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

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, anti 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
ail 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first clause of the Bill repealed the statute of Geo. 11., and the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 n,:w came to the safeguards
made by this Bill against any undue interference with the ex-
pectations of heirs. The Pith 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 "teens sana et carpore sano," 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. Asa 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. Alembers 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 of 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 Bishop 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 of the 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 the
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 an 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 II ,
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 wound not, however, enter into
the subject of the mortmdin 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 he did not think there was any validity
in this argument when they considered the tone of society
and the character of time at which that law was 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 and opinion of individuals. He
prayed that the Right lion. 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 abuses 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 Hon. 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 fcur 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 if 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 less than 95 years after its
existence, was found to be so oppressive that the governors
and trustees of Queen Anne's bounty were excepted from its
operation. The greatest innovators on the Act 9th Geo.
11., were the Government themselves.—(Hear, hear.)c In
Ireland the Charitable Bequests Act t
against nstottigielved e
aatnhy.
great security to property, nor protect
allowedb e d
m iont'
swt
ebri which
at
3e,
pßight.
receivelace to Be atiro,;anntlt
real
ournl
olpirlmapi.enres complained.
The
Eccksikistical Commissioner a
property which any person might
short time
ilsobthge power of receiving
land in spite of
y
since an excellent ni IL' tel ao
ft" it
liita t"11 House aad enryt that
bequeathed a large amount of property
There were at present several schemes to induce the Court o
lor that, purpose.
f
Chancery to make some provision to binder the increased re-

dere°
venues of many charitable institutions from being E°
away. If thelaw proposed were an inferior law, there weal
some ground for the position taken by the Right Honour s°,
rmronet. Let the H. use look at Scotlandwas there gni
~m c;try in which poy.iiiir agitztiol had risen bigtb;
alid the institutions of the country more comPle off
overthrown. They had a more stringent law the
entail than they had in England, and Yet s
only restriction imposed on the testator was that thirty 11,
should elapse from the date of making the bequest beforee
tb 1‘;
ll
death of the testator. If thirty days had elapsed
was valid. The Lord Advocate in ltiS "idenin
had said that he never knew an instaueltord
which this power had been abused- He k she
Clive) did not think that he was calling " the
blouse to do much when he asked them to alter_ffect
pi ez,ent law, and when they considered the beneficial
of a law similar to the one proposed, whenever it had
tried elsewhere. 'cl
Sir R. H. INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend di iies
appear to apprehend the nature of the proposed Billf,loll
he said that it did not apply to Ireland. MT fr
that did not specially except Ireland from its oPe to
tion must necessarily be considered as aPPIYin,
that country, and the same with regard to Scotian _.,;pd
Hon. Friend bad stated, that in Germany, at the P-
oi' the Reformation, the revenues of the nobles were 05
p 7 iated to the. purposes of education. Be sot
H. Inglis) considered that his Hon. Friend v"_ri.be,
sufficiently
acquainted with the facts of the case. 041
lieved there were some difficulties in the way of effec 'net
alteration in the present law of mortruvillegfil
he was not prepared to go to such a .0011
as that proposed by the present Bill. He thought it who
inflict a great hardship on those survivors and relatives,
the
had entertained a just expectation of beques?„,„"p
death of the testator, to find that the property lulu, "yor
queathed to parties who were entire strangers to h1n12.„40,10
purpc.:.e of supporting convents, churches, or othe cu"'"
institutions.

(LEFT SITTING

Ti a
Ina~a
bet re'
ly
Igt,
thank,
tha

.1411147.4
z4,74"11>?
-41%

.‘

t A

,

eluaudereu
uldbe
'Leo:arable
there el
n
law 0
t the
cs
hirty
before dr
?.d the
evidence
in
;twice
(113"
on tbe,
'alter tb,
icial effee`
had bee°

Id did rc'n
, iche,,
Bill .
ArlY
its to ope"-
plying vis
land. •,,,t
the pe „,
arPtit
lie got
be,
• ctie
gth
a len
It it lrici'l3o
atives,
the
.sts on
d bee
" "
'in for tl'e
gCt;ari°l

A Vet
ado
ich of
inaniniAL

oot
ie 11,110
wee. ureo

sameo
4,'
eith't yb

SO'
the
av tbOut oo
Past,Pocieei
'he Ilqiej tar
bs tarebetttt
ltbereooo
theor
vn P

•gess I
(
051 0:0'
rd.', 1 t
tiOdtopf II
of IC

toy'
* lA°
.g,
vor
017 D,
of 41,
E°LIPO.
0141. t,
oft,
pel‘;cl3e6,.l
11:1(;Pfrfila

Lord
r 3;
„Ji,„
r 47'
:40 .jt,
AP