The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-25 00:00:00

MACKINTOSH ESTATE BILL.

The Lords' Committee on this Bill resumed their in-
quiry yesterday; Lord Shaftesbury in the chair.
Mr. ANDREWS was heard on behalf of the opponents
of the Bill, and contended that if it should unfortunately
receive tho sanction of their Lordships the children
cf the clan of Mackintosh would be deprived of
the benefits of the fund which had been left by the will
of Captain Mackintosh, and would transfer that fund to
parties who had no right or interest in it whatever, and
yet no malversation or profligacy had been shown
on the part of the trustees to whom the manage-
ment of the fund was entrusted by the tes-
tator. Independently, however, of the real
merits of the case, there was a question of considerable
importance which had been raised by the other side.
It was the ordinary rule of practice i❑ their Lordships'

House that no property held under circumstances similar
to the present should be transferred to other parties
without the consent ef all the trustees or other individuals,
in whom it was originally vested. Now, in order to
escape that restriction, the promoters bad attempted to
invalidate the right at Mr. Shaw to be a trustee under
the wilt of Captain Mackintosh, that gentleman having
strongly piotested against an application to Parliament
for a Bill of this nature. he persons who were
to administer the fund were to be magistrates of Inver-
ness, and Mr. Shaw had act, d in that capacity for some
years, without itey one impeaching his right. Mr. Shaw
was a member of the Town-council as well as Dean of
Guild, and the opinon of Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Wigeil,
the eminent lawyers, to whom a case was submitted,
in 1841, was that a Dean of Guild, who was also a mem-
ber of the Town Council, could claim to be a magis-
trate, and therefore a trustee of the Mackintosh fund. A
decided objection was thna furnished to the further
progress of the Bill, because Mr. Shaw had de-
liberately dissented from any such interference with
the fund. There was, however, another trustee, whose
right to be a magistrate could not be successfully ques-
tioned, who was also opposed to the Bill. The next
point which he raised as being fatal to the Bill was, that
It had never been laid before the judges, and that the
notice given of the application to Parliament did not
comprehend all the objects which the promoters intended
to accomplish. _

Mr. HOPE asked permission of their Lordships to be
allowed to reply to these points, in order that they might
be disposed of before his Learned Friend entered upon
the merits of the Bill.
The. CHAIRMAN said it was not customary to hear
counsel on questions arising on the standing orders, but
in the present instance they would allow the Learned
Counsel to answer the objections which the other side
bad thought fatal to the Bill.
Mr. HOPE then contended that the magistrates of In-
verness who were the trustees of the fund, like all cor-
porate bodies, actel by quorums and majori-
ties, and therefore the consent of all of them
to the present Bill was not necessary. The
number of magistrates was six, and four of them had as-
bunted to the present application to Parliament for an
alteration in the mode of managing the fund. As to the
other point, the Darned Counsel argued that the
notice was sufficiently ample, but in the event of its not
being so, -the Committee were perfectly justified
in striking out any clauses. which they might think fo-
reign to the object of the Bill, as set forth in the notice
in question.
Tne Committee-root:a was cleared, and on the return
of the parties,
The CHAIRMAN intimated that their Lordships had
overruled both the objections.