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

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS RELIEF BILL.

The Bishop of EXETER said, at the request of his Noble
and Learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), he wished to alter
the motion of which he bad given notice with respect to this
Bill. He should postpone it until Friday next, in order that
the questions might be printed and placed in the hands of their
Lordships before that day.
ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR.

The Bishop ef OXFORD presented a petition from the
Deanery of Newbury against the division of these sees.
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS' BILL.

Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Liverpool aping
his Bill.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

THE NOBLE LOEB said he had another petition to present,
to which he begged to call the attention of their Lordships,
and the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, praying
exemptions from the provisions of this Bill. It was a petition
from the Preston Auxiliary Religious Tract Society. He
was ready to support the Bill, because he thought it very de-
sirable for the more effectual government of trusts, and espe-
cially the auditing of their funds. But those from whom the
petition emanated were the representatives of a charity sup-
ported by voluntary contributions, who expended their own
money as they thought fit, and in the management of which
charity they received no assistance from the State. They con-
sidered the publication of their accounts to be unnecessary
and uncalled for. They went further, and gave expression to
an apprehension which appeared to him to be well- founded,
namely, that the public ordeal with which they were threat-
ened would have the effect of materially diminishing the
amount of subscriptions.—(Hear, hear.) The funds were at
present administered gratuitously by persons who were sub-
scribers to the society, who took a great interest in its pros-
perity. They made very great exertions for the purpose of
increasing its funds. They, therefore, en reasonable grounds,
prayed their Lordships to be freed from the operations of this
Act.—( Hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had been repeatedly
applied to by societies similar to that from which the Noble
Lord had presented the petition, and he had uniformly stated
that he would take into consideration the representations which
they had made to him. When he should move the second
reading of this Bill he would state to their Lordships the course
which he meant to pursue with respect to societies of this de-
scription, and
,with respect to other societies, concerning which
similar representations had been made. In justification of the
course he had pursued, he begged leave to remind their Lordships
that when this Bill was laid on the table of the House, during
the last session of Parliament, it was referred to a Committee
of their Lordships, who sat in deliberation, and the result was
that their Lordships had recommended the Bill to be laid on
the table in its present shape.
Lord COTTENHAM entirely concurred in the observa-
tions of the Noble Lord. He had himself presented several
petitions from similar societies, who stated that they were
actual trustees, and often under liabilities to the amount of
40,0001., and they considered it a very great grievance if they
would be compelled to publish their accounts. He hoped,
therefore, that their Lordships would take their case into con-
sideration.—( Hear, hear. )
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked that the Bill re-
ferred to two subjects. The one the administration of
charitable funds, and the other the inspection of their accounts.
The question of the Hon. and Learned Lord referred to the
latter point.
Lord BROUGHAM said that so far from this interference
being anything new, it had been proposed by the Commissions
that were issued in past years to inquire into the subject—in
1818, and in 1819, and again after he became a Member of
that House in 1831. Every Commission that had been issued
had been instructed to inquire into all charities with certain
exceptions. In the course of these investigations 40,000
charities had been inquired into. He admitted that voluntary
funds raised by parties were not fit subjects for their inquiry,
for if people chose to allow themselves to be deceived it was
their own affair. It was different where the funds were
invested in trustees, for there the savings became public charity,
and came within the scope of the present Bill.
After a few words from Lord COTTENHAM,
RAILWAY DISSOLUTIONS BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE brought up the report of the
Committee on this Bill with two amendments, which, in agree-
ment with the suggestions of several .Noble Lords, he intended
to submit. The first, recommended by the Noble Lord oppo-
site, referred to the right of pre-emption in the property of a
company, in the event of a majority agreeing to dissolve it.
To that he had no objection, though he did not apprehend it
would be of much use, as the parties who might want to get
up the company again, could easily get the particulars they
wanted at the Parliamentary or Private Bill offices. The
Noble Lord then read the clause he intended to propose, which
was to the effect that the minority of a company should have
the right to purchase the plans, sections, and other property of
the dissolved company, at a fair valuation.
The Bishop of LONDON said there were exceptions in cer-
tain cases, such as all charitable societies supported by veins-
tary contributions alone.
The Earl of ELDON presented a petition from the iron-
mongers of the city of London against the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Lord
Meadowbank, as the representative of the property of a gallant
officer, now in the service of his country in China, against a
railroad which was proposed to run through a part of that pro-
perty, which would destroy some of the most beautiful parts
of it.