The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-13 00:00:00

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS.

The reports of the following Bills were considered and
agreed to:—
Birkenhead Commissioners Dock Acts Amendment
(Construction of New Docks and Alteration of Cul-
vert—Amendments to be proposed).
Birkenhead Dock Company and Herculaneum Dock
Company Amalgamation.
Dumfermbne and Cupar Court-houses.
AGRICULTURAL TENANT-RIGHT BILL.

Several petitions were presented in favour of the
Agricultural Tenant-right Bill.
AIEDICAL REGISTRATION BILL.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented petitions in favour of
;he Medical Registration Bill.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.

Mr. BRIGHT presented petitions from Durham and
other places, in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
WINDOW TAX.

Lord MORPETH presented petitions complaining of
,he operation of the window- tax, and praying for relief.
PIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

Lord JOHN MANNERS in moving the second read-
ing of the Pious and Charitable Trusts Bill, said that
his object was to repeal the Act of 1736, called the
Mortmain Act, which he would prove was subversive of
the spirit of the law of England, and totally inconsistent
with justice. From the Reformation to 1736, the people
of this country enjoyed perfect freedom to bequeath
their property to any charitable purposes they thought
fit, and it was only by that Act which he sought to re-
peal they were prevented from doing so ; an Act which
he contended was at variance with every principle of the
English law, which he undertook to prove to the House.
The Noble Lord then read several extracts from Lord
Hardwicke's life of Sir Robert Walpole. The effect of
these extracts went to show that the Mortmain Bill was
passed in opposition to the Church and the bishops.
Here, then, they had it avowed by Lord Hardwicke,
who made the ablest speech for the second reading of
the Bill, that the great reasm which induced Parliament
to pass it was jealousy of the Church and a desire of
lawyers to increase litigation. There was not one
word about the great evils which the preamble of the
Bill stated. He had proved that this Bill was subversive
of the ancient spirit of the country. It was rather an
attack upon the Church than anything else. He thought
then that the House would agree to repeal this most un-
charitable Act, which had worked its full share of mis-
chief. The mischievous effects of this law were
visible in every part of the metropolis. Ask
the child of ignorance and sin in Manchester
why does he pursue the paths of shame, and he will
answer that the pious intentions of charitable persons
have been frustrated by the operation of this Act. It
was all very well to say to a rich man, divest yourself of
thhaed
death-bed
tnhe-ahre
dre relations.the r
the wealth you intend to bestow in charity during your
life time, but it was a very hard thing to say to a
poor man who could not thus strip himself, and who
The deathbed of the rich man was still as open as ever.
Did it guard it from the undue solicitations of the pimp,
rich
ht i
ms
a n said ;
itth that
d this
ne. Acts
such
hg guarded
thing.
-
the pander, the mistress, or the prostitute ; the death-
hed was still open to every undue solicitation, save
that of Christian charity. He could show that
landed property could be
as beneficially
managed for
the public as any other. It was urged that this Act
prevented the tying up of property in the Church. Well,
for the sake of the poor, he would yield to everything of
the semblance of truth in such an argument, and he
would consent that the property so bequeathed should
only be enjoyed for a certain number of years, and
then sold fur the benefit of the poor.—(Hear.)
He concluded by
r ant r
dh
uwfortkhiengßoilfl. this
i,hAect, t o
Nobleg
eof the poor, the blind, the halt, and the lame, to whom
appealing to the House, in the name
the Gospel was not preached, by reason of the baneful
amid loud cheers. then
the r e
ssue cmoendd rhise a
a dsiengt

Sir GEORGE GREY said that, upon a full considera-
tion of the principles of the Bill of the Noble Lord
which was rejected last year, of the rejection of that
Bill, and of the principles somewhat modified of the
present Bill, he must still offer his opposition to the
second reading of the Bill. The Noble Lord,
in his speech, had dwelt strongly on the
Act of the 9th of George the Second, as if
that were the Mortmain Act. Why, there had
been a number of Acts in existence for many years pre-
vious bearing upon this subject. What was the effect of
the Act of 17th George 11. ? The preamble showed
that it was intended not originally to prevent the aliena-
tion of land for charitable purposes, but to prevent the
evasions of Acts previously existing, which forbade
the alienation of property, and unlawfully disinheriting
the lawful heir. Men were clearly not prohibited from
giving their property for charitable purposes. The pro-
hibitions extended only to circumstances in which it was
possible that they might not have proper legal
advice. It was clearly possible for them to
sell the property in their lifetime, and give
the money for such charitable purposes as they
might think proper, and go in compliance with the other
conditions specified in the Act to which t h Ncled Lordu
42
had alluded. The Noble Lord's Bill the Brat
prepoied the repeal of the 9th of George IT., and in the
following clauses proposed certain enactments which quite
fell short of the Noble Lord's intention. The Right
Hon. Baronet then proceeded to remark upon the
clauses in exlenso, showing that they fell short of the
object of the Bill, and failed in law ; and added, he felt
compelled to oppose the Noble Lord, which be did with
regret, considering the noble motives by which
he was actuated. He concluded by moving
that the Bill be read that day six months. He sat
down amid loud cries of " Divide," and strangers were
ordered to withdraw, when
Lord CLIME attracted the notice of the Speaker.
He said there was a strong prejudice out of' doors, fos-
tered perhaps by the Right Honourable Baronet
the Member for the University of Oxford,
that in that House they sat to destroy the
old laws. It was not their intention to destroy
hthaetgr w oelaadst
po
laws; the legislation since the Reformation;
tthhoesye wished
only to repeal the Act 9th of George 11. But he would
ask, those who set up the bugbear, what had been the
st ph ieri
ilceyg i s
01 aft i o
Qn 'us
ei necne thel
zlatbeefothr n],a
at inodn ? What
men of her tirne, whose wisdom continued a landmark in
history,' and whose valour destroyed the Armada?—
(Hear.)
of lands to charitable uses; the 39th,
c. 3, was for a poor-law carrying out the
Eear.) The 31st of Elizabeth, c. 7, was for the be-
spirit of the previous Act, and after that
followed a law for the punishment of vagrants, in-
dicating that they were guided by no sickly spirit. But
then followed c. 4 of that Act, which was the most im-
portant. of all, permitting and requiring the erection of
hospitals for the poor. From a provision in that Act it
was clearly shown that the policy of Elizabeth was quite
different from that of George IL That Bill of
Elizabeth was entirely charitable in its nature ;
it was not likely that she would make a law
et.ow jaradinsetsheLn otmooa'n Catholic religion,
who could not be
scarried out that policy. William, Mary, and Queen
Anne, too, were always found to be favouring charity.
With respect to one of the grounds of the objection of
the Right Hon. Baronet respecting
favourable
uppose
succession, it appeared
that the' power of bequest was full-
dtotoincßlionme
y extended to York
and Wales. The power of testators was made absolute
except in cases of charity, and no care was taken
of heirs. What was the meaning of the restriction of
personalty? It was not sufficient to say that it
did exist, and . the authority of William, Mary, and Anne,
might be well opposed to that of George. That measure
u
ld not be correctly called the safeguard of Protes-
tantism.co The present law did not apply to Ireland
or Scotland, and he the Honourable
Member for Oxford could Lot contend that
that law was passed for the security Of Protes-