. They might talk of the Irish Tithe Bill, and its
unhappy appropriation clause—(A laugh)—but the mea-
snre before them was the touchstone by which the people
of England would decide whether or not his Majesty's Mi-
nisters would deserve the confidence of the country. The
Hon. Member condemned the constitution of the Church
Commission, which was composed of five Bishops, five
Cabinet Ministers, and five gentlemen, who, however ines-
timable in private life, were known to be inveterate Tories.
He adverted to the petitions from the Deans and Chap-
ters presented by the Member for Lancashire (Lord F.
Egerton). He thought the petitioners were right in their
objections to a central Board. He did not compluin of the
spoliation of patronage of the Deans and Chapters, but he
objected to the transfer of that patronage to the Bishops.
In conclusion, the Hon. Member expressed his strong con-
demnation of the Bill as a measure of Church reform.
Mr. HAWES considered that the Hon. Member for
Salford's motion of adjournment was the question before
the House. If no Member was at liberty to move the
question of adjournment until he was seen by the Speaker,
the independence of the House, and every Member in it,
would be at the disposal of the Speaker. •
The SPEAKER said that he had put the question.
Lord F. EGERTON—As allusion had been made to
to the petitions presented by him, he hoped that those peti-
tions would receive the attention to which the profession,
and character, -and station of the petitioners entitled them.
It was his intention, whenever that Bill was before the
House, to move amendments embodying the spirit of the
prayer of those petitions ; and he hoped those amendments
would receive favourable consideration.

Mr. BLACKSTONE asked the Noble Lord opposite
whether the two new Bishops of Manchester and Ripon
would be entitled to seats in the House of Lords ?

Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the affirmative. They
would be entitled to the same rights and privileges as were
possessed by the other Bishops.
Mr. A. TREVOR rose to address the House, but the
cres of " Adjourn" and " Divide" were so loud, that the
Hon. Member was unable to proceed. He expressed his
concurrence in the opinions that had been expressed by his
Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford,
and stated his intention to vote against the Bill. After in-
effectually attempting to be heard, the Hon. Gentleman
concluded by again moving the question of adjournment.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but on our
return it was understood that no division took place, the de-
bate being adjourned to Friday next.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned, at a Quarter to Two o'Clock.

HO USE OF LORDS, JULY 19.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack
at five o'clock.

GREENWICH PIER.

Lord KENYON moved the second reading of the
Greenwich Pier Bill.—Agreed to.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the Clergy and Magistrates of Southampton, complaining of
the number of beer-shops.
The Earl of CALEDON presented a petition against
the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Soutb
Metropolitan Cemetery Bill, which was read a first time.
Lord L YNDHURST presented a petition from the Chief
Clerk of the Irish Court of Chancery, praying for com-
pensation under the Chancery Reform Bill. The petition
having been read at length by the Clerk,
Lord PLUNKETT entered into a long statement, for
the purpose of showing that the petitioner had obtained
an ample compensation, and that he wanted to obtain
a situation as Assistant-Registrar, to which he was Pot
entitled. He conceived that he was bound to abide
by the provisions of the Act upon this subject, which
he (Lord Plunkett) had had the honour to introduce-
There would be a saving of nearly 3,0001. per annum to
the public by the new arrangements in that department.
I\ll% BEItNAL and others from the Commons, brought up
a copy of the Report of the Committee on Leith Harbour ;
also the Paper Duties Bill, the Copyright (Ireland) Bill,
the Light Houses Bill, and the Sale of Bread Bill, with an
amendment.
DUNDEE WATER-WORKS.
Lord BANDON, as Chairman of the Committee on the
Dundee Water-works Bill, reported to the House that the
preamble of the Bill had not been proved.
The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Amendments Bill,
and the Turnpike Acts (Ireland) Bill, went through
Committee.
The Bills on their Lordships' table were advanced a stage'
Lord WYNFO RD presented a petition, complaining of
the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.
On the motion of Lord ROSSLYN, the Report of the
Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagree'
ing with some of the amendments made by the Coo'
mons to the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill «'es
read, and a message was sent requesting a conference With
the Commons thereon.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Pa'
rochial Assessment Regulation Bill went into Committee.
On the first clause being read, Lords Ellenborough'
Kenyon, and some other Noble Lords, objected to it.
The Duke of RICHMOND defended the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Coe'
mittee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it 2B
Majority in favour of the clause —3
On clause 3 being proposed,
The Du :e of RICHMOND said the effect of the cla"se
would amount in many cases to a denial of justice. Oil
knew that a power of appeal was given, and that a no

;~
:~

.a

m

ght bring his lawyer and witnesses to make out a case at
the Sessions, but if he were merely over-rated a small sum
,ito would not be worth while to do so. This, would amount
Lift.denial of justice, and he certainly would prefer to see
..increase of an appeals than that parties should be
obliged to suffer from petty acts of injustice on the part
of the overseers.
Tile remaining clauses were then agreed to, the Bill
.6 Passed through Committee, and was reported, with amend-
ments, to the House. The Report to be received on
4.uureday •
RUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (AMEND-
The MENT) BILL.
co -°llowing Peers were appointed managers of the
or nference on the part of their Lordships :—The Marquis
EarlalishnrY, the Earl of Devon, Earl Mansfield, the
or Rosslyn, Earl Vane the Bishop of Lincoln, and
"IA Kenyon.
On the return of the Conference the reasons of the Corn-
, "ns Were ordered to be considered, but on what day we
eOOll not hear.
TITE COMMUTATIO.
`nDle o
eTh Marquis H
of LANSDOWNE N saidBILL
that as the
uese
had given so genearal a consent. to the prin-
f the measure he should not trouble the House with
zany observations on the present occasion, but should
merely advert to those points which were reserved for
,ceenstderation by the Committee. The first and most ma-
t red point was that relating to the appointment and
red
of the Commissioners. By an amendment
of
,Noble Baron, it was proposed to substitute the name
nfla • '
ts Majesty for that of the Secretary of State in the ap-
aintment of the Commissioners ; but subsequently a Right
-Rev, Prelate had moved as an amendment that the Com-
issioners should only be removed by the joint act of the
Archbishop, and of the other power—either the King or the
uretary of State. He (the Marquis of Lansdowne)
eg
We that it would be extremely indecorous thus to join
"'line of his Majesty with that of the Archbishop, and
State"
"tad rather prefer to have the words " Secretary of
;d and
restored, the nomination resting in the Government,
the Government, of course, being responsible. The
th°l4o Marquis concluded by moving that in the first clause
e words " Secretary of State" be inserted.
dThe Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought the Com-
doners would appear to the public more independent if
?Ivere only removable by the joint act of the Archbishop
(1 of the Secretary of State.
p 71,1 e Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in consequence of a sug-
mn Lord ELLENBOROUGH postpoucd the clause, for
Purpose of considering how it should be worded.
-,rhe Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that for clause
as it at present stood, he should propose the substitu-
of another, which would more clearly and accurately rine the authority of persons who might act as agents.
Ist was to the effect that any land-owners or tithe-owners
eue,,llowed to appoint agents, in order to carry into exe-
t ution the provisions of this Act ; that anything which,
! this Act, are directed to be done by, or with relation to,
tginY person, may be lawfully done by or with relation to
agent of such person ; that such agent be allowed to
avote
,° any question upon which the principal of such
„ge,4 might have voted ; and that the powers of attorney
"Mier which such agents acted be appended to every ag-
greZaent entered into by them.
the clause was agreed to.
t The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could see no
!asen why tithe-owners should be deprived of any prospec-
,''.l7,e right which they would enjoy under the present law.
with respect to waste lands, he had already expressed his
should
that when they were brought into cultivation they
not be subject to tithes, because that would act as
impediment to the expenditure of capital, which it was
the object of the Bill to encourage, but that a portion of
them should be set apart as the property of the tithe-owner ;
and he now proposed the introduction of a clause, after
clause 38, to enable the Commissioners to set apart from
411 common lands brought into cultivation such a portion
of land as would now of right belong to the tithe-owner.
_ Lord ELLENBOROUH deciededly objected to the
clause. It might come into operation 100 years hence ;
and then they must refer back to the valuation under this
and must strike off the rent charge. At the present
moment, if any inclosure was desired to be mad.e,, many
Persons, for the purpose of conciliating the titheowner to
consent to such enclosure, might be willing to give a portion
of the land ; butwhen,instead of tithes, they paid a rent
chi l-
nrge, there would no loner be the same inducement for
'"em to give a portion of their land in order to obtain that
'-'l:llsent. At the present the value of such tithes would be
infini
4%, tely small ; when portions of the land were given,
SdutSuture were always given according to what might be the
ure value of the tithes. Now, there was nothing pro-
ctive in this Bill ; but if they introduced the present
c`a,use then it would become prospective to any extent.
ihe Marquis of LANSDOWNE felt compelled, and
rdentln,id it with great reluctance, upon the grounds stated by
th Noble Lord (Ellenborough), to oppose the clause of
grin'ght Rev. Prelate. He opposed it upon the general
that it would convert this into a retrospective
__'asure. The sill at present afforded security to the tithe-
Zvoe.rs for a rent-charge according to the value of tithes
re,.%i" they had hitherto received ; and at the same time
eld the landowner from all eventual burdens, and all
After
arising out of the tithe law.
• r a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND in
position to the clause,
an Lord ASHBURTON said there were very few parishes
rrng and in which there were any commons worth en-
l'l`44l° Which were not already enclosed, and he felt that it
',Ala a eeh greater hardship upon the landowner to Le
called upon to pay tithes for lands . which might go out of
c,ultivation than for the titheowner to be deprived of tithes
'for 1 ' .
"us which might hereafter be enclosed. The Bill,
open the whole, was, he thought favourable to the tithe-
te: Ivner t ; and as his greatest objection to this Bill was with
We to the manner in which it dealt with lands that
most
te go out of cultivation—(Hear, hear)—he should
ost decidedly oppose the clause of the Right Rev. Pre-
, which would inflict an additional hardship upon the
ishndowner.
lie knew in many cases, particularly if there
the be any alteration in the corn laws, that it would be
Seththe owners of land
e interest of to give up the land alto-
er to the titheowner, in preference to being obliged to
Pay tithes for that land.
~,The clause was then put, and negatived withouta division.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to propose a
_clause after clause 28 ; it was a clause of some importance,
and one which he thought would meet with general con-
currence. It bad been suggested that it would be expe-
Vent that rent charges should be convertible into land, pro-
Red that land did not exceed a certain amount. The
ht Rev. Prelate had proposed twenty acres. His ob-
Zwas to carry that into effect with respect to clerical
ners, and with regard to lay owners to convert rent
arges into land without any restriction as to extent.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was not prepared to offer
'l.3'n' opposition to the principle of the clauses ; but he cer-
al 1Y did think that they should form the subject of a se-
11arate measure.
After a few words from Lord DACRE in support of
the clauses
The Bishoptude of EXETER begged to express his grati-
, as a Bishop, for the introduction of the clauses which
were now proposed. He was sure they would be consi-
dered a great boon by the country. As to the number
o the he, however, thought that regard should be had
t
quality of the land.
After a few words from Lord RATHERTON and the Mar-
-IUIS Of SALISBURY,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that, with
regard to the number of 20 acres, be thought 20 acres of
the richest land not too much ; and even 20 acres of poor
land was a very considerable accommodation in the con-
version of a rent charge into land. Those reasons, with
the advantage of having some definite number, had induced
111n1 to make the suggestion which he had done.
Lord WYNFORD approved of the clauses.
The Earl of DEVON did not think it prudent to intro-
duce a clause of this nature into the Bill.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed that so
ninth doubt existed as to the propriety of converting the
rent charge into land in the case of lay titheowners, that
thought it better to postpone the clause for further con-
sideration to a future stage of the Bill. The clause was
accordingly postponed.
Clauses 30 to 33 were agreed to.
Clauses from 35 to 51 were also agreed to.
After clause 51, the postponed clause, 40, was inserted.
Clauses up to 61 were agreed to, with verbal amend-
Clauses 62 to SS inclusive were agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.
The postponed clauses were then disposed of, and the
-"Dill ordered to be read a third time on Friday next.
The Small Debts (Scotland) Bill, and the Bankrupts
(Scdayotland) Bill were ordered to be read a second time on
Adjourned at a quarter past ten.

t.JICIDE..---On Saturday an inquest was held at
Inc Prince's Head, Princess-street, Westminster, on the
.body
of Thomas Hall, aged 53, a Chelsea pensioner, who committed
suicide. The deceased had been
nearly thirty years in the
4111 Y, and served during the whole of the Peninsular campaign
."land the Duke of Wellington. After the war the deceased,
10 had received a number of wounds, particularly at Water-
loo, was disbanded with a pension of Is. 3d. per diem, as out-
Pensioner of Chelsea Hospital. The deceased, at times, was
Rreatly,,, affected in his head, when at all excited by drink..
8111.1 s was attributable to a sabre wound received during his
.zeivic.es. On Wednesday he was paid his pension, upon which.
ccasien he made too free with some of his old comrades in
•rriPs., and was taken home in a state of insensibility to his
l?dging in Orchard-street, Westminster, and put to bed. On
the following morning (Thursday), the old veteran was dis-
soverFd hanging to a hook in the ceiling, by a piece of cord._ Yerdict, " Temporary Mental Derangement."