The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-04 00:00:00

IrtirV Vbitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock,

RAILWAY COMMITTEES
(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

•
SOUTH UNION.
The object of the Bill sought to be obtained by this Company Is the
construction of a line of railway between the Manchester and Bir-
mingham Railway and the North Staffordshire Railway. The pro-
jected line is intended to commence at Colton, a point on the
Trent Valley line, and to run to Roughly, a point on the
,North Staffordshire Railway, both in the county of Stafford.
The length is thirty-two miles, and the estimated cost is 700,0001.
Messrs. Dyson and Hall are the agents, and Mr Gravatt is the en-
gineer.
The formal proofs were gone through, and then the Committee
took a number of petitions alleging a number of non-compliances
with the standing orders.
, Mr. VENABLEs appeared for Mr. ►alter Hyde, whose petition con-
tained a number et allegations which were entertained.
The Committee reported that the standing orders had not been
complied with as respected the crossing of a turnpike road at the
eighth mile of the projected line, inasmuch as the cross section was
pot properly shown upon the plan, not being numbered and other-
wise speciticially pointed out as required by the standing order on
the subject.
Various other allegations of a similar character were sustained,
but they were too trivial to be reported in detail. The engineer in
explanation said that the plans were so badly printed as to be
almost illegible, and quite unfit to enable him to reply satisfactorily
o the questions of the Honourable Chairman. Had the plans bet n
better printed, many of the allegations would have fallen to the
ground.
Another alegation sustained was, that two miles of the proposed
lines had been omitted, a whole sheet of the plan deposited with the
clerk of the peace at Stafford being absent.
The CHAIRMAN decided that upon the general merits of the de-
posits on the 30th of N member last they were altogether inaccu-
rate, and that the standing orders had not been complied with.
Tue deposits were worse than worthless, being calculated to mis-
lead instead of giving information to the public. In the course of
the day the Chairman made some pertinent remarks upon the mode
in which witnesses gave their evidence. He complained of the
looTt manner in which questions were put, and the very careless way
in which they were answered. Facts were gabbled over in a sin-
gular way, and so little respect appeared to be paid to them that
it was very difficult to understand them. He trusted witnesses
would for the future be examined in a better manner, so as to enable
the Committee to be able to put a proper value upon their statements.
The Committee took no other case, and at four o'clock adjourned
until twelve o'clock on Friday next.

Sub-Committee No. 5.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
MACCLESFIELD AND LICHFIELD.

tr. This case, which stood over from yesterday, was next resumed,
and the accuracy of the datum point was proceeded with. It was
contended that the levels, from which the datum point was taken,
were incorrect, and that there was no datum point, it
being described as taken from the pier of a proposed
bridge, to be constructed over the contemplated line,
whereas there was no pier shown on the maps, and that the term
" pier" was improperly used, a "pier" being a building between the
arches of a bridge, or work projecting into a river or sea. A model
of the bridge was then produced by the engineer who took the trial
sections, who proved that he could not find the part described as the
"pier" froze which the datum line was taken.
On the part of the promoters of the line,
- . .

Mr. Lock, engineer to the line, was called, who distinctly stated
that no fair engineer would have any trouble or difficulty in finding
the pier in question, as the bridge, being a single span, the piers of
coarse would be the buildings on either side, from which it sprung.
On cross-examination, he admitted that the more usual term was
" abutment pier," when talking of the buildings next to the shore.
Several other engineers were called, who gave similar testimony
to the last witness, among whom was

Mr. Donaldson, professor of architecture to the University College,
London. - • .-•- • • •

Mr. Clarke was called next on behalf of the promoters of the line,
to prove the accuracy of the levels taken, but Mr. G. P. Bidder,
proved from the fleld-book of Mr. Clarke that an error of 16 Inches
existed.

The agent for the Bill then solicited a postponement for the purpose
of re-taking the levels, which was opposed by Mr. Burke, and the
Committee ordered strangers to withiiraw. On our re-admission
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had decided that the
standing orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as the datum
horizontal point on the line was not correctly described.

Sub-Committee, No. 6.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

vrror LONDON IMPROVEMENT AND
EXTENSION.
This was an adjourned ease from last week.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would be obliged to report
non-compliance with the standing orders on two points ; first, on the
ground that the plan which had been deposited at the Private
8111-office was not exactly the same as that which had been deposited
with the clerk of the peace, and, secondly, on the ground that certain
notices had not been served in Line time.

The standing orders were in. all other respects compl:ed with.
NORTH UNION (NORWICH BRANCH).

The promoters of this Bill seek to construct a branch from the
main line at Blackrod to the town of Horwlch ; length two and a
quarter miles ; estimated cost, 28,7001., which is provided for by the
orOnal funds of the Company.
Engineer, William Conithard, Esq.; Parliamentary agents, Messrs.
Gregory, Faulkner, and Co. ; and the solicitors, Messrs. Woodcock,
Part, and Part, Wigan.
Decision postponed to enable the promoters to produce some ne-
ceßgary proof.

:ZEDS, '7072,X, AND MIDLAND ?UNCTION.
The object of this Bill is to shorten the means of railway commu-
nication between Leeds and York, now 31% miles, to 25 miles, and
to accommodate in its route the towns of Tadcaster and Aberford.
The line also passes through extensive fields of coal and of agricul-
tural lime.

The length Is 164 miles; the estimated cost 340,0001., and the
amount subscribed 260,000/.
The engineers are Ilessrs.Vignoles and Leather ; the Parliamentary
agentA, Messrs. Gregory and Co. ; and the solicitors, Messrs. Terry
and Watson, Bradford ; Mr. Cariss, Leeds and Mr. Hodgson, York.
Standing orders complied with.
THE MANCHESTER. AND HYDE.

The promoters of this Bill seek to construct a line of railway from
the Manchester and Birmingham railway, at Ardwich to Hyde
throngh Gordon and Denton.

heleugth is about sia miles, the estimated cost is 130,2501. ; the
amount subscribed, 112,400/.

The engineer is J. W. Buck, Esq., the Parliamentary agents,
Messrs. Dorring and Co., and the solicitors, Messrs. J. and W
Heron, Manchester.
Standing orders complied with.

Thu CoMmlttee then-adjourned, at half-past four o'clock.

1M PERIAL PARLIAMENT,
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
BEQUESTS FOR PIOUS AND CHARITABLE
PURPOSES BILL.

Sir R. H. INGLIS (in continuation from our Afternoon
Edition) urged that the Bill being nugatory of the policy
which had ever been adopted by the English Government, it
should be at once negatived by the House.
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
svoned 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 having brought the question before the
House, and exhortedhim to persevere with it. He considered
that they ought not to have one law on the subject fir
Scotland, another 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
should be for the purpose of faciliting the granting of bequests
for religious 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
questions, they were all agreed on the necessity of a religious
education to the rising 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 for this course were set forth to bathe report
of the Committee that had sat on the subject of bequests of
the kind stated. Now he had looked through that report,
and he found an errorin 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 subject.
The ecclesiastical body devising meanito evade the statutes—
and the Legislature devising fresh means to hinder the mis-
chief as it arose.gOne of the acts of the clergy was tot Ake land
for long terms of years, and this was provided against by the
t2d of Edward 1., which made these contracts void. The
clergy then adopted the plan of bringing feigned actions
against the parties, and so obtaining possession. That was
also provided against, but it gave rise to 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
Ly making charges for various ceremonies, and these charges
Itlieere
__l)a yable from the land. That was provided against by
23d Henry VIII,, which provided against superstitious
uses and customs, and that Act remained in force until the
th and Bth Wm. 111., hich vested in the Crown alone the
Power of allowingpcieurisortrdilvto receive land by mortmain. The
Committee had in
He had refeerod to the the object of the Act of 9th George 11.
reventst
te:af, and the preamble distinctly set
forth that it was tolp
to be
arising from persons
willing away their property applied to charitable pur-
poses after their death to the detriment of their heir at law.
That law provided that any gift of that nature should
be executed twelve months beforeottleulleath of the party and
date of its signature.
registered within six months from
reference to real pro-
The Legislature considered thatiu:iitwhoe
worldly-minded persons
•,nerty, which is land, that weak
to associate their
/night be acted upon by a feeling of vanity
value with some public or charitable oundations. The
their
considered that they might be acted upon when
were enfeebled, and their bodies broken down by sickness,mindsy
to
part with their property. That danger did not extend with
so much force to personal 'property, for in that case there
vas 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 env alteration of the present lave
Among the witnesses examined was the Bishop of London ;
lie was in favaur of a relaxation of the provisions of the ex-
] stint, law to the Established Church, but to no other religious
jnst!tution,
Mr. HODGSON and Mr. MATHEWS considered that no
altere'tho was necessary in the existing law.
Mr. C. se-I.ILLER gave his most cordial support to the
measure intreluced by his Noble Friend. He could not see
why such a num.'W of safeguards should be thrown around
landed proprietors, e'ne- none around those of personal pro-
perty, when they, co.-Igiared that the former were but a
very small number, wihea eeesipared with the latter, and he
-was certainly of op.:doff that personal property
demanded more protection thpi landed. He con
eidered the feelings of mankind ! sfi,7re quite strong
emiough to protect them. Not only the good feeling of man-
kk.iitinu this country, but tVee desire of family distinction and
aggemedilleeeci operated to wyent those having large pose
iseeel9na, • Ang....t00 much for etii.ritable purposes.--(Hear,
1; his* - esesfeeliege were quite seee,:igh for the protection
tze
igt:al fain' -without ,tiavill g any restr;;:tive laws, and he
',. therefore thought no s
r< `ln -the way o€ in • ' qrstid should be placed
irmeni whatever s .
granting property foe public pur-
e- poses. Every' *ram* of public policy shokld lead them to
'll#ll away restrictiour felating to real property which were
VW applied to persout property. There ought to be no dis-
Ilinction ' made what Atox. between these two kinds pf property.
. so

He 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 means of income accruing to it; but, in 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 permanent 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 tbey 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 re a l-
ing of the Bill, because he considered it impossible to assimilate
the laws affecting real and personal property. A direst power
was proposed to be given to the testator in
the Bill to dispose 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
Crown, 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 Committee, to see anything that would fur-
nish the slightest grounds for the Noble Lord to call on this
House to support his measure. In conclusion, it did appear that
this Bill was contrary to the constitution of the country and
the first principles of the English law, and therefore he
would best discharge his duty by voting against the second
reading.
Sir JOHN HARMER was in favour of the Bill. Not-
withstanding the speech of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who had 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. He 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
show any good legal authority for saying that the law of
mortmaim dated from the Conquest. It had its origin at
a much later period. He bad a great objection to the law
as it at present steed, 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.) IWith regard
to laws affecting property, to show that a very stringent law
relating to the transmission of real property did not operate
prejudicially to a country, he (Sir J. Hanmer) might point
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 supei ler
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 set at rest. In his opinion, the old
prerogative of the Crown had little weight at the present
day, for the circumstances that had given it birth had en-
tirely ceased. He would only express his general concur-
rence as to the propriety of going into Committee on the
subject, and he trusted that no superstition of the preroga-
tives of the Crown would influence the decision of the House.
Mr. HAWES said that, in his opinion, when a Bill of this
importance was brought forward, some great abuse should be
pointed out which would render legislation necessary. Had
the Noble Lord who brought forward the Bill established any
such necessity? The observations of the Right Hon. Baronet
who had just sat down, that the state of churches in large
towns was bad, might be perfectly correct ; but he (Mr.
Hawes) could only say that the Bill did not in any way
facilitate the improvement of their condition. After a Com-
mittee on a subject of this importance had been appointed,
the House ought to be governed by the report of that Com-
mittee. That report did not recommend the introduction of
this Bill, and yet the Noble Lord bad taken a very active
part in that Committee, and no doubt subscribed to the re-
port, which certainly did not point out any particular fail-
ing in the preset-it law, nor any remedy for it.
He owned that he did not think the old jealousy
with regard to mortmain was entirely wrong.
That which was formerly regarded as dangerous in
an ecclesiastical corporation he now regarded as 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 cf 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 accamulating 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 couldnot be amended in Committee, and
lie would therefore give his vote in opposition to the further
progress of the Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON 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 for charitable purposes. He
would support the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. COLQUHON 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
most decided opposition.
Mr. P. BOR'IHWICK was in favour of the Bill going
into Committee. It had been admitt. d both by the Attorney
and Solicitor-General and other Hon. Gentlemen who had
spoken against the Bill, that the present law required con-
siderable amendment. If so, then the best course was for
the House to go into Committee on the Bill, when those
features which were beneficial might be adopted.
Lord JOHN MANNERS replied to the objections that
bad been made to the Bill, citing several cases of hardship arising
from the present state of the law in; support of the reports of
the Committee which had been impugned, and in reply to
the Attorney and Solicitor-General. With all due respect to
those high authorities, he must say, that all their arguments
went but against the details of the Bill That being so, let
them allow it to go into Committee, and then these might
be fully considered and altered, if it was seen necessary for
the efficiency of the measure.—(Hear, hear.)
If all the evils which the Hon. Gentleman shadowed out were
likely to result from the passing of this Bill, how was it that
the present law did not guard against them ? When he saw
his Hon. Friend rise, he expected to hear him say that the
present law worked most prejudicially. The Lord Advocate
of Scotland had given his opinion that the law as it existed
in Scotland, did not produce any of the evils lo much dreaded
by his Hon. Friend. He felt assured that the supporters of
this Bill had made out a case for going into committee, and
he felt assured. above all, that the present wants of the
country were not met by its institutions. He, therefore, with
all conddence, asked the House to give him the second reading,
fur he assured them that he would persevere in his effort,
although he might be defeated this time—yet he would perse-
vere until he effected some sort of alteration in the present
law or carried his measure.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
SALMON FISHERIES BILL.

Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of the Salmon
Fisheries Bill.—Postponed till Wednesday next.
Sir C. BULLER moved the second reading of the Election
Notices clreland) Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time accordingly.
The Roman Catholic Relief Bill was also read a second
time.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the Treut Works
Bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 84„ for regulatingthe :con-
struction and the use of buildings in the metropods and its
neighbourhood by authorizing the appointment of a third
official referee.

Mr. HAWES said that he certainly would not give his
vote for the Bill unless he received an assurance that a com-
prehensive measure would be introduced, extending to the
whole Act. He had not conversed with any respectable
builder or surveyor who did not concur with him in saying
that the only effectual measure that could be adopted would
be to repeal the whole Act. He would not oppose the Bill,
but he did it on the distinct understanding that the mea-
sure would be comprehensive.
Mr. HUME expressed his concurrence in the observations
of Mr. Hawes. He had never known a Bill so fruitful and
productive of complaints. He believed that the only way to
repeal it, and thus free the metropolis from the pest and
plague of this Act.
Mr. R. HODSON said, that he hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet would consult such persons as could give him such
information as would enable him to produce a Bill tor the
amendment of the Building Act, at a sufficiently early part of
the session as to enable them to discuss the puestion at
their leisure.

Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT also expressed his disapprobation
of the Bill, and complained of its inefficient working. Ile
was glad to see that the Right Hun. Baronet was about to
bring in a Bill to amend it.
Mr. FOSTER thought the Bill ought to be delayed, so
that parties might be consulted who were competent to give
information on the subject, and a perfect Bill brought in.
Mr. PARKER was not surprised at the general expression
of feeling against the Bill, as he had always seen it would
be a most inconvenient measure. The best course would be
to repeal it altogether and bring in a new Bill.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM replied to the objections that
bad been made against the Metropolitan Act, and
said that the measure, when introduced into
the House, bad been fully and carefully discussed,
so as to make it as efficient as possible. He was sorry
from what he had heard en both sides of the House,
as well as from private sources of information
that the Metropolitan Improvement Bill was con-
sidered so objectionable. But this was not the point
at present before the House. The Bill new before them
related to the appointment of another official referee, and to
make some alterations in provisions of the Act as it now
stood on this subject.
The Bill was then read a first, and ordered to be read a
second time to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned.

BRISTOL—and
(THIS DA Y
BRISTOL, WZDNESDAY,BHY
The :half-yearly General
of this Company was held this Meeting
Broad-street, at one o'clock.
James Gibbs, Esq., chairman of
The SECRETARY read the
EXE TER RAILWAY,
--_—___
EXPRESS.)
BRISTOL,
Istt.LeTtPAST ONZ O'CLOCK.—
The the proprietors
TtL, at
nh the W bite Lion,
boardr was taken by
followingreport
directors.
•' The amount of Rent and and Share of T 011) stated by a ted the
Great Western Railway Company to be due tothis"
Com-
pany for the half-year ending on the 13th of December
last, is as follows, viz :
Fixed rent of the line from Bristol to Exeter,
from the 14th of June to the 13th of De-
cember, 1845, at 71:957/. a year ........• ... £35,978 10 0
Share of tell on 305,599 pas-
engers, conveyed 9,633,927
miles, at lid. permile... £10,035 610
On merchandise, 59,174 tons
7 cwt. 3 qrs. 10 lbs., equal to
one ton conveyed 2,423,766
miles, at id. per ton per mile 2,524 15 2

12,560 2 0