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

LYNN AND ELT (MAXCX MIXTENSZON).

This was a petition for leave to bring in a Bill to construct a branch
railway from Wisbeach to March, in the Isle of Ely. The cost was
estimated at 60,0001. .
The usual formal proofs were gone into, and the Committee de-
cided that the standing orders had been duly complied with.

Sub• Committee No. I.

The Committee met at twelve o'clock—present, Mr. Home Drum.
mond (Chairman), Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, The O'Conor Don, and Mr,
Compton.

MANCHESTER AND POOLE RAILWAY.
In this cuss, which was before the Committee yesterday, and stood
over on an objection raised respecting the sufficiency of the notices
for application, published In the respective newspapers through which
it was proposed to pass,
The CIIAIAMAN said, when the case first came before them, he had
expressed an opinion that it was not necessary to prove the publi-
cation of notices in counties through which other lines in connexion
with it 114 d to pass. lie alone was responsible for taking such a
view 01 the question, for he considered that the additional notices
would be superfluous. But, considering the Bill now before the
Committee which contained some clauses amending other Bills, he
had consulted the Chairman of the Committees, all the Members of
the present Committee being present at the conference. The unani-
mous opinion of the Committee was, that tkere should be other
notices given on account of the amendments proposed, as in the case
of a third•clate Bill.

ilacicsuzia said with respect to third-class Bills, notices
should be given within the district, to which clauses 8 and 9 referred,
and that notices for a second-class Bill, in all the districts through
which the new line was proposed to peas, like that of the Manches-
ter and Poole project.
The Criareissw said, in reply to a qu. stion from Mr. Coates, that
there was no objection to mix up notices given of second and third
clasi Bills.

The Committee then decided that, with the exceptions already
noticed, the standing orders had been complied with.

Sub-Coutruittee No. 6.

• -•
This Commltte resumed its sittings at twelve o'clock this day,
there being present Captain Jones (in the Chair), Mr. Deadest and
Lord Ebring,ton.
The Wowing additional Bills have been referred to the Com-
mittee
The North Union (Harwich Branch) Railway. •
The Leeds, York. and _Midland Junction Railway.
The Manchester and Hyde Railway.
The Bristol and Ilinniughant and Midland Railway.
The Birmingham Railway (Tring to Banbury).
The Bristol and Gloucester, and Birmingham and Gloucester
Railways.
The Chester and Birkenhead Railway.
The Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway (Pentop and
South Shielis Railway Purchase).
The London and Birmingham Railway (Birmingham Extension).
The Leicester and Birmingham Railway.
The East Coast Railway.
The Northampton and Bedford Railway.
The London and Birmingham (Leamington Extension, and Coven-
try and Rugby Stations Enlargement) Railway.
The Louden old Birmingham Ballwa/ (the Aylesbury Purchase).

The Sheffield, Ashton-under-Line, and Manchester Railway Coin.
pany Amalgamation.
The Midland Railways (Birmingham Extension).
The London and Birmingham, Grand Junction Purchase.
The Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Extension.
The Southampton and Dorchester Railway.
The Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway.
The'Roehdalo Canal and Manchester and Leeds Railway.

PRIVATE COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
Sub-Committee No. 2.

This Committee met to-day at half-past twelve o'clock. The
members present were Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman), Mr. Bel. Mr.
Walker, Mr. Yorke, and Mr. /Unable.

The Committee, in conformity with their determination, noticed
yesterday, proceeded with the unopposed Bills.

Harrogate Gas Compatly and Harrogate Water-works Company.
The formal evidence having been heard, the Committee found that
in the cases of these Bills the standing orders had been complied
with.

The York Improvement Company.
The Committee found that the standing orders had been complied
with.
The New Zealand Company.
The Hartlepool Gas 'and Waterworks Company.
The Committee found that the standing orders lad been complied
with in the case of these two Bills.

The Pillglnwilly Waterworks Company was postponed till to-
morrow.
The Liverpool and Barrington Waterworks Company.
The object of this Bill was to amend their Act, and the Committee
found that the standing orders had been complied with.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPIAKKr took the chair at a few minutes past Twelve
o'Clock.

SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time, and ordered to
be committed ;
Midland and Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to
Weedon.)
Deeside Railway.
Great North of Scotland Railway (Eastern Extension.)
Alford Valley Railway.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Dunfermline Branch.)
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway.
Enfield and Edmonton Railway.
Leeds and York Railway.
Llynvi Valley and South Wales Junction Railway.
Hertford anti Hatfield Railway.
Richmond Railway (Kew Branch).
•
Clitheree Junction Railway.
A messenger from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had agreed to the Irish Drainage Bill.
Mr. GREENE moved for leave to correct a clerical error
in the Wishart and Coltness Railway, which ought to have
been done on the second reading.—Leave granted.
Lord DALMENY presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Stirling, for the immediate repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD also presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Heywood against the enrolment of the militia,
and another petition from a person named Bull, for a further
extension of the suffrage.
Mr. GROSVENOR presented two petitions from places in
Tipperary against the repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. C. BULLER gave notice of a motion for leave to
bring in a Bill to prevent vexatious objections to votes on the
registration.
BEQUESTS FOR PIOUS AND CHARITABLE
PURPOSES BILL.

Lord J. MANNERS said that he felt it necessary to refer
very shortly to the objects of this Bill. The subject had
some time ago been referred to a Select Committee. That
Committee had sat for a long time, and had examined many
able and competent witnesses. They ultimately made a
report, and that report was submitted, together with the
evidence given, to the consideration of the House, and the
present Bill was founded on that report. He believed that
the statute of George 11. was productive of much
public mischief, and proved a great impediment
and block to private munificence. The House was, he
believed familiar with the case of the late Dean of West-
minster. There was a bequest of 5,0001. in actual property,
to build a church in that neglected portion of the city, and
that sum was by the operation of that Act reduced to 500/.
The operation of that law had caused many bequests for
hospitals, churches, &c., to fail, and it seemed as if all such
things as Chelsea pensioners, &c., were objects of aversion to
the Legislature, and enemies to the public honour, which it
was necessary to put down by any and every means not in
conformity with the usual practice in the court of law. The
first clause of the Bill repealed the statute of Geo. II.; and the
second clause gave increased facilities to those persons who
wished to leave property to any public or charit-
able institution, or for purposes not against the laws
of the country. The fifth clause was to the same
purpose, and would answer the expectation of those persons
who thought property bequeathed was not sufficiently- pro-
tected by the present law. He now came to the safeguards
made by this Bill against any undue interference with the ex-
pectations of heirs. The 6th clause gave power to the Lord
Chancellor to order an allowance to be made to the immediate
relatives of the person leaving the property for charitable
purposes, in case they were not otherwise provided for.
Another provision of the Bill was, that every bequest for
charitable purposes should be signed by three respectable
witnesses, including the medical gentleman of the person
bequeathing the money, who should attest that the person
was " mem sana et corpore eano," and that his consent was
not obtained by importunity or solicitation. He had gone
through the main objects of the Bill, and he should
now refer to the great objection against it. It
was, that very large sums of money would be with-
drawn from' commercial purposes, and otherwise invested.
If the House thought that the country had need of
churches and charitable institutions to meet its ever varying
demand, he considered that they could have no objection to
the passing of the present Bill. If any person supposed that
charitable bequests could not be managed as advantageously
for the public interest as other bequests, be thought they were
greatly mistaken. As a proof of that assertion he referred to the
Hon. Member for Chichester, and to the report of the Irish
Society with regard to the estates of the Drapers' Company
in the county of Derby. He was certain that great benefits
would be derived to this large country by the proposed mea-
sure, and he hoped that Hon. Members of the school of
political economists would not oppose its passing. With re-
ference to the religious objections, he would say that he never
heard that the clergy of the Church cf England or of the
Dissenting interests had ever induced a person to
bequeath any sum of money for religious purposes.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred to a report of
the Bishcp of London to the same effect. The Noble Lord
went on to say that it had been said by Mr. Jarmaine that
the present law produced litigation, which would always be
the case where the feelings of humanity were not in unison
with the statute-book. Requiescat in pace was his motto with
reference to the deciSions ofthe luminaries of our ancient law
courts. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the second
reading of the Bequests for-Pious and Charitable Purposes
Bill.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed, that he had had time to
reconsider his former opinions, and he had seen no reason to
change them, nor induce him to give the measure of the
Hon. Member a ministerial support. It was only necessary
to state, that all personal property was exempt from die
operation of the present Ac'. the law did not oppose
any bequest made a proper length of time before the tes-
tator's death, because the Legislature considered, that
if personal sacrifice was to be made it should
be made in a state of health, as it would thereby
give a proof of the sincerity of the donor's feelings. The
Right Hon. Baronet then entered into a lengthened invest-
gation of the details of the Bill, and concluded by expressing
his determination to give his utmost opposition to the pre-
sent measure They were only endeavouring to induce the
Legislature to legislate in a contrary direction from that which
they had already pursued. He concluded by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. P. HOWARD would give his support to the second
reading of the Bill. The clause restricting the grant of pro-
perty for charitable purposes one year before the death of the
testator would require some consideration. He thought,
however, that the principle of the measure was sound, and
he believed th, t the House would adopt a politic course in
sanctioning it. There might be perhaps am objection to one
or two of its details, but that might be arranged in Com-
mittee.
Mr. M. MILNES did not think that the Act of George
alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet, had worked well. He
was of opinion that it did not prevent legal machinery or
legal embarrassments. He woulld not, however, enter into
the subject of the mortmain laws, believing, as he did, that
the report on them, which was before the House, rendered it
unnecessary. It had been said that these laws had been very
much abused, and that the Act of George 11. was proposed to
remedy them. But lie did not think there was any validity
in this argument when they considered the tone of society
and the character of the time at which that law pas passed.
Because there had been abuses of the power of granting be-
quests, it was not, therefore just or reasonable to say that no
such power should exist. He would make a re-
mark in reply to what the Right Honourable Baronet
had said, that the Bill of his Noble Friend would lead
to the application of funds for superstitious purposes. To
that he would answer that it was difficult to define what
should be considered superstitious or not; this was a matter
to be left to the conscience arid opinion of individuals. He
prayed that the Right Hon. Baronet would allow the Bill to
go into Committee, or if not to provide a Bill such as would
meet the defects of the present law. As long as
the present abusy continued, without the Govern-
ment or the great law authorities taking up
the question, nothing but dissatisfaction would prevail.
He would give his entire support to the Bill, and he hoped
that the Solicitor-General would apply his acute mind to
the Bill, so as to meet any defects that existed in it. This
would be a much more reasonable course than throwing the
Bill out altogether.
Sir GEORGE GREY generally agreed with the observa-
tions of the Right llon. Baronet, and said he should not
have spoken, had he not been a member of the Com-
mittee to whose report reference had been made
in the course of the present discussion. Though he
had been a member of that Committee, he had
not given his sanction to the report, having been called out
of town when it was agreed to. He believed it was only
agreed to by three or fear members of the Committee, and
not by all. Though he admitted that the Committee dis-
covered many anomalies in the present. law, he could not
agree with the Bill proposed by the Noble Lord. Any rea-
sonable amendment he would gladly agree to, so as to facili-
tate the leaving of bequests to education and religious pur-
poses, but the Bill now submitted was such a one as he must
give his decided opposition to. The reasons which influenced
the Legislature to pass the Act 9th Geo. 11. was to prevent
persons in their last moments from being imposed upon to
give away their property. And one of the witnesses, a Mr.
Mathews, in answer to a question put by the Noble Lord on
the Committee, said, that it' that law was to be repealed, a
great deal of land would be conveyed away impro-
perly, but he thought that a law giving a limited
power of leaving property would be of considerable benefit.
If anything could be suggested without entrenching on the
principle of the Acts 9 Geo. 11., there would be no disinclina-
tion on the part of the House to allow it to pass. Under the
proposed Act the medical man was to give his opinion as to
the sanity of the testator, and also to state that no undue
solicitation had been exercised, but it was utterly impossi-
ble that the medical man could give such an opinion, as he
would have little or no opportunity of judging.
Lord CLIVE said that the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department had declared his in-
tention of having nothing to do with the Bill, as the ex-
perience of a century proved its effectual operation. It was
well known that the Act, in leas than 25 years after its
existence, was found to be so oppressive that the governors
anti trustees of Queen Anne's bounty were excepted from its
operation. The greatest innovators on the Act fink (leo.
11., were the Government themselves.--(Hear, hear.) In
Ireland the Charitable Bequests Act did not give an
great/
ecurity to property, nor protect it against the death-
albeldowinedflutehnecnelionfiswtehricollfatihiye
nal
ini.The
pill iegclett
tIoI or ne
c.
eiN,
e Baronetany complained,reeloir psr se
Ecclesiastical Commissioner had also the power receiving
property which any person might bequeathtoohf
land in spite of mortmain, and It was only a very short time
since an excellent Member of that House had in that manner
induce the Court
bequeathed a large amount of property for that purpose.
There were at present several schemes to
Chancery to make wine proviaion.to hinder the inc miva