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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12.
PIOUS AND CHARITABr.E TRUSTS.
(Continueo .row ~ur Aft,raooii E.i Psti.rday )
Lord CLIVE attracied the not.e.- o' Spe.ker
IT- said there was a strong prejac:lo._
by the Right iiobouf table Baron-i
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 the old
laws, the legislation since the Reformation; they wished
only to repeal the Act 9th of George 11. But he would
ask those who set up the bugbear, what had been the
spirit of legislation'since the Reformation ? What was
the policy of Queen Elisabeth, and those great
men of her time, whose wisdom continued a landmark in
history, and whose valour destroyed the Armada?—
(Hear.) The 31st of Elizabeth, c. 7, was for the be-
queathing of lands to charitable uses; the 39th,
e. 2, was for a poor-law carrying out the
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 follow ed 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 11. That Bill of
Elizabeth was entirely charitable in , its. nature ;
it was not likely that. she would make a law
favourable to Rome. James 1., too, who could not be
supposed to incline towards the Roman Catholic religion,
carried 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 succession, it appeared
that the power of bequest was fully 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
could not be correctly called the safeguard of Protes-
tantism. The present law did not apply to Ireland
or Scotland, and he thought the Honourable
Member for Oxford could not contend that
that law was passed for the security of Protes-
tantism. They were endeavouring, not to introduce a
new principle, but merely to remove an anomaly.
They did not wish charities to get possession of
the land, but merely that property should be
placed in the same position with respect to that as it
was with reference to anything else. The University of
Oxford was enabled, by an Act, to sell their land. Were it
not for an exemption of Queen Anne's bounty from that
restriction by the 43d of George 111., that most useful
charity would not have been half so efficient as it was.
In his Church Endowment Bill the Right Hon. Baronet
himself had made serious encroachments on the principle
contended for. Let them look at the manufacturing
towns, and they would find that this statute worked
most injuriously, and in agricultural districts there was
equal iniury inflicted.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he should have been
content to have let the measure go to a division, after
the speech of his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for
the Home Department, without making any observa
tions upon it, had not the House decided that
the debate should continue. He trusted that at some
other period it would be so contrived that so important
a question would not be brought forward at a time when
so large a proportion of Hon. Members were necessarily
absent in their several Committees. He could hardly
agree with his Noble Friend in any one particular
of his speech except his eulogium upon Sir F.
Palgrave. While he admitted the justice of that praise,
he could not attempt to assert that, however high and
talented an authority Sir F. Palgrave might be on this
subject, still he was not infallible, and many assertioni
made on his authority were incorrect. He trusted
that the House would not be misled by any state-
ment, however elaborate, into an assent to this Bill, but
that it would be rejected upon its own merits, as a simi-
lar meesare was rejected last year. He thought that
any measure that could encourage men to give in their
lifetime for charitable purposes was better than one
to encourage them to defraud their heirs' by leav-
ing their properties for these purposes after the it
death.--(flear, hear.) There had been many Acts with
reference to this subject, and all of them had been re-
laxed in favour of the Church of England. lie
would not enter upon the ' subject more fully
just then, but he would say that, rather than
take the Noble Lord's Bill as he found it, he was con-
tent to take the law ae he found it. On many grounds
it was very inexpedient to disarrange the law as it, now
stood, and for still heavier reasons would it be inexpe-
dient to pass the measure of his Noble Friend into a
law.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE supported the second reading
of the Bill.
M. NEWDEGATE said that the evils which this
Dill proposed to remedy were not so great as the evils
which would accrue from it.
Lord J. MANNERS r i:)ied—He said that the lion.
:Member for Tam worth i,.Lroduced his Bill without any
of those objections off:-red by the Right Hon. Baronet
having been urged against it, and he could not conceive
why one thing was to be right in Ireland and entirely
avrong in England.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 2O
Against it

Maj,rity -.143
AGRICULTURAL TENANT RIGHT BILL.
Mr. PUSEY presented a petition from the members
of the Landowners and Farmers' Society, in favour of the
Bill. The lion. Gentleman stated that it was not his
intention to proceed further with the Bill. The Right
Hon. Mtember for Tarnworth had stated, and he agreed
with him, that the legislation at that period of the ses-
sion could not do anything which could satisfy the
parties concerned. He hoped, therefore, to be allowed
to withdraw the Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman could
not look back on his course with any but the most pleas-
ing reflections, for his object had been to benefit the
parties concerned, to promote the application of capital
to agriculture, and to afford a just compensation to the
farmer for the changes which had occurred. The course
of the lion. Gentleman did him great credit.
The Bill was then withdrawn.
LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
On the order of the day far going into Committee on
this Bill being read,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said the object of
the Bill was similar to that of a Bill brought
in by Government, viz., to enable those of limited pro-
perty to improve their lands on Government advances
at a rent charge. It was intended to include those who
were excluded from the Government measure. He
wished to have the opinion of some Members of the Go-
vernment before going into Committee as to how far the
Government were prepared to support it.
Mr. MONAHAN (Solicitor-General for Ireland)
said one of the provisions of the Bill, allowing the tenant
tier life to borrow money from the Government, was one
the operation of which would require consideration, and
he hoped the Hon'. Gentleman would postpone the Bill.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD postponed the Bill
for a week.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS
BILL.
Mr. ROMILLY said he would not press this Bill
during the present session ; but he would postpone it
till this day week, and on Tuesday next he would move
tor a Committee to inquire into the operati,n of the law
on Roman Catholic charitable trusts.
The second reading was then postponed to this day
week.

POOR-RATES (IRELAND) BILL.

This Bill wont through Committee pro forma.

bringing up the report,
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, who had risen at the
moment when the Speaker was leaving the chair, said
ho wished to have entered his strong protest
against this Bill, and to have moved that it should
bs committed that day six month;. He protested
ak-ainst any change in this matter now, after what had
passed upon the subject during the present session ;
and. second, against a private ..lember of the House
dealing with so weighty a matter, and he called upon
the Government to come forward and state their opi-
nion upon the principle on which rating ought to be
founded in Ireland. He therefore moved that the report
should be received that day six months.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he had stated shortly the
grounds on which he agreed to the second reading of
.the Bill at that time. He thought the Bill was one of
ponsiderable importance, and when in Committee it came
bcfore them clause by clause he would state his opinion.
BLit he was not prepared to say that the law at present
was in a satisfactory state, nor did he mean to say that
the principle of voting ought to continue as it was, or to
be sub37ected to change.
Mr. YOUNG thought the Bill was either a very ridi-
culous one, or one that would not be practicable.
Mr. SHARMAN CRA WFORD thought the House
would ga-ant him a hearing for a very few moments.
He had proposed to expunge the 6th clause, not because
be thought it better to expunge that clause from his own
new of its merits, but from the opposition that
t,
lad been made. In all cases the tenant was
compelled to pay the rate, with right afterwards
to deduct it from ther
of rent, but the tenants were so com-
pletely in the hands landlord and agent that they
were not able to get backth that portion of the rate to
which they were entitled.
U 5 That had been stated to him
from good authority.
thealluded to what had
been respectingstated
estate. The valuation of their Earl
of Wicklow's
justly lower
than the rent;, which had a most beneficial was justly effect upon
rack-renting landlords, but he eniehfi
ottuiri;ghh;nortehatthaint
was most unjust to charge the ten
.his due prooortion of the rate.
would be de:udived if it supposed that zuntry
brnt rife (!0,21,1 collecred, or, in a w,,ra, P
that
rate could hi, ef;riPc'e(i when no means of Daying it
It , igh , im, thet a tl:,ff •ro)t Triode of levy
existed.
ing rates sh:01 Thee. courts of law
then might appoint a receiver on the estates of those
who did not ace justly would not give up the other
classes of the Bill.
Sir R. _FERGUSON ex,j-iinerl that the statement
respecting the Earl of Wield,. a- ha] been contradicted
—(Cries of " Divide. divide.")
Mr. LABOUCHERI thought that if the Bill were
stopped at the present stage the Hous'e would be takina
an unusual course. The second reading of this Bill
;bad been agreed to, and the Hon. Member who had in-
tiroduced the Bill said that he was ready to make
amendments in his meastire.—(Cries of" Divide.")
)&r. GOULBURN thought it was proper that this
Etill.shottld not be longer kept in agitation.
The House then divided, when there appeared—

---
gor the motion - -55
Against it
Majority
Tile ill was consequently lost.