The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.
BEQUESTS FOR PIOUS AND CHARITABLE
PURPOSES BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that with regard to the case of
Caldbeck, in Ireland, which had been cited as one where
undue influence was exercised, he had to state that the Rev.
Dr. Meyler • had not the Smallest personal interest whatever
in the legacy. The lady in question had lived for thirty
years with her brother, and had, from the earliest
period of her life,- declared her intention of leaving
her property for charitable purposes. A contest afterwards
arose, the case went into court, and when it was tried the
judge held that the will Was good. After such a decision he
would ask was it fair to cite that case as one of undue in-
fluence ?—( Hear; hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then thanked
the Noble Lord for haying - brought the question before the
House, and exhorted him to. persevere with it. He considered
that they ought not to have ore law on the subject fur
Scotland, ahother for Ireland; and a third for England, but that
these laws ought to be looked into, and a sound and a ra-
tional Bill introduced to correct these errors. The law ought
certainly not to remain as it was, and the relaxation of it
ghouls' be for the purpose of faciliting the granting of bequests
foveligious purposes and for acts of charity. Did they at
present get too much for such purposes?-(Hear, hear.)
Whatever difference of opinion might exist on religious
piestions, they were all agreed on the necessity of a religious
education to tnerising generation ; hence they ought to grant
every reasonable facility on the subject of bequests.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not
allow the present discussion to pass without say-
ing a few words. After the most anxious consideration
of the measure before the House. he could not consent to its
second reading. According to it they were called on to re-
peal the 9th of George 11., and to substitute this new law,
and the grounds :or this course were set forth to bethe report
oldie Committee that had sat on the subject of bequests of
the kind stated. Now he had looked through that report,
and he found an error in its very beginning,where it was stated
that the law of George 11. was a law of mortmain. This was not
the fact. There was this distinction between a mortmain
Act and the Act of George 11., that the former related to
the principle of property being held by corporate
bodies in perpetual succession, and the latter pro-
vided that certain restrictions should be placed
on the making of gifts for charitable purposes.
It was curious to trace the history of the struggle between
the ecclesiastical body and the Legislature on this subjeet—
the ecclesiastical body devising means to evade the statutes,
and the Legislature devising fresh means to hinder the mis-
chief as it arose. One of the acts of the clergy was to take land
for long terms of years, and this was provided against by the
2d of Edward 1., which made these contracts void. The
clergy then adopted the plan of bringing feigned actions
against the paities, and so obtaining possession. That was
also provided against, but it gave rise lb an ordinary re-
covery which, until a very short time since, was used as a
means of conveyance of property. The clergy then
made that distinction which even now prevails
in our laws. They distinguished between the use
and the possession of land, allowing the parties
to remain in possession while they received the profits them-
selves. The 15th of Richard 11. made the Act of Mortmain
apply to the use as well as to-the possession of lands. The
clergy then endeavoured to- obtain a sort of qualified profit
by malting charges for various ceremonies, and these charges
were payable from the land. That was provided against by
the 23d henry VIII., which provided against superstitious
uses and customs,- and that Act remained in force until the
7th and Bth Win. 111., which vested in the Crown alone the
powerof allowingpersons to receive land by mortmain. The
Committee had inquired the object of the Act of 9th George 11.
He had referred to t he Act itself; and the preamble distinctly set
forth that it was to' prevent the mischief arising from persons
willing away their property to be applied to charitable pur-
poses after their death to the detriment of their heir at law.
That law provided that any deed of gift of that nature should
be executed twelve months before the death of the party, and
registered within six months from the date of its signature.
The Legislature considered gist with reference to real pro-
perty, which is land, that weak and worldly-minded persons
might be acted upon by a feeling of vanity to associate their
names with some public or charitable foundations. They
considered that they might be acted upon when their minds
were enfeebled, and their bodies broken down by sickness, to
part with their property. That danger did not extend with
so much force to personal property, for in that case there
was no local, visible, or permanent character connected
with it. Upon looking over the report, he had not been able
to discover anything, either in the report itself, or in the wit-
nesses examined, to justify any alteration of the present law.
Among the witnesses examined was the Bishop of London;
he was in favour of a relaxation of the provisions of the ex-
isting law to the Established Church, but to no other religious
institution.
Mr. lIODGSON and Mr. MATHEWS considered that no
'alteration was necessary iu the existing law.
Mr. C. HULLER gave his most cordial support to the
measure introduced by his Noble Friend. He could not see
why such a number of safeguards should be thrown around
landed proprietors, aril none around those of personal pro-
perty, when they; considered that the former were but a
very small number, when compared with the latter, and he
was certainly of opinion that personal property
demanded more protection than landed. He con
sidered the feelings of mankind were quite strong
enough to protect them. Not only the good feeling of man-
kind in this country, but the desire of family distinction and
aggrandisement operated to prevent those having large pos-
sessions giving too much for charitable purposes.-(llsar,
hear) These feelings were quite enough for the protection
of families, without having any restrictive laws, and he
therefore thought no impediment whatever should be placed
in the way of individuals granting property for public pur-
poses. Every argument of public policy should lead them to
take away restrictions relating to real property which were
not applied to personal property. There ought to be no dis-
tinction made whatever between those two kinds of property.
Ile thought that nothing could be more beneficial to the
Established Church than this facility for leaving property
for charitable purposes. The Hon. Member for Oxford
thought that the Church was sufficiently supported by the
various menus of income accruing to it; but, hi his opinion.
such a belief was erroneous, for he considered that it would
be a better principle, if persons, instead of being compelled
to subscribe to the maintenance of the Church during their
lives, should at once be allowed to lay the foundation of
a permaneht fund at their death. Let them look at Green •
wich Hospital and several other institutions of a like nature
that he could name. They would see that they were corpo-
rate bodies permanently founded, and not dependent at pre-
sent on any enforced contribution, and yet they were as
well managed as any institution dependent on an income
derived from a sort of tax levied on the people. He
hoped the House would not postpone the consideration of
the Bill, as they would have an opportunity afforded them of
considering its details in Committee.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would oppose the second rca I
ing of the Bill, because he considered it impossible toti-ssimilate
the laws affecting real and personal property. A direst power
was proposed to be given to the testator in
the Bill to lisp ;se of personal property to any
amount to corporate bodies, which was incompatible
with the present law, which forbade any corporate bodies
holding land to any amount without special license from the
Crown. He considered the proposed measure was, there-
fore, an infringement of the prerogatives of the
C: own, and that this was, therefore, an insuper-
able objection to the further progress of the Bill.
He, for one, would be sorry to give any encouragement, by
passing such a measure, to any person to alienate the pro-
perty which otherwise was inalienable, and to give a power
to the Church to receive such. He had very attentively con-
sidered all the clauses of the Bill, but he was utterly at a loss,
from anything contained in the Bill, or the evidence adduced
before the Cottunittee, to see anything that would fur-
nish the slightest grounds for the N-oble Lord to call on this
House to support his measure. In conclusion, it did appear that
this Bill is-no contrary to the constitution of the country and
the first principles of the English law, and therefore he
would best discharge hie duty by voting against the second
reading.
Sir JOHN HANMER was in favour of the Bill. Not-
withstandiog the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who bad just addressed them, which he had been much
surprised at, he would vote for the second reading—not
that he agreed with the Bill as it at present stood, but that
it might be considered and amended in Committee. lie was
sorry to differ from so high a legal authority as
his -Honourable and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral), still he (Sir John Hanmer) doubted if he could
shaw any good legal authority for saying that the law of
mortmaini dated from the Conquest. It had its origin at
a much later period. He had a great objection to the law
as it at present stood, as it was of such a character as to he
continually evaded. The legal adviser of any Hon. Member
could easily show him, if he had any bequest to .make, how
he could evade the present la.v.—(Hear, hear.) With regard
to laws affecting property, to show that a very stringent law
relatirg to the transmission of real property did not operate
prejudicially to a country, he (sirJ. Hanmer) might point I
to Scotland, where they had an extraordinary law of entail,
and yet, though the soil was poor and inferior, the land, not-
withstanding that law, had been brought into a most superior
state of cultivation.—( Hear, hear.) The law should be
altered by which pious bequests are made, as it was frightful
to see the state of the churches in large towns; and this might
be avoided if the law was altered. He would call the
attention of the House to the state of churches in large
towns, and these churches had connected with them gentle-
men of great talents and ability, whom they paid in many
cases rather less than a menial servant. He should be glad
to see all heartburnings arising from the state of churches in
large towns satisfactorily sot at rest. In his opinion, the old
prerogative of the Crown had little weight at the present
slay, for the circumstances that had given it birth had en-
tirely ceased. He would only express his general concur-
r_.!l”e as to the propriety of going into Committee on the
'll'33est, and he trusted that no superstition of the preroga-
tives of the Crown would influence the decision of the House.
Mr. BANES said that, in his opinion, when a Bill of this
importance was brought forward, some great abuse should be
pointed out which would render enislation necessary. Had
the Noble Lord.eylao brought forwardb the Bill established any
swuhcho had just
sate, down,
observations of the Right lion. Baronet
towns was had, might that the state of churches in large
Hawes) could only say bet. perfectly correct ; but he (Mr.
the Bill did not in any way
facilitate the improvenientaotf their condition. After a Com-
mittee on a subject of tlaiivsimapdortance had been appointed,
the House ought to be gern
the report of that Com-
mittee. That report did not recommendby the introduction of
this Bill, and yet the Noble Lord had a very active
any scribed to the re-
part in that Committee, and no doubt
i.eil)ea,iiticular port, which certainly did not point outty
fail-
ing in the preseat law, nor
He owned that he did not think the old
with jfeoarlouisty,
with regard to mortmain was entirely
That which was formerly regarded as dangerous
an cccloeiastical corporation he now regarded es dangerous
in a lay corporation. To a lay corporation personal or real
property might now be bequeathed to any extent, and he
would ask any person who knew the amount of personal
property vested in lay corporations, whether he wished to
see any more property placed in their hands. He did not
wish to see property accumulating in the hands
of either ecclesiastical or lay corporations, and he could
not consent to go into the merits of this Bill.
He believed the Bill could not be amended in Committee, and
he would therefore give his vote in opposition to the further
progress of the Bill.
Lord EBP.INGTON wished to see some alteration made
in the law of mortmain, and was anxious for that reason
that the Bill should be considered in Committee. He
believed that so far from too much provision being
made for- public charities, that there was too little,
and he would therefore wish to see the extension of the
powers of bequeathing property fur charitable purposes. He
would support the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN said that in Scotland any person could
tell which were the entailed and which the unentailed
estates by the difference of their cultivation. When he found
the remedy quite as wide as the evil, and in fact producing
far more considerable evils, he could not help giving it his
ra.ostodeeitle4sonposition.
BoitTliwicK was in favour of the Bill going
into Comnatten. Inhad
and
admitt d both by the Attorney
tsn, Solicitor-General
that the
Hon. Gentlemen who had
seindeekrearitaea.,eiamainestenithL. Bill, present law required con-
es so, then the best course was for

I~

iV 0