The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

the Bill. Most of these exceptions Were framed on the part of
old corporations, who alleged that they had been guilty of no
abuses, that their integrity could be safely relied Ora , and it
was therefore unwise and injudicious to itterrupt the current
of good which they were &orig, Ir. justification, hoxeser, of
what he stated—namely, that there ought to be no exceptions,
even in respect to these eharities—he would draw their Lord-
ships' attention to the ca-e of one charity, who claimed the
exception on the ground that they had always ad-
Ministered fairly mid justly the charities entrusted to
them, and that their integrity could be safely relied
on. The Commissioners gave many instances of the descrip-
tion he was about to give to their Lordships, but it would only
be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with one ease.
He would take the case of the Mercers' Company, who had the
control of a small charity, and whose officers in every June
paid a 'visit to Greenwich for the purpose of auditing and
settling the accounts connected with the charity. He held in
his hand a statement of the expenses which this proceeding and
journeying involved. In the first there was a breakfast which
cost 41. 125., then there were six carriages which cost 10'. for
the day, flowers to decorate the room 1/. le., then there came
a luncheon which he did not quarrel with, which consisted of
16 dozen of sandwiches, 12 lemonades, half-a-pint
cherry brandy, two-and-a-half dozen soda water, and
ceteras. This was the first part of the day's proceedings ;
but he now came to a more substantial item in the document
Tneir Lordships must bear in mind, that the document itself
related to the Mercers' Company, who claimed to be exempted
from this Bill, on the ground of the strictly faithful manner
in which they discharged their duties. Well, then, the next
item was for dinner, which consisted of four dishes of flounders,
two dishes of turbots, two dishes of stewed eels, three dishes of
scolloped eels, three dishes of fried eels, three dishes of lam-
preys, two dishes of salmon, one dish of sturgeon, and several
ether dishes. This was the first part of the dinner. The
next course consisted of something more substantial. There
were two dishes of pullets, two dishes of roast lamb, two
'calves' heads, four hams, a sturgeon, a tongue, a ham, roast
fowls, capons, and one baron of beef.--( Roars of laughter.)
After this there was a dessert, in which the principal item was
forty-one bottles of wine, at Is. per bottle ; the reason why
this small charge was made was, that this company, being a
very provident one, furnished their own wine on the occasion,
Mr. Lovegrove, however, insisted that if they did not have
the wine of him, they should pay him Is. on every bottle
consumed. After this dinner and dessert there came a very
substantial tea, and the bid for the whole amounted to
891. 10s., yet these very gentlemen came to their Lord-
ships protesting that they ought to be exempted from
the operation of this Bill, because they so admirably and
economically managed the charity entrusted to their care.
This was not the only case. The total expense of that day
amounted to .1001.; in twenty years it would amount to 2,0001.,
exclusive of interest, which in that time would be at least
1,0001. Why, that sum itself would be sufficient to endow
considerable charity. This was not all, with regard to this
evempany. Information had been filed in the Court of Chan•
eery ,for abuses of the charity funds. The funds of the charity
were-mixed up with the corporation. funds, and then small sums
wire doled out to the charity, aeol the rest mixed asp with the
corporation. Informations had been laid against them, and
large sums recovered. And this was not confined to the
Mercers' Company. Nineteen trading companies, eleven of
'whom were petitioners against the Bill, had had sixty-nine in-
formations directed to be filed against them, at the recom
mendation of the Commissioners. He did not mean to make
any charge against this Company. They might have been
'negligent in the performance of their duties, or they might have
mistaken the charter, and supposed they had a right to do so.
He did not mean it as a charge against the Company. Ht
brought it forward as a defence of himself and the Committee,
They were aware in what 'canner these charities were applied.
If their Lordships thought a Committee should be allowed
he bad added a large schedule to the Bill, in which
he had included all the great colleges, all schools,
of royal foundation, and other extensive establishments. Al
the great hospitals in the metropolis, ail hospitals, either in the
whole or part, which were supported by voluntary contribution.
He had excepted from the operation of the Act houses of the
Wesleyan Methodist society, and a groat number of other re-
ligionists. Powers had been given to various Commissioners,
the details of which he would not enter upon at present. If their
Lordships thought they were too extensive, they might bt
abridged; and if not sufficiently comprehensive, their Lordships
might add to them. If their Lordships would allow the Bill t,
go into Committee, they might make their amendments and
rn.odify it as they thought proper. Another very important
'mature in this Bill, though not an essential one, was the ap-
Tointment of a tribunal to whom these matters should be re-
ferred. In consequence of the death and removal of the various
trustees, it became necessary to supply from time to time the
deficiency occasioned by those casualties. Application had
been made to him to appoint trustees, and he had made orders
referring them to the master to supply those deficiencies, bu
the expense of these proceedings were enormous. In one
charity alone it amounted to 7001., and in another case—the
case of a charity in Warwick, where the appointment
was contested, the expenses amounted to upwards of
.500/. Indeed 2d01., 300/., and 400/. was not at al'
an uncommon amount to be expended in the appointment of
new trustees. This he proposed to remedy by constituting a
tribunal, the proceedings before which would be comparatively
cheap. Bat then a Noble Lord had stated that these trustee,
might be improperly appointed, and might also improperly dis-
charge the duties reposed in them. This he thought would be
met by the condition under which they held office. They
would bold their office dependent upon their good behaviour
and efficient discharge of their duties. The Noble Lord on
Isis right said, " I know what will happen. You will appoint
such a number of trustees that you will swamp the old ones."
He thought that would be met by a simple provision, that in
no instance should the number of trustees to be appointed
anceed the number originally appointed. There was another
point which had been brought forward by his Noble and
Learned Friend. He said, " You have appointed trustees to
a considerable number of charities, but there are a number
who have never applied to you, because they had no funds to
pay the 'expenses of such application." He thought this a
great argument in favour of the Bill. He proposed to apply a
remedy to this case. The tribunal would be a cheap one,
before which they could apply to have those deficiencies
*supplied. He had now stated the different portions of the
case sufficiently clear. He now called upon their Lordships
to allow the Bill to he read a second time. They must allow it
to be read a second time, in order that they might be consis-
tent with themselves. They allowed it to be read a second time
last session. They afterwards examined and improved the
:Bill, and, their Lordships would not at the present time refuse
to allow the Bill to go into Committee, in consequence of the
clamour which had been raised out of doors, in consequence of
incorrect statements which had gone forth urea the subject.
It was quite impossible to resist the application. He called
upon them in regard to the justice of the measure. He would
-not appeal to the feelings of compassion in favour of the indi-
viduals to whom that Bill applied. He appealed to their Lord-
ships' sense of justice—that feeling which had ever been con-
sidered sacred in their Lordships' House. Their Lordships
wonld, therefore, allow the Bill to be read a second time, in
esreler that its merits in detail might be considered in Com-
mittee. After the statements he had made to their Lordships,
be should feel most ashamed if their Lordships did not allow
the Bill to be read a second time, in order to be considered in
Committee.

Lord COTTENH AM said his Noble and Learned Friend
the Lord Chancellor had told their Lordships that the Bill was
brought before Parliament last session. Ho did not say why
it was not passed. He thought that their Lordships ought to
be aware of the nature of the Bill, before it was read a second
time. He considered the Mercers' Company had nothing
whatever to do with the Bill. As his Noble and Learned
Friend had excluded them from its operation, that Company
laving consumed a great many more good things at Greenwich
than he thought they should have done, insinuated that they
had abused their trust, and, therefore, the Bill was not to be
applied to them. He proposed also to except from its opera-
tion all charities supported wholly, or in part, by voluntary
contribution. By this proceeding the whole of the Bill would
become nugatory. There was no society which might not take
advantage of the Bill if they felt so inclined. In the Commit-
tee appointed last year by their Lordships, of which he was a
member, the first difficulty which arose was the appointment o.
the Commissioners It was proposed that it should be vested
in the Crown, • It was subsequently agreed that the
aPPoilatment should be left to the Court of Chan-
cery. He did not object to the Bill; who could object
to 'such a Bill ? What he objected to was, the machinery for
carrying out the provisions of the 1311 ( Cheers ) 1 hat the
Bill was disapproved of by himself,lan—d the minority. of their
Lordshipe' House, was not of much cons q ence, he thought
the Bill being disapproved of by the coleleaugues of hi buts
Noble and
learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was sincerely
of some importance. The objection which he had to the Bill.
-was of deeper root, and
what briefly
he would now
proceed to state
those objections were. He had in the first place an objec-
tiro., to the measure, quite independent of its inapplicability to
charitable trusts. He could not help looking back to what had
taken place in the Court of Chancery since 1841, without feeling
that it was necessary to put an end to the system which,
mince that period, had been gradually growing into use.
Ile alluded to the mode of drawing from that tribunal business
which legitimately belonged to it. A Bill had been passed in
the year 1842, appointing two new judges to the Court of Chan-
cery, to enable that Court to get through the mass of business
which had accumulated in it. The increase in the business
was not, in his opinion, commensurate with the strength of the
corps. It might be thought, therefore, that with this accession
of strength the Court of Chancery would be fully adequate to
the discharge of the business which came before it. Seven
individuals, however, were subsequently appointed, at a salary
of 2,000/. each, to tax the costs in Chancery, which up to that
time was performed in the master's office. He adverted to
these matters merely to show the alterations which had recently
occurred in respect to the Court of Chancery. Twelve
other 'Commissioners were also appointed, making the new
appointments to amount altogether to 56,0001. The business
therefore had been greatly reduced, while the strength of the
corps had been greatly increased. Now they were called upon
to remove another portion of the business, which legitimately
belonged to the Court of Chancery, and which it was properly
qualified to discharge. His Right Hon. Friend certainly
showed that a great amount of money was expended in the
proceedings of that Court, but he knew very well that these
sums were actually expended in litigation, and were not ex-
penses Incidental to the Court. They were incurred in ex-
Perlsess to counsel, witnesses, and other costs, which would also
be incurred by proceedings before any other court. To tell
'em, then, of the expenses of the Court of Chancery was to
till
_them what had no reference whatever to the question.
A d what, be would ask, then, was the object in appointing
a number of men
Ctooudo the work which was peculiarly the.
business of that
Cottenham's) argumenrttes:?
uars,
It was a fallacy. His (Lord
the competency of the that as long as they admitted
and the e n'tt of Chancery, the excellency of
its jurisdiction,
duty shssuld be to diminish tihYeandjustice of its decisions, their
expenseste and make the proceeds
before it not more costly than
Bill brought in would be before the
Cosairnissioners. In a
ttohetbNeoble peke
opposite, where the question was raised asy
of expense incurred in proceedings before that CourtmtTelmfueems
elid not amount to more than 15'. What he said, therefore, was',
let them do away with the fees; let them go t the Master's office and let no fee be required. When he (LordLod Cottenham)
acceded to the office as Lord Chancellor, he remitted fees to
suitors to a considerable amount, which appeared to
ive meat
sure. On principle, therefore, he ohj"cted to the rnea-
t
sure.
He denied its necessity, he objected to it on
the ground of expediency, and also because it was
an encouragement of the system to which he had
alluded.
His Noble Friend alluded to the amount
of property which would be affected by the Bill. It was diffi-
cult to say what that property was. There were 38 large
folio volumes, covering 27,200 folio pages. giving an account
of these charities, Fom those it appeared that there were
40,000 different charities, and the amount of money, I,- •
their control was 1,500,000/. But there was at' '' _aster
which he would wish to advert to. Th ...;177 r!.atnt
variety of trusts, in the nature of w rit
deal of difference. He was,
awes thel-e Was a great
which breaches of trust .e of eases having occurred it'
variety of the natar-
mut •
taken place; but the great
~ of the trusts would fecilitate oppOr-
tunities for sue.t acts. In many cases also there heti
instances is a great difference arising between the ibtention of
the der.er and the acts of the doner, who often thought himself
ciit..tled to the property pare passu with others. There were
also a class of cases of changes in property with which Noble
Lords, who were well acquainted with the state of their pro-
perties, were no doubt familiar, and which very often arose in
cases of charity charges. Such properties, subject to these
charges, would also be subject to the despotic and indispen-
sible control of those Commissioners, and he mentioned this now
in order to show to what state the properties of many Noble
Lords would be redacted. He w th
ould now proceed to state e
ziature of it few of the clauses. The Pill applied to three

une of those was all charities
...,aof of 1001. a year, and the other affected all
'ties under the charge of the taunts/4ml corporation. In
the cases of the latter an inspector vvonlil be appointed to
,xarnine all the accounts, and all other matters connected with
the property subject to the charity. The Commissioners
,wouldlhave the power to investigate all accounts, and to make
n
into the mode of keeping those accounts; and that
Commissioner might tell parties that they had not kept those
accounts in a proper manner, and that his orders should be
obeyed upon pain of fine arid imprisonment, and if the Corn-
nissioner thought proper he could order a clerk to ba kept,
,who should be paid by the owner of the property, and then
he Commissioner might see an item in the account which
he might think proper to strike out and disallow. There
was also another clause, by which all parties, having proper-
ties subject to a charity, would be compelled to produce all
their title-deeds, and get copies of them made, and all this at
:heir own expense; and the owner of the property would be
obliged to attend the Commissioner at whatever place he
should think proper to sit. Another clause required that all
monies should be paid into the Accountant-General, so
that, as there were about 40,000 charities, the Accountant-
General would have to open 40,000 accounts.—(Laughter,)
There was another point to which he would refer--it was that
provision of the Bill respecting incomes arising from charities
estimated at 100/. a year. There were many chapels in the
country left as charities, which would be valued at 100/. or
2001. a year, yet did not yield any income whatsoever. The
provisions of the 13111 would, therefore, press severely upon
property so situated.—( Hear, hear,) It was a startling pro-
position of this Bill that the Commissioners should have the ap-
pointment of the whole of the masters of the various charities
referred to. Ti' :re was no protection in the measure that these
appointments would be impartially made. He was persuaded
that its operations would be most partial and unjust, and an
invasion of the rights of property. Moreover, he considered it
would be injurious to the charities which it proposed to bene-
fit. For these reasons he objected to the measure being passed
into a law. But these were not the only objections that could
be urged against the Bill. Perhaps the greatest of all the ob-
jections that could be stated was the great injury which
it would inflict on Dissenting bodies. The Bill cut
them off from all protection for their charities. The Bill, and
the power of the Commissioners, applied to all schools and
chapels erected by charitable gifts, so that those who occu-
pied them, and for whose use and benefit they were endowed,
would be subjected to the direction and control of this
extraneous power.—( Hear, hear.) A great number of peti-
tions had been presented to the House in reference to those
objections, and yet no answer had been made to them. He
did not, however, wonder at that, as these objections could not
be answered. He had admitted that much required to be
done to place the charities of the country on a sati,factory
foundation, but that while he considered such a step necessary
he did not believe that the present Bill would accomplish the
end contemplated.—( Hear.) There were many other ways in
which the present system might be improved, :by appointing
trustees` through boards of guardians, by niagiatrates in quarter
sea-ions, or by other local bodies who_had a competent knowledge
of what was best to -be done in particular districts, and the
persons who were best qualified to administer those charities.
The present measure was so bad in principle, and so repugnant
to the rights of individuals, that he hoped their Lordships
would put an end to it, by rejecting the second reading of the
Bill. He was quite confident it would never become the law
of the land.—(Hear. hear. )

descriptions of charities •
qnder the am"

Lord BROILiGHANI said he rose under great difficulty,
after the multifarious objections which the Noble and Learned
Lord who had just sat down had introduced. The improve-
ment of the charities of the country was a vineyard in which
he had long laboured, and therefore he would for a short time
occupy the attention of the House. He ( Lord Brougham)
must however object to the confident way in which the
Noble and Learned Lord had condemned the Bill, a con-
fidence that he had never heard equalled in any court
of equity, or in the criminal courts of the country.
The Noble and Learned Lord 'had spoken more positively of
what was to occur hereafter than historians had of what had
already taken place. The fact was, this Bill did not pass last
session, because it did not reach the other House till the session
had nearly approached its close. But how, asked his Noble
and Learned Friend, was it that the Bill did not reach the otter
House till so late? Why, it was because the Bill was not
finally settled by the Committee appointed to consider the sub-
ject, until the session had so far advanced.—( Hear, hear.)
There could hardly be a doubt, in his opinion, of the necessity
which at present existed for the passing of this Bill. But his
Noble and Learned Friend complained of it, because
it increased the patronage of the Lord Chancellor. Look,
said his Noble and Learned Friend, how this patronage was
yearly being increased. Two
.years age they passed a Bill
2iving the Lord Chancellor power to appoint two lunacy Corn-
Missioners, but what had this Bill to do with lunacy 7—( Hear,
and laughter.) But though it had nothing to do with lunacy,
he could assure his Noble and Learned Friend, for he had
personally inquired into it, that the appointment of those offices
had been productive of the greatest good, and had resulted in
the saving of a good deal of expense in lunacy proceed-
ings. —(Cries of " Hear, hear.") His Noble and Learned
Friend, after making this divergence to lunacy matters one
would have thought he would have returned to the Bill before
their Lordship; ; but he did no such thing. He went into the
%tasters of the Court of Chancery's office, and complained of
the appointment of certain taxing masters. But here again he
could bear testimony to the immense good these appointments
had produced. But what had masters in Chancery, or taxing
masters, to do with this Bill ? he must again be permitted to
ask his Noble and Ls.arned Friend.—(Hear, hear.) What
gad all this to do with a Bill for correcting
abuses which could not be remedied or prevented by
any existing tribunals ? But he could tell his
Noble and Learned Friend, that of all the ditties of the
master's office, that almost gave the least satisfaction, was the
taxing of costs; and, however, his Noble and Learned Friend
might complain of the appointment of taxing masters, the
suitors, the parties interested in such a matter, did not object
to it. On the contrary, they felt, and still believed, that they
had been greatly benefited by it.—( Hear, hear.) After
diverting still longer from the immediate subject before their
Lordships, his Noble and Learned Friend came at last to the
Bill, and commenced his irregular observations upon it, by
asking if there ever was such a thing known as
giving power to commissioners to till up defunct
trusteeships. Why not let it remain as it was
pursued the Noble and Learned Lord, and confine the power
to the Lord Chancellor? Why, what an idle way of meeting
the Bill this was. How were trusteeships tilled up now ? Why,
•by the Master in Chancery, to whom all such questions were
referred by the Lord Chancellor. and virtually the duty was
performed by the Lord Chancellor himself. Well, would it
not be the same under this Bill ? Would notthe Commis-
sioners be appointed by the Lord Chancellor himself ? Oh,
but his Noble and Learned Friend and these Commissioners
might be subjected to, and liable to be actuated by, political
influences in the performances of their duty. Why, good God,
was not the Master in Chancery liable to be acted upon by
the same influencea ? Well, then, what nonsense
it was to argue against the Bill in this way.—( Hear, hear. )
The Noble and Learned Lord would find several cases in the
books which he decided himself, and with which he had edified
himself this morning. 'the Noble Lord then referred to the
case of a charity established in the year 1475, to grant loans to
people. These loans had never been granted, and the funds had
been appropriated to the trustees. They committed sins of
omission, they omitted to pay these charities, but they com-
mitted themselves by appropriating the funds to themselvs.—
( Laughter.) Since the fire of London, the Mercer's Company
had distributed their charities, although they faithfully and
zealously went down to Greenwich every year to luncheon
and &nner.—(Laughter. ) There was also the case of a cor-
poration in Leicester, who got tired of performing their duties,
until in 1836 ;there was a balance in the hands of the
society of 6,0001. The Master of the Rolls stated,
when giving judgment in this case, that a more gross case of
breach of trust he never knew. This corporation came to
their Lordships' House, and prayed their Lordships not to
institute any of these disagreeable and indelicate inquiries.
In some cases the expense of an inquiry into charity abuses
amounted to 2,0001. These were charities of 1,0001.
Jr. 1,2001. a year, and could afford such expense, but their
Lordships must recollect that equally as great abuse of cha-
rity might exist in charities of smaller income, where the light
of inquiry could never come in consequence of the expensive
nature of the present Chancery light. It behoved their
Lordships, therefore, to provide some cheaper light for
these smaller charities. With reference to the statement of
the Noble Lord that the exception of charities supported by vo-
luntary contributions would render the Bill at once nugatory,
he contended that it would not. He held in his hand
return, which showed that there were 40,000 charities with an
income of 1,209,0001. a year that would come under the pro-
visions of the Bill. A summary jurisdiction was absolutely
necessary to avoid the enormous expense and delay of the
present mode of procedure and to afford to small charities pos-
sessing property to the amount of 240,0007. a year some redress,
which their funds would not now allow them to obtain. He
considered that gingerly and careful as his Noble Friend was in
stepping and mincing through the subject, to avoid the dirt
which would fly up in his face, he had not made out a case at
all against the Bill. He considered that the Commissioners
who would be appointed under the powers of this Bill,
and
wwnh, oa
nwdo uwl do
übl
de
mefbothtles
Houses of Parliament, and who would have a watchful
(amlryebspyoannsibaldedraedsys ifsreor
public
to
baenreoimnotendabbley
act other than
to guard over them, dare not, he maintained,
üblic
in an honest and straightforward manner. He begged to apo-
logise for having taken up the attention of their Lordships so
long, but he felt it necessary to do so, as he could not under-
stand what was the cause of so much opposition to the present
measure. He himself was charitable to all—even to the
Whigs---but he could not und
v.hei rlyse thraentsdhi
s,et
eyudnutlrhegsees
dnt
fhiol they
support it were just thos
e e.7eh ys
refusing ohaP
el
rtt
o
some
pertina-
ciously. peculiar object its view, why-
ciously. The very reasons
induced him to support it.
The abuses were,the grossthat could exist, and it was ne
cessary to pass a measure -
fortheir prevention, and for the
better regulation of those
mitted. institutions where they were per-
.
Lord ELDON said that si •
nce the beginnin
g o the debate,
three Noble Lords, who had all occupied the
were members of the law, had taken up the
atiWen°9lsack, and
Lordships, hut he regretted that so little of the distetounssioofntl;ieir
turned upon the merits of the Bill. Nobody coulddeny that great
abuses existed, but there was great difference of opinion as to
the mode of remedying them. The schedule might contain
great temptations to some to wish to become connected with
the Bill ; but it had none for him, nor would he ever consent
to give his sanction to it. The Noble Lord then read a petition
which he said had been sent from Hull, to present against this
measure, for the corporation of that town were anxious to pre-
serve their charities from any interference as this Bill pro-
posed, and from that absolute power which this Bill would cen-
fer on the Commissioners.

Lord CAMPBELL said he was rather desirous to address a
few words to the House on this question, as he had been
taunted with inconsistency by his Noble and Learned Friend,
who was now sitting on the end of the Woolsack.—(Laughter.)
The Noble and Learned Lord had made an appeal from the
Whigs to himself, but they had all deserted him, and he now
remained a solitary monument of what he once was.—
(Laughter.) But the Noble Lord had endeavoured to per-
suade the House, that Henry Lord Brougham and Vatirt had
always been a consistent politician.--(Laughter.) However,
though he had asked the House to come to a resolution to that
effect,i the House had not done so, and had taken 110 notice of
always
own consistency
es
aHrniwever, it was enough for him to try and defend his
s.itoeunsctyo
exposein
h andreferenceco
convict
1)s
he did not think thaitii7hyt,
suggested would be
Learned Friend • e gain that object. His Noble and
h S Noble andtlßs eiisin
Learnedl F charitiesichne;d wlbrauatstl
was pas.., ssaid, that this measure, or a similar one,
in this Hotta_,e last year, lift it Was taken no notice of
.n the othttr Hotis.e. Holiever, the House might have since
nhanied ilkeir opinions upon this question,as they had
t/erore upon others.—::(Hear, hear.) But ho did not wonder
that Churchnien and Dissentera should be opposed to it
,He admitted that things should not remain as they were, but
ne objected to the tribt,,zi,; He would much rather
submit to the Court
ia:eir'ilau.;al to
oAmillis;i6ners that were proposed t,o
under the
the
Bill. The principal objection to the Cotadtpoofintaaer the great expense required to be gone into to
reconvecrysmwas
ll
sums. What, then, was the duly of the state under suchciar-
cumstances ? Why, to reform the Courts of Chancery. The
clear remedy was to allow justice to be cheaply administered to
those that may rt-quire it. Now the new tribunal proposed was
not confined to a particular class of charities, but included all
the charities in the country ; whereas, by a proper classification
of them under the Lord- Chancellor, the Commissioners would
be able to attend to the whole of them as far as his interference
was admissable or necessary.- But under-the-present Bill; the
new Commissioner was to take the whole power into his hands,
it" have th 9 whole jltrildictiort of the 50,000