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

• had entertained a just expectation of bequests on the
death of the testator, to find that the property had been be-
queathed to parties who were entire strangers to him, for the
purpose of supporting convents, churches, or othe charitable
institutions, 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
would 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 for
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 therising 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 be the report
of the Committee that had sat on the subject of bequests of
the kind stated. Now be 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 means to evade the statutes,
and the Legislature devising fresh means to hinder the mis-
chief as it arose. One of the acts of the clergy was tort ake land
for long terms of years, and this was provided against by the
2d of Edward I. 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 tl.e parties
to remain in possession while they received the profits them-
selves. The 15th of Richard 11. made the Act of Mortniain
apply to the use as well as to the possession of lands. The
clergy then endeavoured to obtain a sort of qualified profit
by making charges for various ceremonies, and these charges
were payable from the land. That was provided against by
the 23d 'Henry VIII., which provided against superstitious
uses and customs, and that Act remained in force until the
ith and Bth Wm. 111., which vested in the Crown alone the
powerof allowingpersons to receive land by mortmain. The
Committee had inquired the object of the Act of 9th George 11.
He had referred to the Act itself, and the preamble distinctly set
forth that it was too prevent the mischief arising from persons
willing away their property to be applied to charitable pur-
poses after their death to the detriment of their heir at law.
That law provided that arty deed of gift of that nature should
be executed twelve months before the death of the party, and
registered within six months from the date of its signature.
The Legislature considered that with reference to real pro-
perty, which is land, that weak and worldly-minded persons
might be acted upon by a teeling of vanity to associate their
names with some public or charitable foundations. They
considered that they might be acted upon when their minds
were enfeebled, anti their bodies broken down by sickness, to
part with their property. That danger did not extend with
so much force to personal property, for in that case there
eas no local, visible, or permanent character connected
with it. Upon looking over the report, he bad not been able
to discover anything, either in the report itself, or in the wit-
nesses examined, to justify any alteration of the present law.
Among the witnesses examined was the Bishop of London ;
he was in favour of a relaxation of the provisions of the ex-
isting law to the Established Church, but to no other religious
institution.

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
had been made to the Bill, citing several cases ofhardship 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.
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 se 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 pre.Qent wants of the
country were not met by its institutions. He, therefore, with
all confidence, asked the House to give him the second reading.
for he assured them that he would persevere in his efforts--
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 6O
Majority
SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of the Salmon
irisheries Bill.—Postponed till Wednesday next.
Sir C. BULLER moved the secondreading of the Election
Notices (Ireland) Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time accordingly.
The Roman Catholic Relief Bill was also read a second
time.

Extension) petition, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed
with.

10. That, in the case of the Coventry, Nuneaton, Birmingham, and
Leicester Railway petition, the standing rders ought to be dis-
pensed with :—That the parties Le permitted to p, oceed with their
Bi

11. That, in the case of the Manchester and Leeds Railway Ex-
tensions petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
12. That, in the case of the Grand Trunk or Sta•':ord and Peter-
borough Railway petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed
with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
13. That, in the case of the lexeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester Rail-
way petition, the standing rders ought to :be dispensed with :
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on inserting
a clause, restraining them from compulsorily taking the lands in
respect of which the names of William Vickery, Richard Granger,
John Chard, and William }layman, were incorrectly inserted in the
lists of assents to the Bill.

14. That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon• Tyne Improvement
petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the
parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on striking out from
the schedule the houses in a street from the New-road to Lawson-
Meet.

That the Committees on this and the preceding Bill do examine, in
the first place, how far such orders have been complied with, and do
report the same to the House on the report of the Bill.
First, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth, eleventh,
twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth reia)lutious agreed to.—Report to
lie on the table.

SECOND READINGS OF RAILWAY BILLS.

MONDAY, MARCH 8.

Dover and Deal.
Congleton and Crewe.
Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Extension (No. 2).
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Nellston Direct (Branches to Thornliebaa,
Househill, and Hurlet).
Ely and Bury.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the Trent Works
Bill.

Sub-Committee No. 1.

BUILDINGS ACT.

This Committee re-assetnbled this morning at twelve o'clock in
room:10.7; Mr. Strutt, chairman.
THEATMENT OF THE PRESS.

Sir J. GRAHAM moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act 7 and 8 Vic., c. 84, for regulating the con-
struction and the use of buildings in the metropo is and its
neighbourhood by authorising the appointment of a third
official referee.

Upon the gentlemen of the several journals entering the room this
morning they were most disagreeably surprised by finding the seats
which had throughout the whole of the previous sittings of
the Committee been exclusively set apart for their ac-
commodation, taken by the agents, thereby causing the greatest
disarrangement to the gentlemen of the press. Had this
arra,.gement, or, as we should say, disarrangement, been forced
upon the Committee for their own ease and comfort, it would be far
from our province to complain, hut such is not the case. The seats
occupied by the agents for the four previous weeks were not required
for any purpose, as the chairs were empty din ing the whole day. The
consequence of this change is, that we are thrown into the back-
ground, where It is impossible forum to hear one word of the proceed-
ings correctly. It is but justice to Mr. Gunnell, the clerk, to state
that the blame cannot attach to him, for he has most kindly, on all
occasions, given every information required by the gentlemen attend-
ing for the press. We trust the Committee will see the propriety of
not impeding the duties of those who attend to furnish the public with
information of the greatest interest.
THE SECHEVISEURT AND sintsromm.

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 asying
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 was
to:repeal it, and thus free the metropolis from the pest and
plague of this Act.

kr. R. HODGSON 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 for the
amendment of the Build►ng Act, at a sufficiently early part of
the session as to enable them to discuss the question at
their leisure.

This adjourned case was called on, and the opposition proceeded
with the allegations, but, for the reasons above stated, it was out of
our power to hear any part of the Inquiry. Why the press should
have been so inconvenienced, when the Committee had mot thought
proper to remove a host of persons (idle loungers) standing between
us and the agents, It is in the power only of the Hon. Members to
explain. •

Mr. T. D'EYNCOURT also expressed his disapprobation
of the Bill, and complained of its inefficient working. He
was glad to see that the Right Hon. 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
had been made against the Metropolitan Act, and
said that the measure, when introduced into
the House, had been fully and carefully discussed,
so as to make it as efficient as possible. He was sorry
front what he had heard en both sides cf 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 the 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.

PARLIAMEN TAR Y DL V ISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

Mr. HODGSON and Mr. MATHEWS considered that no
alteration was necessary in the existing law.
Mr. C. BULLER gave his most cordial support to the
measure introduced by his Noble Friend. He could not see
why such a number of safeguards should be thrown around
landed proprietors, and none around those of personal pro-
perty, when they, considered that the former were but a
very small number, when compared with the latter, and he
was certainly of opinion that personal property
demanded more protection than landed. He con
sidered the feelings of mankind were quite strong
enough to protect them. Not only the good feeling of man-
kind in this country, but the desire of family distinction and
aggrandisement operated to prevent those having large pos-
sessions giving too much for charitable purposes.—(Hear.
hear.) These feelings were quite enough for the protection
of families, without having any restrictive laws, and he
therefore thought no impediment whatever should be placed
in the way of individuals granting property for public pur-
poses. Every argument of public policy should lead them to
take away restrictions relating to real property which were
not applied to personal property. There ought to be r.o die-
tinction made whatever between those two kinds of property.
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 parsons, instead of being compelled
to subscribe to the maintenance of the Church durin4 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 Ile 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 they 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.

TUESDAY, ➢IARCH 3.
CUSTOMS ANI) CORN IMPORTATION.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That, in lien of the Duties
now payable on the importation of Corn, Grain, Meal, or Flour,
there shall be paid, until the let day of February, 1849, the following
Duties :"—Ametadment proposed, to leave out the words "in lieu
of," in order to insert the words " all Duties on imported Corn do
now cease and determine," instead thereof:—Question put
" That the words proposed to be len out stand part of the Question :"
The Committee divided :

MAJORITY—AYES, 265.
Adam!, Sir T. Drummond, H. Lygon, Gen.
Aciand, T. D. Duckworth, Sir J. Macaulay, T. B.
A'Court, Captain Duke, Sir J. Mackenzie, T.
Acton, Colonel Duncombe, T. Mackenzie, W. F.
Adderley, C. B. Duncorube, A. 31'Geachy, F. A.
Aglioltby, H. A. Du Pre, C G Mahon, Viscount
Altbrd, Viscount Egerton, Sir P. Mangles, R. D.
Allis, J. I'. Egerton, Lord F. Manners, Lord C.
Antrobus, Edmund Ellice, Edward Mannors,:Lord J.
Arbuthitott, Hugh Emlyn, Viscount March, Earl of.
Archbold, Robert Entwisle, W. Martin, C. W.
Astell,.William FeWen, William Martin, T. B.
Austen, Colonel Ferguson, Sir R. Masterman, John
Bagge, William Ferrand, W. B. ISI mile, Fox
Bagot, William Filmer, Sir E. Mildinay. H. St. John
Bailey, Joseph, jun. Finch, U liihies, IL M.
Baillie, Colonel Fitzmaurice, C. Morgan, 0.
Baillie, 11. J Fitzroy, Henry Napier, Sir Charles
Heine, Waltor Fleetwood, Sir P. Neville, Ralph
Bankes,iGeorge Flower, Sir J. Newdegate, N.
Barkly, Henry Forster, Matthew Norreys, Sir 1).
Baring, F. T. Fox, S. L. O'Brien, A. S.
Baring, Thomas Fuller, A. E. Packe, C. W.
Baring, W. B. Gardner, J. D. Palmer, R.
Barnard, E. G. Gaskell, J. M. Palmer, G.
Barrington, Viscount Gladstone, J. N. Palmerst.iii, Vie.
Itateson, Thomas Glynne, Sir S. Patten, J. W.
Beckett, Williain Gordon, lion. Capt. Peel, Sir Robert
Bell, Matthew Gore, Montague Peel, Jonathan
Benbow, John Gore, Robert Pennant, Colonel
Benett, John Goring, C. Philips, G. It.
Genet, Philip Gun'burn, Henry Polhill, Frederick
Bentinek, Lord G. Graham, Sir J. Pusey, P.
Berestord, Major Granby, Marquis of Rashleigh, W.
Bernal, Ralph Grey, Sir G. Reid, Sir John
Bodkin, W. 11. Grogan, E. Reid, Colonel
Boldero, H. G. Hale, It. B. Repton, G. W.
Borthwick, Peter lialtbrd, Sir H. Bart. Rolleston,Colonel
Bottled, Beriah Hall, Col. Round, John
Bowes, John; nonillion, W. J. Rumbold, C. E.
Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, Lord C. Russell, Lord Jelin
Boyd, John Hanmer, Sir John Ryder, G. D.
Braanston, T. W. Harcourt, G. G. Bandon, Viscount
Brisco, M. Hatton, Captain Scott, F.
Broadley, H. Ilawes, Benjamin Seymour, Lord
Broadwood, 11. Henley, J. W. Sheridan, R. B.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Herbert, Sidney Shirley, E. J.
Browne, W. Hervey, Lord A. Sibthorp, Colonel
Bruce, Lord E. Hildyard, T. B. Smith, Abel
Bruce, C. L. C. Hinde, J. 11. Smith, J. A.
Buck, Lewis W. Hobhouse, Sir J. smythe, George
Buller, Charles Hodgson, R. Smollett, A.
Buller, Sir J. V. Hope, Sir I. Somerton, Viscount
Butler, P. S. Hope, Alexander Spooner, R.;
Campbell, S!r H. Hope, G. W. Sm. Sir S.
Cardwell, Edward Herlihy, Johu Stanley, E.
Carnegie, Captain Horsman, Edward Stanley, W. 0.
Cavendish, G. H. Ilotham, Lord Stanton, W. H.
Cayley, Edward S. Howard, C. W. Stewart, John
Chandos Marq. of Howard, E. G. Stuart, Henry
Chelsea, Howard, P. H. Stuart, J.
Chichester, Lord J. Hudson, George Sutton, Henry
Childers, J. W. Hughes, W. B. Thesiger, Sir F.
Chu? chill, Lord A. S. Hume, Joseph Thompson, /Id.
Clerk, Sir G. Hurst, R. H. Towline, George
Clifton, J. T. Hussey, T. Trench, Sir F.
Clive, Viscount Irton, S. Tuthell, Henry
Cockburn, Sir G. James, William Vernon, G. H.
Cole, 11. A. Jermyn, Earl Vivian, J. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Jocelyn, Viscount Vivian, J. R.
Collett, W. R. Johnstone, Sir J. Vivian, Captain
Colquhouu, John Johnstone, Hope Vyse, R.
Compton, 11. C. Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Waddington, H. S.
Connolly, Col. Jones, Captain Wakley, Thomas
Corry, Henry Kelly, Sir Fitzroy Walpole, S. H.
Courtenay, Lord Kemble, H. Walsh, Sir J. 11.
Cowper, W. F. Kirk, Peter Wellesley, Lord C.
Craig, W. G. Knight, F. W. Wilshere, W.
Cripps, William Labouchere, Henry Wodehouse, E.
Davies, D. A. S. Lambton. H. Wood, Colonel T.
Deedes, W. Law, Hon. C. E. Worsley, Lord
Denison, E. B. Lawson, A. , Wortley, J. 3.
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Legh, G. C. Wrightsou, W. B.
Dickinson, F. H. Lemon, Sir C. Wyndham, Colonel
Disraeli, B. Lennox, Lord H. Yorke, E. T.
Dodd, G. Liddell, H. T.
Douglas, Sir H. Loch, James TILLEIIB.
Douglas, Sir C. Lockhart, A. E. -Young, John
Douglas, .1. D. S. Lockhart, W. Baring, Usury
Douro, Marquis of Lyall, Georgo

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would oppose the second re a I
ing of the Bill, because he considered it impossible to assimilate
the laws affecting real and personal property. A direct 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 pru-
perty which otherwise was inalienable, and to give a power
to the Church to receive such. He bad 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 HANMER was in favour of the
Bill. \ut-
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. lie 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 had a great objection to the law
as it at present stood, 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.) With 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. Haunter) 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, bad been brought into a most superior
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.

MINORITY—NOES, 78.
Bannerman, A. Evans, Sir De Lacy Parker, John
Berkeley, Craven Ewart, William Pattison, Jatnee
Berkeley, Captain Fielden, John Pechell, Captain
Berkeley, 11. F. Ferguson, Colonel Philips, Mark
Blewitt, Reginald Fitzroy, Lord C. Plumridge, Captain
Bouverie, E. P. Fox, C. It. Protheroe, Edward
Bowring, Dr, Gibson, T. M. Ross, D. It.

Bretherton, J. Hall, Sir Benjamin Russell, Lard E.
Busfeild, William Basile, Archibald Stanstield, W. It.
Chapman, B. Hindley, Charles Staunton, Sir G.
Christie, W. D. Holland, Robert Stuart, Lord J.
Cobden, Richard Langston, J. 11. Strait, Edward
Colborne, W. it. Layard, Captain Tancred, H. W.
Collett, John M'Carthy, Alex. Thornely, Thomas
Crawford, W. S. lii`Taggart, Sir J. Trelawny, J. S.
Currie, Raikes Marjoribatiks, S. Troubridge, Sir E.
Dalmcny, Lord Marshall, Witham Walker, Richard
Da rymple, Captain Martin, John Warburton, Henry
Dennistouri, John Mitcalfe, Henry Wiled, 11. G.
Duncan, Viscount Mitchell, T. A. IVawn, J. T.
Duncan, George Moffatt, George White, Samuel
Dundas, Admiral Morpeth, Viscount Williams, W.
Ebrington, Viscount Morris, David Wood, Charles
Ellice, E., jun. O'Connell, Daniel Yorke, H. It.
Elphinstone, H. O'Connell, M. J. TILLIE!.
E,cott, Bickham O'Connell, John Villiers, Charles
Etwall, Ralph Oswald, James Bright, John

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 bad 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 had 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 present law, nor any remedy for it.
thatownedwa
os
c he did not think the old jealousy
with regard
That which to mortmain was entirely wrong.
dangerousformuoeurlyherengoawrderdegaradsedas in
corporat dangerous
nane
ecclesiastical
in a lay iron.wh_ra To a lay corporation personal or real
property
o
be bequeathed
knewrati
nequeathed
the to any extent, and he
migyht personnow
th
would ask an
whetheram un t
he
ef
wishedp. ersontt
property vested in I ear
ay
see any more property placed in their hands. He did not
wish to see property accumulating
of either ecclesiastical or lay corporations, in the hands
not consent to go into the merits and he could
He believed the Bill could not be amended in
Coofmntetkis Bill.
Ire would therefore give his vote in opposition to tillitefueitalniedr
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 tkere 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. COLQUHOUN 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. BORTHWICK was in favour of the Bill going
into Committee. It had been admitt. d both by the Attorney
and Solicitor-General and other Hors. Gentlemen who had
spoken against the Bill, that the present law required con-
siderable amendment. If so, then the best course WAS for

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
TUESDAY, MARCH 3.
The following Petitions for Railways were reported, and tho Bills
ordered to be brought in by the undernamed Hon. Members :
North Staffordshire (Pottery Line)—Mr. Adderley, Mr. Ricardo, and
Mr. Alderman Copeland.
Grind Trunk, or Stafford and Peterborough Union Rallway—Captain
Carnegie and Sir Robert Heron.
Dundee and Arbroath (Extension)—Lord Nallyburton & Mr. Duncan.
Leicester and Bedford—Mr. Ellis, Mr. 11. Steart, and Mr. Maunsell.
Coventry, Nuneaton, Birmingham, and Leicester—Sir R. Raiford,
Mr. Packe, and Mr. Villiers.
Lancashire and North Yorkshire—Mr. 0. Duncombe, Lord E. Bruce,
and Mr. Entwisle.
Liverpool and Preston and Manchester and Southport--Mr Patten,
Mr. Clifton, and Viscount Sandon.

THE
_SUN, LONDON, TrltTitS nAy MORNING, MARCH. al 1848,

Bill-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 clue tune.

The standing orders were in all other respects complied with.
NORTH ITN'ION (HORWICCH BRANCH).

The promoters of this Bill seek to construct a branch from the
main line at Blackrod to the iown of florwich ; length two and a
quarter ►piles ; estimated cost, 28,7001., whirls is provided for by the
original funds of the Company.
Engineer, William Coultharil, 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 no•
ceseary proof.

LEEDS, YORK, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION,

The object anis Bill Is to shorten the means of railway commu-
nication between Leeds and York, now 3l Y 2 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 1614 miles; the estimated cost 340,0001., and the
amount subscribed 260,0001.
The engineers are Messrs.yignolrs and Leather ; the Parliamentary
agents, Messrs. Gregory and Co. ; and the solicitors, Messrs. Terry
and Watson, i;ra•.lford ; Mr. Cerise, Leeds ; mad Mr. Hodgson, York.
Standing orders complied with.
THE MANCHESTER AND HYDE.

The promoters of this 11111 seek to construct a line of railway from
the Manchester and Birmingham Railway, at Ardwich, to Hyde,
throlgh Gordon and Denton.
The length is about six miles, the estimated cost is 130,2501.; the
amount subscribed, 112,400/.
The engineer is J. W. Buck, Esq., the Parliamentary agents,
Messrs. Dorrington and Co., and the solicitors, Messrs. J. and W.
Heron, Manchester.

Standing orders complied with.
The Committee then adjourned, at half-pact four o'clock,

PRIVATE COMMITTE ES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committre No. 2.

This Committee met to-day at half-past twelve o'clock. The
members present were Sir J. Y. Bather (Chairman), ➢lr. Bell, Mr.
Walker, Mr. Yorke, and Mr. Kemble.
The Committee, in conformity with their determination, noticed
yesterday. proceeded with the unopposed Bills.
Harrogate Gas Company and liarrogate Water-works Company.
The formal evidence having been heard, the Committee found that
in the eases 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 s, ending orders had been complied
with in the case of these tw•

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

RAILWAY Sli <RE MARKETS.

MANCHESTER, 31Auciz 3.

CTOCK EXCIIINGZ.—The sales are Ambergate, Nottingham, and
Boston, 3s. Gcl. dis.—Derby and Crewe, 2% p. c.—Fleetwood, Pres-
ton, and West Riding, 17i p.-- Goole, Doncaster, Sheffield, &c., 1 p.
—Great Grimsby and Sheffield, 214 p. c.—Hudderstield and Man-
chester Railway and Canal, 614 p.—Ditto, Extension, par—Leicester
and Birmingham, % dis.— Liverpool and Bury, New Shares, 3 p.- -
Liverpool, OrmskirX, and Preston, 2 p.—Manehester and Birming-
ham, 78% -Manchester And Bury Atmospheric, 6s. dis.—Manches-
ter and Leeds, Sixteenth, 9%—Manchester and Southampton, 7-16 p.
—Preston and Wyre, Halves (A), 414 p.—Ditto (B), l p.- Shrop-
shire Union Railway awl Canal, % dis--Teau and Dove Valley, %
dis.—West Riding 'Union, 11/4 p.