The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-27 00:00:00

EVENING, JUNE 27, 1851

between 301. and 1001. the mattor should go
directly before the Master, the Commissioners
retaining the power to direct the questions which
were to be brought before the Court. But there
was to be no litigation except with the sanction of the
Commissioners. The next subject treated of in the Bill
was that of accounts. On this head it was provided that
the managing trustees should annually make a return of
the receipts and disbursements of their respective chari-
ties, copies of which should be transmitted to the clerks
of the peace and of the county courts, for public inspec-
tion. The Commissioners were annually, in like manner,
to report their proceedings to both Houses of Parlia-
ment. With respect to the question of the expenses of
the Commission, no charity under 104 should pay any-
thing; all charities above that amount were to be taxed at
the rate of 2d. in the pound, which would give a sum of
8,5004 applicable to the payment of the expenses of the
Commission. With respect to the question of leasing,
building, mining, and repairs, instead of an application
to the Court of Chancery being necessary, the Commis-
sioners should have the power to deal with them at once.
There were also some provisions relating to the union
of small charities. The Bill would only deal with
permanently endowed charities, and would not interfere
with purely voluntary societies. He should also add,
that trustees would be protected from suits for private
purposes. These were the main features of the Bill.
Several petitions had been presented to their Lordships,
praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, but he
trusted their Lordships would not accede to that prayer.
He moved that the Bill be read a second time.

Lord BROUGHAM rejoiced at the introduction of the
Bill. It was a measure which had long been needed, and
the want of which had worked grievous injustice. The
Noble and Learned Lord had understated the efficacy of
his measure. Charities, not of 51. a year, but of 1004 a
year, could not afford the expense of a Chancery suit,
and the consequence was that persons often held property
of 30/. or 401. a year--that property belonging to a
charity, and yet were permitted wrongfully to retain it,
because it was not worth the expense to dispossess
them.—(Hear.) This was a circumstance that was hu-
miliating to them as a Christian and a civilised country.
He therefore heartily rejoiced in the proposing of such
a measure as this; but as it was to be referred to a Select
Committee he would not make any lengthened observa-
tions upon a measure of which ho so much approved,
and that he hoped would be unanimously sanctioned by
their Lordships.

Lord STANLEY observed that there had been nu-
merous and flagrant abuses under the existing law, and
if there could be any doubt as to the necessity of some
measure like the present, that doubt must be removed
by finding the Bill sanctioned by the high authority of
the Commissioners, of the Lord Chancellor, and of his
Noble and Learned Friend. His only apprehension was
the period of the session at which the measure was pro-
posed. He was much afraid that a Bill proposed at the
latter end of June ran some risk of being lost.—(Hear.)
He thought the Noble and Learned Lord on the wool-
sack would concur with him in thinking that it would be
inexpedient to interfere with charities that depended
upon private support; that there should be an exemption
in favour of charities supported by voluntary contribu-
tions. It would, he thought, also be right not to inter-
fere where there was an efficient audit, and a sufficient
motive in the governing body to control the fund, and
to have the purpose of the trust fulfilled. A great
number of public companies were in this position, and
yet were not exempted by the Bill. The question, then,
was, whether they had not a claim to be exempted? It
could not be contended that they were ignorant of the
extent of the estates that had been devised to them.
_ _

The LORD CHANCELLOR—They were ignorant
of the objects in many instances for which the estates
were devised.

Lord STANLEY said it appeared to him to be sin-
gular that bodies of a public character should be in pos-
session of estates for hundreds of years, and managing
those estates, and yet, through ignorance of the purposes
to which they were to be applied, violating• tho trust.
He was not aware that any such charge had been
brought against the great companies. It was clear, as
far as they were concerned, that the trust had not
lapsed; that there was a regular annual audit of their
accounts by persons elected from amongst those who
were interested in the due administration of the trust.
Charities were, with them, derived from deeds of gift
from those who were members of the same corporation,
and all the members of that corporation knew how the
charity was managed. Such charities as those, he con-
ceived, stood on a somewhat different footing from other
charities, and the grounds of exemption stated in the
Bill would apply generally to such companies. As the
Bill, however, was to be referred to a Select Committee,
he had not any doubt but that the parties would have the
opportunity of making their case, though not through
counsel, known and stated, and he was sure fully consi-
dered and fairly decided upon.
The Earl of CHICHESTER supported the Bill, and
said it was the measure recommended by the second re-
port of the Charity Commissioners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR briefly replied, and
The Bill was read a second time.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 26.
SUPPLY.—DANISH CLAIMS.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ROEBUCK, pursuant to notice, rose to call the
attention of the House to the subject of the Danish
claims, but in the then state of the atmosphere ho pro-
mised not to occupy much time.—(Hear, hear.) These
claims he said were made by British merchants
in consequence of certain losses which they
sustained through the conduct of the Govern-
ment in 1807. The House was aware that about
that period France had succeeded in succumbing Aus-
tria, Prussia, and Russia; and England being the only
country that stood upright at the time, was
desirous of striking a blow which should
in some way or other cripple the power
of Napoleon. In order to do that, absolute secresy
was required in carrying out the necessary ope-
rations, and for that purpose means were taken
to prevent English merchants understanding what the
Government were about. Several English merchants,
therefore, were solicited to go to the Baltic, and upon
their receiving an assurance from the authorities that
everything was perfectly safe in that part of Europe,
many of them agreed to send large quantities of valuable
property to the Baltic. At this time England had a large
naval force under her command, which was then engaged
in the colonies, but it was almost immediately sent on a
sudden to the Baltic for the purpose of forming an ex-
pedition againt Denmark, and the consequence was, that
those merchants who had sent out their goods under the
assurance of these advisers of the Crown that nothing
was likely, or, indeed, could arise to disturb the
peace of the Baltic, lost all their property. He knew
that Chancellors of the Exchequer opposed motions
like the present on the ground that they were stewards
of the public purse, but personal vanity was at the bot-
tom of all opposition of that sort.—(A laugh.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer was, however, the last person to be accused
of personal vanity, for it did not enter into his composi-
tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the
House and said he had no surplus revenue to bestow in
that way. Of course the Right Hon. Gennleman had
nothing to do with that case, which arose out of the
misconduct of the Chancellor f the Exchequer in the
year 1807. That was the feeling which guided all
Chancellors of the Exchequer ; but the question which
they had to consider was, whether it was becoming the
dignity of this country to deal with its merchants after
that fashion ? Was it not the fact that the British
Government had misled its merchants ? The use of
the word " reprisals" meant that there was no
war—that it was then a time of peace. But when
a nation doing an injustice refused to make reparation,
and war resulted, then those matters taken as re-
prisals became prizes of war, and then by every rule of
law the first application was to redress the injury for
which reprisals were made. It was after the Government
of this country had seized about 3,000,0004 worth of
Danish property that Denmark had made the capture
for which the present claim was made. The Hon. and
Learned Member went into a brief history of the various
occasions on which these claims had been brought before
the House. On the very last occasion they had been
successfully advocated by the Hon. Gentleman the
Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), whose
support he trusted he would have on that motion. In
June, 1841, Parliament had presented an address to her
Majesty on that subject, to which she had returned an
answer, to the effect—" That she should always be
ready to give attention to the wishes of the House of
Commons, and should consent to the satisfaction of the
proposed claim, whenever Parliament provided the
means." The amount of that claim was 125,0004, and
as Parliament had decided upon its justice in 1841, he
hoped the House would not refuse in 18M to ratify the
same, by agreeing to his motion. The Hon. Member
then concluded by moving that on Wedndesday next the
House should resolve itself into a Committee of the
whole House, to consider an address, praying her Ma-
jesty to take into her gracious consideration the report
of the 12th of May, 1840, made by the Commissioners
appointed to inquire into the confiscation of several Bri-
tish ships' cargoes by Denmark, in 1807, and to order
compensation for the same.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should be as brief as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman;
for the present case lay within a very narrow compass.
Indeed, after the able statement which the Hon. Member
for Liverpool had made on the subject five years ago, ho
was astonished that it should be ever revived. He could
assure his lion. and Learned Friend that no vanity ac-
tuated him in the course which he then pursued.—
(Laughter.) It was incumbent, however, on the Hon.
Gentleman to show why the people of Great Britain
should pay a sum of 125,000/. In the course of the year
1807 war existed between Denmark and Great Britain.
He pat aside altogether the question of a declaration of
war. His lion. Friend knew that at that time war might
be carried on without a declaration. With respect to
the three descriptions of goods liable to be seized, a
great distinction existed between goods ashore and afloat
and book debts. No state of war would justify the 9nn-
fication of goods ashore or book debts; but it diffe-
rentwas
afloat. with respect to goods et. The whole question
i
which they had then to decide was, whether at the time
those seizures were made war existed or not. On that
he thought there could be no doubt. Admiral Gambier
had sailed up to Copenhagen on the 3d 91 August, and
that was sufficiently indicative of hostilities. If war then
s t
jhe ec
t law
went
e o
t tf
n
existed, the seizure was entirely according to u b
nations; and all the evidence taken on
to confirm that fact. He, therefore, thought the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had made out no case which
could call upon this country to allow a
.claim for indem-
nity, never yet allowed under such circumstances
amongst civilized nations.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he would never shrink from
his duty, whether the performance of it pleased or dis-
pleased any Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Go-
vernment. The shipowners in that case had been led to
believe they might safely send their vessels to Denmark;
and that was a strong reason why their claims should

be allowed, however late in the day it was proposed to
do them justice. Ho would, therefore, support the Itlo-
tion of the lion. and Learned Member opposite. He
wished to know where, then, was the Hon. Member for
Kinsale (Mr. Hawes), who had formerly voted for those
claims ? He was at the Crystal Palace, perhaps—
(Laughter)—patronising the industry of all nations—
(Laughter)—when he ought to be in his place in Parlia-
ment.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it ••• ••• ••• 126
Majority against the motion
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
Supply, Mr. BERNAL in tho chair.
A vote of 71,100/. to defray the salaries and expenses
of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
was then proposed.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not see why there should be an
increase in that vote.
After a few words from Mr. C. LEWIS and the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
Mr. HUME said he only objected to the item of
23,0001. for Queen's messengers and expresses.
The vote was theu agreed to.
A vote of 53,6001. having been proposed for the ex-
penses of the department of the Privy Council, and the
office for trade, including the registry of seamen,
Mr. HUME took occasion to complain of the refusal
of the heads of the Colonial Office to extend representa-
tive institutions to our colonies. He wished particularly
to refer to the case of Demerara, and to give notice that
when the papers connected with the state of that co-
lony were produced, he should call the attention of the
House to the subject.
Mr. HAWES stated that the authorities at the Colo-
nial Office thought that they ought to act with great
caution in extending representative institutions to colo-
nies in which hostile races resided.
Mr. HUME complained of the continuance of the
office for the registry of seamen, which was, ho believed,
entirely useless.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he believed that the abo-
lition of the office would be productive of great con-
fusion.
Mr. HUME said he did not know a single person who
approved of the system.
Captain HARRIS defended the system, and thought
that it could not be safely done away with. In time of
war it would be most useful for the purpose of enabling
the authorities at the Admiralty to know who were the
parties best fitted to serve their country in the Royal
navy.
Sir F. BARING said it was true that the present re-
gistry system was productive of great inconvenience.
But he thought that a registration of seamen was a ne-
cessary step towards any improvement in the condition
of the men engaged in the naval service.
Sir G. PECHELL said the true way to secure the
services of efficient seamen in the Royal navy would be
to give good pay and good food to the men.
Mr. HENLEY said he thought that a sum of 9,0001. a
year was too much to pay for the very doubtful or
very trifling advantages of the present registry system.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that the system was
by no means a perfect one. But he felt convinced that
it operated to a considerable extent as a check against
desertion.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that many years had elapsed
since he had first recommended a registration of seamen,
and as other avocations had since withdrawn his atten-
tion from the subject, he was not perfectly aware of the
manner in which the system he bad introduced had ope-
rated. He had proposed it, not as abstractedly desir-
able in itself, but as subsidiary for other arrangements.
He believed it would be a delusion to suppose that in the
event of a great naval war the system of impressment
could be altogether set aside. But he had always felt
that every effort ought to be made to avert as far as pos-
sible the necessity of having recourse to so extreme an
expedient. He had formerly thought that a system of
registration was absolutely necessary for the purpose
of carrying out the practice of u compulsory natal
service, for a limited period, in time of war ; but he
was not prepared to say that his opinion upon that
point had not since undergone some modification. He
was, however, disposed to think with his Right Hon.
Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring)
that if there should be any measure passed for the
purpose of establishing a system of limited service of a
compulsory nature, in time of war, a well-organized sys-
tem of registration of seamen would be indispensable for
carrying out such a measure. It appeared that the re-
gistration system, although by no means perfect, was of
some benefit even in the mercantile service, by affording
a check to desertion; and, under these circumstances, he
was not prepared to vote for its abolition. He trusted,
however, that during therecess her Majesty's Government
would endeavour, as far as possible, to remove the im-
perfections of the system.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 2,0004 having been proposed for the salary
of the Lord Privy Seal,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he wished to know what were
the duties assigned to that functionary?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the Lord Privy Seal was frequently enabled to per-
form important services by instituting special inquiries,
and discharging special duties to which none of his col-
leagues could find time to attend.
Mr. HUME suggested that the Lord Privy Seal should
be employed as a Minister of Justice.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he believed that the duties of
a Minister of Justice would be more properly discharged
by the Lord Chancellor than by any other person. The
position of the Lord Chancellor gave him greater autho-
rity in cases connected with the administration of jus-
tice than any other individual could pretend to. The
judicial duties of the Lord Chancellor had hitherto been
so burdensome that he had not been able to give the time
that was desirable to the general administration of jus-
tice throughout the country. But he (Lord J. Russell)
hoped that under the new Chancery measure which had
lately been introduced, and which had met with such
general approval, the Lord Chancellor would be enabled
to devote more of his attention to that important subject.
Mr. HUME said he thought that the Lord Chancellor
had to discharge as many other duties as he could con-
veniently attend to.
Mr. BRIGHT said it seemed that that salary was given
to a man who could be put to anything. Now a man
who could be put to anything must be a very able person.
It was, however, a remarkable fact, that able men were
never put into those offices to which no peculiar duties
were attached.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had gone as far as ho could
have gone in reducing the number of public offices. The
salary attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal had for-
merly been 4,0001. a year, and was at present reduced
to 2,0001. a year. What the public benefit required was
that the public business should be well done. There
were many important subjects which did not immediately
belong to the duties of any of the Secretaries of State,
and which were very advantageously attended to by a
functionary in the position of the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. BIiIGLIT said the Noble Lord who filled the office
of Vice-President of the Board of Trade did more Go-
vernment business in that House than any other officer
of the Government. Several of the other members of the
Government had notoriously very light duties to perform.
II e presumed that the arguments just uttered by the
Noble Lord would be used to the end of tiree. It was,
however, unfair towards the public to grant large salaries
to officers not really required. He thought that, con-
sidering the circumstances under which the Committee
was appointed, and the trouble they took to investigate
into the matters referred to them, the Government was
more or less bound to act upon their report.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted the great services of the
Noble Lord who filled the office of Vice-President of the
Board of Trade. He certainly discharged the duties of
that office most efficiently and creditably. But the Board
of Trade was a department which it was necessary to
have well represented in both Houses. He would, how-
ever, remind the Hon. Member that there was no ap-
pointment more severely criticised than that of Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, it having been said
that the former Master of the Buckhounds was utterly
unfit to hold any such situation.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS and Mr.
MACGREGOR, the vote was agreed to.
24,7001. was granted for the salaries and expenses at-
tached to the office of Paymaster-General.
The sum of 6,2791. for the salaries and expenses at-
tached to the office of Comptroller-General of the Ex-
chequer, being proposed.
Colonel SIB moil? objected to this vote. A more
gross imposition never was practised than that of pitch-
forking the Noble Lord now in another place into this
situation of Comptroller-General. His salary, however,
was now placed on the Consolidated Fund, and he (Col.or
Sibthorp) had no opportunity of making any motion f
its reduction. He had before moved for a return of thenumber of days which the Noble Lord referred toe had
sat in his office. He would be very curious to see that
return. A more valuable and efficient officer in the
dis-
chargeant-omopf histrole Idru. tieashtihsegreenctolouLdennowt
abee than tahele A
tosis is
Assist-
ant-Comptroller
the duties of the office without h
any fashionable Lord. This, it appears,te was a
comfort-
able way of extracting money from
h Esueit assistancepocketse
able
of of
t hesdC -
people
Mr.
I'IUME wished to knodw
twohEextheehregaunyerrbegilulsltions
hade
gbeen
imade
et to
eprevent
ethe
r
possibility
-any
ER frauds
aid
The CHANCELLOR of athe
wisdom or skill could devise was
adopted as a precaution against_to
agreed
to pay the salaries and ex-
every regulation which
these frauds.
IT,hhee
nvoextet
ntiofaroomf Mr, HUME,
r Office.
penses of the State p
wvoatsethweansa2g,
C. LEWlhthat
said.every
Ein this office,
facility was given to
the public
u fees were exacted.
anldnn answer to a question from Mr. EWART,
Mr. C. LEWIS said that an index was about being
Mlara:3BefrortothaegiunFes;pteiee
printed.
The vote was agreed to.
2,2301. to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners.
not the
sp. u b
illi ce, swheotuilldd
cheer
tma tt oa
kpea
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that the Church property,
easea salesroif t
hoef
and
dse ono
ythteh
House against this vote.
Mr. TRELAWNY was also opposed to this vote.
There could bo about half a million more raised out of
the Church property if proper measures were taken in
respect to it. One way was the sale of the Crown

Si G. GREY said that the amount was not so large
this year as formerly, on account of reductions made in
the establishment. It was thought desirable that the
proceedings of the Commission should come annually
before Parliament, in order to afford an opportunity
to Hon. Members to ask for every information respect-
ing it.

After some observations from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that two of the Commis-
sioners were paid entirely from the funds of the Church.
The WSB absolutely necessary. If this Tote