The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 4.
The SPIAKIR 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 ; viz.:—
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 Chesterfird Railway.
Enfield and Edmonton Railway.
Leeds and York Railway.
Llvnvi Valley and South Wales Junction Railway.
Hertford and Hatfield Railway.
Richmond Railway (Kew Branch).
Clitheroe 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 Colinas 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
r\ tension 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
come 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 5,000/. 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 5001.
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. 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 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 pe-son
bequeathing the money, who should attest that the person
was " mens sana et corpore nano," 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-
draw'n 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
fur the public interest as other bequests, he thought they were
greatly mistaken. As a proof of that assertion he referred to the
Hon. Member fiir 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 of England or of the
Dissenting interests had ever induced a person to
bequeath any suns 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 Purse( sea
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
lion. 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
it personal sacrifice was to be made it should
be made in a state of health, as it would thereby
eive a proof of the sincerity of the donor's feelings. The
iteeht 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 fur 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-
snittee.
Mr. M. MILNES did not think that the Act of George 11.,
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 woulid not, however, enter into
the subject of the mortmain laws, believing, as he did, that
the report on them, which was before the douse, 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 the time at which that law seas 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 lie would answer that it was difficult to define what
should be cor sidered superstitious or not ; this was a matter
to be left to the conscience and 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 abuses continued, without the Govern-
ment or the great law authorities taking up
the question, nothing but dissatisfaction would prevail.
lie would give his entire support to the Bill, and he hoped
that the Solicitor-General would appi.y 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 be
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 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.
It anything could be snggested without entrenching on the
pi inciple 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 lion. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department had declared his in-
ntien of having nothing to do with the Bill, as the ex-
perience of a century proved its effectual operation. It was
well known thfaotldie Act, in less than 25 years after its
existence, was found
Queen Anne be
so oppressive that the governors
anti trustees of
Anne's bounty were excepted from its
operation. The greatest innovators on the Act 9th Geo.
11. were the Government themselves.—(Hear, hear.) In
Ireland the Charitable Bequests Act did not give any
great security to property, 3hrloiotect it against the deatle
bed influence of which the Ri
yoto
to n. Baronet complained. It
• allowed the minister ofan receivemight bequeath
any real or personal
property which any person
Ecclesiastical Commissioner had alsotla itpeaotwer of receiving
to him. The
short time
land in spite of mortmain, sad it was enel
since an excellent Member of that HouseYhaadvienrY
that
bequeathed a large amount of property for that purpose.
There were at present several schemes to induce the Court of
nChancery to make some provision to hinder the increased re-
venues of many charitable institutions from being squandered
away. If the lave proposed were an inferior law, there would be
some ground for the position taken by the Right Honourable
Baronet. Let the House look at Scotland: was there any
country in which popular agitation had risen higher,
and the institutions of the Teticenry snore completely
overthrown. 'They had a tringent law of
En land, and yet the
entail than they had in
only restriction imposed on the testatorn as that thirty days
situ-mid elapse from the date of making thebequest before the
death of the testator. If thirty days had elapsed the will
was valid. 'The Lord A.dvocate in Ins evidenFe
had said that he never knew an instance in
which this power had been abused. He (Lord
Clive) did not think that he was calling on the
Mouse to do much when he asked them to alter the
pretent law, and when they considered the beneficial effect
(is(' s law similar to the one proposed, whenever it had been
tried elsewhere.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend did not
.appear to apprehend the nature of the proposed Bill, when
he said that it did not apply to Ireland. Any Bill
that did not specially except Ireland from its opera-
tion must necessarily be considered as applying to
-that country, and the same with regard to Scotland. His
_ won. Friend had stated, that in Germany, at the period
ef she Reformation, the revenues of the nobles were appro-
u.. fated to the purposes of education.. He (Sir
Inglis) considered that his Hon. Friend was not
sal taint* acquainted with the facts of the case. He be-
lieves t there were some difficulties in the
law of mortmain, teem in the present efreeteffecting
ghanut
altera '
he se not _ prepared
steo go to such a length
" Imposed by tb. p He thought it would
as that • rate inflict a
is Tot hard.sl4 4:014 survivors and relatives, who