Sitting of 19 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Richmond Penitentiary; Grand Juries (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Customs' Bill.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GROTE, from Leamington Priors, for Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON and Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, from various Places, for Alteration of Burghs of Barony (Scotland) Bill—By Mr. E. RUTHVEN, from St. James, Dublin, for Reform of the House of Lords.—By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull, for Hull Trinity House Bill.—By Sir R. PEEL,
314
from Coventry, against Charitable Trustees' Bill—By Mr. GROTE and Mr. W. WILLIAMS, from various Places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. FRESHFIELD, from Penryn and Falmouth, against Stannaries' Bill—By Mr. PONSONBY, from the Claimants of the unappropriated residue of the Funds of the French Government for the Liquidation of their Claims.—By Mr. POULTER, from the Retailers of Beer, Reading, for placing them upon the same footing as Licensed Victuallers.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.
Mr. Vernon Smithrose for the purpose of moving the further consideration of the Report on the Charitable Trustees Bill, and he should have to suggest a few alterations which it had been considered necessary to introduce since the report was last under consideration. But in the first place he would draw the attention of the House to the principle of the Bill, and how it stood with regard to the details. In the Municipal Corporations Bill a clause was introduced vesting the charitable trusts of Corporations in the hands of fifteen persons, to be named by the Council, and chosen from among the burgesses, and that without any money or suitable qualification whatever. In that state the Bill passed through that House, without opposition to the clause, but not without considerable animadversion. In the present Bill he had endeavoured to meet the objections that were then raised. The House was aware that when the original Bill went up to the House of Lords, a discussion took place upon the principle of the clause, and on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst it was rejected, on the ground that there was a Bill on their Lordships' table, which had been presented by Lord Brougham, having for its object the future regulation of all charitable trusts. That Bill, however, had not been advanced in its stages in the last, nor had it been renewed in the present Session. The clause having been rejected, and no steps taken with respect to the Bill to which he had referred, the charitable trusts remained vested in the old Corporations, who had the management of them, until Parliament should otherwise provide. That upon the face of it was evidently a temporary pro vision, and therefore his Majesty's Government now introduced this Bill to supply what was admitted to be a deficiency in the Municipal Corporations Act. The Bill had been introduced in the tone and spirit of the clause which had been rejected. And here he must say, that it was with some surprise that he found, at this stage of the Bill, on the further consideration of the report, that objections were intended to

315
be raised, by hon. Gentlemen, opposite to the principle. But to proceed:—The Bill proposed that the object should be effected by the elective principle, but not such a principle as that which was adopted by the House with respect to the political body—the principle contemplated by the Bill was not a new one, it was the same that had been adopted with respect to the choice of auditors and assessors in corporate towns, which he believed had gone over more quietly than other elections. Each burgess was to have the right of voting, but for only half the number of trustees to be elected, the principle of the Bill being to provide against an equal division of parties, as had occurred under the Municipal Corporations Act, and by this means the minority would be represented. The elective principle being, that the persons locally resident and interested in the charities should elect the parties to administer them. This principle was stated to be a valuable one when the subject was under discussion last year, as far as it applied to Local Commissioners, and was so stated to be by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, and if hereafter, a Central Board for charitable trusts throughout the empire should be appointed, that principle would not war with the principle of a Central Board. He apprehended that the right hon. Baronet himself would not be disposed to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the freemen, as was solicited in the petition the right hon. Baronet had that night presented from Coventry. It must be admitted, he thought, that as regarded the election of persons to administer the charitable trusts, the burgesses would be the proper persons to elect the trustees; and he thought the right hon. Baronet would not wish to leave that power in the hands of the persons to be benefitted, who were more or less paupers. The Lords proposed that the charitable trusts should remain in the hands of the old Corporations for another year, or until Parliament should provide otherwise. But, coupled with that clause, so leaving the charitable trusts in the hands of the old Corporations, was calculated to create a permanent, and not a temporary arrangement, namely, by the appointment of clerks and secretaries; although this did not lead of necessity to permanency, yet it looked like permanency. Against the principle of leaving there trusts in the hands of the old Corpo-
316
rations, he thought he need not address much argument, because it must be apparent, that when, by the Municipal Corporations Act, it was declared that the old Corporations were unfit to carry on the business of the towns, it could not be maintained that it was desirable that they should retain the power of exercising and administering these charitable trusts. The Corporation Commissioners reported very strongly against the conduct of the Corporations with respect to charities, and, therefore, it was not proper that they should retain the control of them in their hands, and consequently that the trusts should not remain in the situation in which they were left by the Lords. He thought the House would not consent to continue the administration of the corporate funds in the hands of such bodies as the Municipal Corporations were described to be by the Commissioners, who were not more likely to exercise their power well, because they had been deprived of other power and authority; the trusts ought not to be left in their hands as means of vengeance, or to be exercised in displaying political spite; they ought not to be left in the hands of those who had been guilty of malversation with respect to them. By the amendment which had been made by the Lords to the Municipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill, to which it was uncertain whether the House of Commons would agree, the charitable trusts would remain under the administration of the Lord Chancellor after the 1st of August; but he hoped the House would adopt the present Bill, and then it would be of no consequence whether they agreed to the amendments made by the Lords or not. There was another principle of considerable importance, namely—the possession of the property under this Bill. The majority of the properties given to the Corporations were charged for charitable purposes. He thought that these properties ought to be vested in the town-councillors; or persons who were eligible to be town-councillors; because it was clear by this arrangement that the parties, in whom the charitable funds would be vested, would have no interest in increasing the property beyond the amount required for meeting the amount of the charitable trusts, while, on the other hand, the other party would have an interest in increasing it, in order to have the administration of a surplus. There was only one other point connected with the principle of the Bill, that he

317
could not forbear mentioning, and that was The appointment of the mayor to be chairman of the charitable trustees. Perhaps the House would allow him, as no discussion had taken place on the subject, to state why he had thought it necessary to introduce the clause appointing the mayor chairman of the trustees. The Bill proposed to meet the case of parties being equally divided, and, in order to obviate this difficulty, it had been thought proper to provide, that the charitable trustees should consist of an odd number. He thought, therefore, that the mayor was not an objectionable person to fill the office of chairman. He was aware that the object of the Bill was to separate, as much as possible, the charitable trusts from the town-council; but, as there must be constant communications between the town-council and the trustees, it would be advisable to have some persons fit to carry on such communications between the council and the trustees, and it had been thought, ex necessitate, that the mayor was the best person to be introduced. It might be said, that the mayor was a political person, and he should be ready to hear any objections that might be raised to that proposition. It was a common practice in that House to make charges against Gentlemen who had the managing of Bills, as having a strong interest in wishing to favour their own party; he, however, repudiated such a charge, and he could show an instance, in his own case, to the contrary; for his hon. Colleague opposite knew that the mayor of the town which he had the honour to represent, was decidedly hostile to the party to which he (Mr. V. Smith) belonged. The mayor, as the chairman of the trustees, would not be entitled to have a second vote; he would preside over the deliberations of the body, and when equally divided, then only he would decide. If any fair objection could be raised to the nomination of the mayor to fill this office, he should be happy to listen to it; but the object of the Bill was only to frame an impartial tribunal for the administration of these trusts. The right hon. Baronet, on a former occasion, did him the justice to say, that he was actuated by the best motives, but that he had not followed out his intentions on this Bill; but he believed that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, fully participated in the belief that it would lead, to the impartial administration of these trusts. If the right
318
hon. Baronet would chalk out any mode of getting rid of the mayor, he should have no objection to consider it. He was not sure that it might not be as well, if the appointment of the mayor was not approved of, that it might be left to the option of the trust to choose their own chairman, the council being the body to whom he would apply in all cases of emergency, difficulty, or necessity. He believed he had stated as much as was necessary, and should conclude by saying, that he intended to introduce one amendment, to provide that where suits were depending, and nearly concluded, they should not be vexatiously interfered with. The Bill would not interfere with the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery; this property would be available, as heretofore, to the control and authority of that Court.
Sir Robert Peelwas rather surprised at the remonstrance, gentle as it was, that the hon. Gentleman had made, as to taking the discussion of this Bill on the report. If the hon. Member had, at an early period some evening, asked leave to bring in the Bill, and invited a discussion, or had he pursued the same course on the second reading, and given ample notice of when the second reading would take place, then he might have expressed some surprise at the debate being taken on the report; but when leave was given to bring in the Bill after the hour of midnight, and that it was also read a second time on the 17th of June, at an hour nearer one in the morning than twelve at night, it having on both occasions escaped the vigilance of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), he thought that the hon. Member might spare his expression of surprise that a discussion should now take place. When the report was brought up at half past eleven o'clock, he (Sir R. Peel) made no objection, but he did take an objection to the principle of the Bill, and asked the Government to delay it, and he had said on the occasion—do not take silence as an acquiescence. He thought every precaution therefore, had been used, that the hon. Member should not be taken by surprise. The question was, whether the House would enact some temporary arrangement, as regarded the charitable trusts of corporate towns, or whether it would establish finally and irrevocably the principle, not only of popular election, but an indissoluble connexion between these municipal bodies and the administrators of those charitable trusts

319
The Bill before the House professed to be a permanent measure, not only from its professions, but from the nature of its enactments. If they once vested these reversionary interests in a popular body, and the interests of contingent remainders on these estates, they would be making an arrangement to place them practically beyond the reach of control, and a political body would have the control over these trusts. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that it would be preposterous to revive the old Corporations for the purpose of administering these trusts, and those who were opposed to the present Bill were desirous of disuniting the administration of the trusts from a political body, giving, as those who agreed with him on this subject did give, a strong proof of their disinterestedness. The power would be vested, if the amendment of the Lords to the Municipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill was not agreed to, in the Lord Chancellor; and if held by him temporarily, and until some permanent arrangement could be come to by Parliament, and until Parliament could consider what the arrangement might be, although the Lord Chancellor was a political character connected with the Administration, yet even upon that understanding as to the exercise of the trust, he would rather prefer it, than consent to pass this Bill, and thus establish a permanent connexion between political bodies and those who were to nave the administration of charitable trusts. In the other case they would have the advantage by letting the matter stand thus, that it would be merely provisional; for no appointment of secretaries and clerks could be considered as making the arrangement of a permanent character, and it would be open to Parliament, in the next Session, to consider the whole subject of these trusts, and make some permanent arrangement with respect to them. He implored the House to consider the necessity of making some provisional arrangement with the view of preventing a connexion taking place between charitable trustees and these political bodies. The hon. Gentleman had referred to some passages in the Report of the Committee, tending to show the manner in which the charitable funds had been misapplied in the hands of the late corporations to political and interested purposes. He would, with the permission of the House read an extract from the Report of the same Commissioners on the same subject:—
320
"Other specific trusts are connected with charitable institutions and the administration of charity funds which are under the control of the corporate authorities. Here, again, we find mismanagement and misappropriation to a considerable extent. The patronage connected with these trusts has in numerous in-stances been exercised by the corporate authorities to gain or reward votes both at the municipal and Parliamentary elections. The instances given in the report are sufficient to illustrate the character of the abuses which are connected with specific trusts and patronage. They not only prove that the object of the trust has been lost sight of, but that a provision for the poorer classes of the community in the hands of the corporate authorities, has become a source of corrupt influence."
Was the House then to remain perfectly satisfied that under the system of popular election, which had been introduced into the management of corporation affairs, they would have an effectual security against such perversion of charitable trusts, and to precisely similar purposes, for the future? By the present constitution of corporate bodies, the members were almost invited to take part in politics. Although popular control provides many remedies for abuse, yet, where the passions were inflamed, and the struggle for political predominance was obstinate,—he would ask, did popular control afford any security against the perversion of power; and was it not likely that the same political feelings which had been roused at the elections of Members of Parliament, or members of the town-council would prevail when the same constituency was called upon to elect trustees to administer funds by which they expected to be benefitted? All the proceedings of this House had been directed to the removal of this abuse, because where patronage was possessed by a political body, it had been used for political purposes. It was no compensation for this evil to be assured, that in one certain borough the Whig party might predominate, and in another the Tory party might rule, over the administration of charitable trust estates, and that, therefore, on the aggregate, power would be apportioned fairly between them. The objection which he had to this principle was of a much higher kind. He had the same objection to the operation of political influence and patronage in the case of these charitable trusts, whether that influence were in the old Corporations or the new. He desired to prevent the future application of charitable trust-funds to political purposes, and to preclude the possibility of corruption in

321
their administration from flourishing. The evidence already laid on the table of the House, in the Reports of the Charity Commissioners, fully showed, that placing the management of charity etates in the hands of individuals chosen by popular election afforded no check to practices which all must condemn. It was clear that where patronage existed, it would be exercised by either party for their own purposes; and this ought to be prevented, whether the patronage were vested in the Government or in popular bodies. In order to show the intimate connexion which by this Bill would exist between the town-council and the new trustees of charitable funds, he would merely remark that the constituency which was to elect them was to be precisely the same, and that the qualification for a town-councillor and for a trustee were also the same, with the exception that a clergyman might be a trustee, though he might not be a member of the town-council. Now supposing the parties to be fairly balanced in the election of trustees, and that half the number represented one party in the borough and the other half represented the other party in the borough, yet, as they were subject to annual change under the Bill, the one party or the other might gain, for a period, at least, the preponderance: and it was this liability to a constant change in the preponderance of the body that in his judgment formed one of the greatest evils of this Bill, and against which he wished to guard. By its provisions abuses would be perpetuated, though the power were transferred from one party to another. Would not those powers continue to be used for the promotion of political purposes? Why, the Bill provided that the town-council (a political body) should have a control over the trustees; for the books of the charities were to be always open to them, and they were to have, at all seasonable hours, access to them. The Bill contained another important provision, which went to establish even a still closer connexion between the corporate body and the charitable body—a provision to which he especially wished to direct the attention of the hon. Member for Southwark. He believed it to be a principle established beyond all doubt, that where there existed a surplus of a charity estate, over and above the amount specially directed by the donor to be applied to any particular purpose, in such a case the surplus should be disposed of as nearly as possible in accordance with the intention
322
of the original donor—in other words, where by lapse of time, by change of circumstances, or from any other cause, the charity estates and revenues had increased, that in such case the increased revenues ought to be applied and devoted as nearly to the objects which the original founder had in view as might be consistent with the existing state of society, and with that view applications had sometimes been made for an Act of Parliament. But, what did the Bill propose to do with any existing surplus? The Bill enacted, that in every case in which the hereditaments or personal estate of which the charitable trustees of any of the said boroughs now stand seized and possessed, are chargeable for the purposes of the trust with a fixed sum, or with a charge wholly satisfied by less than the whole of the rents and profits of the real estate, or of the interest and dividends of the personal estate of which they are so seized or possessed, the whole estate was to go—how did the House suppose?—not to be applied according to the principle he had stated, to purposes of benevolence, of charity, or of education, as the case might be, but, "the whole estate, right, interest, title, powers, and liabilities of the said trustees in the said hereditaments and personal estate, should, immediately after the passing of this Act, be vested in the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the said borough, subject in the first instance to the charge created for the purposes of the trust." The clause did not contain one word as to the application of the surplus funds to purposes of charity, benevolence, or education. On the contrary the remainder was to be paid over to the borough fund, which was applicable to the purposes of lighting and watching. Provided there was a specific charge made in a will when that was to be considered as satisfied, the whole was to be transferred to the corporate body. Again, it ought not to be forgotten that the freemen, and those most interested in the charity funds, were not given, by this Bill, any voice in the election of the trustees, but the choice was given to those who, by establishing a certain fixed charge, as in the terms of the clause he had read, might gain the surplus, and by it save their own pockets from contributing to otherwise borough rates. On the construction of the clause many great and important questions arose. He would take one case out of many that might be cited. In Stratford-upon-Avon, for instance, the property of the cor-

323
poration consists of two estates, one called the guild estate, and the other the college estate. This property was vested in the corporation by a charter of 7 Edward 6th The maintenance of an almshouse and a free grammar-school was expressly mentioned in the charter as the main object of this grant. The charter directed that 4d. each should be paid to the poor men in the alms-house, and that an annual stipend of 20 l. should be paid to the schoolmaster. A further sum of 20 l. was also, by the charter, directed to be paid to the vicar. It appeared from the Report, that the vicar complained to the Corporation Commissioners, that the charity trustees, did not make any increase to his stipend commensurate to the change in the times, the increased duties of his office, and the increased price of provisions. The Commissioners had, therefore, to inquire whether or not the claim of the vicar for an increase was well-founded; and in their Report they said—
"We think there is an obvious distinction between a direction to pay a specific stipend for the express purpose of maintaining an institution, and a direction to pay a stipend to an individual without reference to an object to be maintained by such payment. In the former instance we conceive that the payments must be increased to the full extent of the revenues granted, if such additions become necessary for the proper and effectual support of the institution. In the latter case, the whole obligation is discharged by the payment of the specific sums directed."
On these grounds they held that the vicar had no claim whatever, though there existed a surplus. This was a case in point, and many other cases presented similar difficulties. He could not consent to a proposition embodied in the Bill, which, without carrying out the intentions of the original donors, transferred the means of patronage to a political party,—until, at all events, the subject shall have received much more consideration than as yet had been given to it. Let hon. Members bear in mind what took place last year with reference to this subject. A Select Committee was then appointed to examine and consider the evidence contained in the Reports of the charity Commissioners,—to devise the means proper to be adopted (and to report the same) for the more prompt, efficient, and economical administration of the charity funds of the country. The Committee made their report, in which, after stating their hope that early in the year 1837 the
324
whole of the Reports of the Commissioners would be received, they suggested a remedy for the evils of the system which prevailed. That remedy, however, did not apply the surplus charitable revenues to the lighting, cleansing, or watching the corporate town in possession of the charitable estates, but had regard to the objects contemplated by the original founders. Neither did they recommend that the town-council should have the entire control (as under this Bill they would have) of the charitable funds. They reported:—
"The last head of inquiry upon which your Committee are to report their opinion,—namely, the mode by which charity funds may be more efficiently, promptly, and economically administered,—comprises many considerations of great interest and difficulty. When it is considered that these funds amount to about 1,000,000 l. per annum, it is obvious that their proper management and right application are matters of national concern, the more especially as the objects of their appropriation embrace, to a very large extent, the education and comfort of the people. The Committee, then, recommend that the superintendence, and in certain cases the administration, of all property devoted to charitable uses should be intrusted to a permanent Board of three Commissioners, or some other independent authority, on whom should be imposed the duty of superintendence and control over the administration of all property devoted to charitable uses; that such Board should have authority to summon before them all persons concerned in the administration of any charitable institution or funds; in case of necessity to appoint—and upon adequate cause established to remove—trustees; to prevent the sale, mortgage or exchange of charity property without their concurrence; to take care that all charitable funds be invested upon real or Government securities; and generally to authorise such arrangements as shall appear calculated to promote the object of the founder, and in cases in which that object is useless or unattainable, to suggest such other appropriation as may appear desirable."
The House must observe that the recommendations of the Committee were wholly at variance with the provisions of this Bill, which bore no similarity to the Bill introduced by a noble and learned Lord in another place, who had devoted much attention to the subject of charities, and whose state of health, which he regretted, had prevented his presence in his place during the present Session—he alluded to Lord Brougham. That noble and learned Lord introduced a Bill on this subject into the other House, and his plan was, that a Board of Commissioners should be created,

325
to consist of the lord President of the Council, of the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and of three other Commissioners, to be paid a salary and to be appointed under the sign manual. The noble Lord's Bill was silent as to placing charitable trusts under the management of individuals chosen by popular election; neither did it propose to appropriate the surplus revenues to the borough funds; on the contrary, it empowered those Commissioners to confer with the local authorities, for the purpose of applying the funds to the extension of charity and education. With all these difficulties in the way of a satisfactory settlement of this question, would any man venture to affirm that it would be wise, in the month of July, to come to a permanent arrangement, and especially an arrangement vesting the election of the trustees in the popular body? It would be much better to make some temporary arrangement, and to take up the subject early next Session. He wholly and entirely disclaimed any desire to have charitable funds applied to any political purposes whatsoever—but he objected to any permanent arrangement being now made, which would preclude full and ample consideration of the whole matter. What permanent arrangement ought finally to be made he was not prepared to say, but he must object, at this period of the Session, to proceeding with a Bill giving the control of those funds to popular bodies, and so completely at variance with the terms of the Report of the Committee, and with the provisions of the Bill introduced into the other House of Parliament by Lord Brougham. He did not impute to the hon. Gentleman opposite any desire to gain a party advantage. The question was one of a most important character; and, hereafter individuals would look to see how far the intentions of charitable benefactors of former times were regarded, and on that in a great degree would depend the extension of a similar bounty by benevolent individuals of the present age. He entreated the House to pause, and, by making some temporary arrangement, to reserve to themselves the opportunity of more fully considering the subject, and of carrying out the intentions of the original donors.
Lord John Russell: In considering the reasons given by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), for disagreeing to this Bill, we cannot, I think, lay out of sight the question as to whose management these charit-
326
able trusts are to be committed. I consider that a most important point for us to determine; not that I mean to imply that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed any plan by which these trusts may in future be fairly administered for the benefit of those for whose advantage they were originally intended; but the right hon. Gentleman has asked us not to agree to this Bill, which is, I think, free from objection, and he has not proposed to us any other alternative; leaving it to be supposed that if we should agree, on his authority, to postpone this measure, we thereby agree to the propositions already made by the House of Lords—that the charitable trusts should be continued in the same hands as those in which they have hitherto remained. Now, I cannot but appeal to this House on the same grounds as those chosen by the right hon. Gentleman, and ask them to look to the view and intention with which these charities were founded; and in the same spirit he appeared to threaten the House that future donors would be careful how they left charitable bequests, if these trusts were allowed to be improvidently administered for other purposes than those to which they ought to have been applied. Sir, the purposes for which these charities were intended were, no doubt, great and benevolent; but we find by the Report of the Charity Commissioners, that so far from having been well applied, they have been applied, in numerous instances, to the promotion of political purposes, to advancing political parties, or for the sake of promoting the interest of one candidate for a seat in Parliament in preference to another; and we have now laid a plan before the House, the alternative of which is to leave these funds for another year in the same hands as those by which they have been thus mismanaged and misapplied. It is stated by the Commissioners of Charity—and it is important to call the attention of the House to the fact, after what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman—that a solicitor of much experience in Corporations alleged that he had often known instances in which applications were made by individuals for the relief, under the 4l. charity, left by Sir Thomas White, that the poll-book of the previous election was produced before the applicant received any payment, A freeman was asked upon one occasion for whom he voted, and the answer not being in ac-

327
cordance with the wishes of the persons who had the distribution of this fund, this person was informed, "as you have not put any water in the mill you cannot expect any out of it." A freeman applied in the year 1833 for 4l., under Sir Thomas White's charity, and when he stated that he had voted for Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer, the alderman who presided over the disbursement of those funds, "You had better, then, apply to Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer for the 4l." The same course was adopted with respect to the charity in Northampton and other places. It is unnecessary to say, that Sir Thomas White was a truly respectable individual, and a member of the Merchant Tailors' Company, who, having amassed a large fortune by industry, expended it chiefly in acts of liberality and munificence for the benefit of industrious tradesmen, and to advance the cause of learning and science; and when it is said that future donors will be careful how they leave these charitable trusts, I do ask whether it is likely that Sir Thomas White intended that no man who voted for Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer should have the benefit of that part of the charity which was left by him in the city of Coventry? Yet this is in effect the proposition for which the right hon. Gentleman seems anxious to secure the sanction of the House. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the Bill which we propose is utterly defective in principle, and cannot be adopted, and had said that he was ready to propose, or could, a Bill which was quite unexceptionable and free from every taint of party politics, being framed solely with the view of the due administration of these charitable funds, then I might say, "Do not adopt the plan which we have received from the House of Lords, and do not continue these trusts for another year under the control of these corrupt Corporations;" but I should say, "Reject the Bill of my hon. Friend and adopt the better proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, that places the management of these funds in hands where they are sure to be well and safely administered." But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says nothing of the sort, he confines his objections to certain grounds of doubt as to the effect of the working of the Bill, and which grounds have nothing in them to prevent this Bill from being considered in Committee, where its details may be considered and amended. The
328
right hon. Gentleman argues, that it is extremely objectionable that these trusts should be kept in such a manner as to place them in the hands of one political party, or for the purpose of giving one party an advantage over another. Now, that danger by no means follows as a consequence from this Bill; and the proposition now made is precisely the same as the principle which was laid down in the Corporation Bill of last year, with respect to the election of auditors and assessors, and in which, in order to give the minority a fair chance in the election of these officers, we laid down the principle, that unless the candidate whose opinions were in accordance with those entertained by the majority of the electors had more than double the number of votes given for the candidate of the minority, he should not be elected. I know several boroughs in which this principle has exactly answered the end of its application; and I know one borough in particular, which has a very liberal Corporation, and in which the majority holding liberal opinions, was a very strong one indeed, where the auditor who stood highest on the list was a Tory. The liberal party divided their votes, and one party having 500 votes and the other 400, the candidate of the minority had 400 in his favour, whilst the others had for one candidate in their interest 300, and for another 200; so that the fact was that two gentlemen of one party having started the candidate who stood highest on the poll represented the minority of the electors. And the objection to such a plan as that which we now propose comes from men who, year after year, for twenty and thirty years successively, permitted abuses such as I have described to continue—permitted these charities to be perverted in such a manner, that if a poor householder applied for relief, be he ever so industrious, be he as worthy of the advantages which they conferred as he might, and be so reduced to a state of unmerited poverty by misfortunes over which he could have no control, yet, if he voted for Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer, he was deprived of the benefit it was intended to bestow on him. And this is the system which the right hon. Baronet opposite connived at; for during the period that his party was in power, we never heard of any proposition for the correction of those abuses; and, moreover, we never received any thing but opposition and resistance

329
from that party when the subject of those corporate funds, which were applied to the most corrupt and unworthy purposes, Was brought under the consideration of the House. Now, then, I ask, when a mode of election is proposed of twelve persons, for instance, in which it is probable that six will be chosen by one party and six by the other, is it fair for them to impute to us that we are proposing a political measure. I am glad to hear his approval thus given of the inference which I have stated, and should be rejoiced to have recalled to my mind all those instances in which the right hon. Baronet made motions for a reform with regard to these Charitable Trusts; in which he showed that Sir Thomas White's charity had been abused in Northampton, Coventry, and various other places for Tory purposes; and proposed to substitute a fair method of election. If the right hon. Baronet had proposed any such plan, all I can say is, it must have been brought in very quietly. For I am quite sure that, if any announcement of it was made, all the Reformers of this House would have come down in a body to support him against those of his friends who might have opposed him on that occasion. I do not consider it advisable to intrust these charitable trusts to the municipal councils; and when the Bill last year was under consideration, I stated, that what might be, and in all probability would be, a political body, should not be allowed to have any control over these concerns. But I certainly was of opinion that the mayor, chosen as he would be under the new state of things, should preside over the body of trustees, because, in the first place, he stands alone in an eminently responsible situation; and in the next place, because, as he is to act with those who are equally divided in number as to political sentiments, it is impossible but that any political partiality on the part of the mayor at the head of these charitable trustees should be pointed out. Therefore I think, being so marked, so pointed out, and being a man trusted with the confidence of his fellow-citizens, as well as, no doubt, a man of particular political opinions, yet one, as we must suppose, of independent character, and being moreover a man having to act with persons of different political opinions, we may, I say, fairly trust the mayor, as one who will act properly in this capacity, and whose conduct will not stand in great chance of being impugned. But the right hon. Baronet says, that by the mode of election which we propose we give to the majority an undue
330
preponderance over the minority. Why, I have already shown that in the case of the election of auditor, the person succeeding has been the representative of a minority of the inhabitants; but if there be found, on experience, to be any weight in the objection of the right hon. Baronet, and if danger is apprehended on this hand from the result of the two first elections, I am quite ready to adopt any of two or three plans by which the difficulty can be obviated. One of them is, that instead of obliging one-third, namely, those who have the smallest number of votes, to go out at the end of the third year, that they should go out by lots, or that the third should be composed of those who had the largest and smallest number of votes. Another is, that all—no matter by what number chosen—shall continue for the same period. In short, there are numerous ways to cure this defect, and totally prevent any such danger. There is another matter which the right hon. Baronet laid great stress upon; but, unless I mistake the object and scope of the clause to which he alluded, I think he has not judged correctly of the power which it gives to the municipal bodies. The cases for which that clause was intended to provide were those which had not been sufficiently provided for in the Municipal Bill. One of the cases was, where a corporate body was left a certain estate, with a condition attached to it that a certain portion should be applied to corporate purposes. Now, let the case of a certain estate be taken which produced 1,000 l. a-year, and the condition annexed to which was, that four alms-men should be paid two pounds a-year each; would it be right, that because this fixed payment of eight pounds was left for the benefit of four alms-men, that the remaining 99 2l. should likewise be placed under the disposal of the charitable trustees? That was the class of cases which the clause was intended to meet, since they had not been sufficiently provided for by the Municipal Act. Where a fixed sum is only now chargeable on an estate for charitable purposes, it is intended that when all other purposes shall be satisfied the property shall be placed in the hands of the corporate body, and not in those of the trustees. Undoubtedly that is no new provision; it is one, in accordance, I believe, with the decisions in the Courts of Law and Equity; at all events it follows as a natural consequence from our laws. The right hon. Gentleman may say, and to a certain extent I concur in the view, that it is possible that where a

331
certain amount of property has been left for a particular purpose (such, for instance, as to keep a school), that we ought for the future to interpret such a legacy with a view to what was the provision of the donor, and not be satisfied with seeing that the mere letter of the will is complied with. Though, as I have said, I agree in general with that view, I think it ought to be carried into effect with great caution. I think there is great danger in giving unlimited power by Act of Parliament or otherwise, to say, "such was the intention of the donor," or to say "we must apply this charity to a greater extent than it is at present." This however, which is an important question, does not come fairly under discussion on this Bill, but it is one which must be considered by Parliament when the whole question of charitable trustees is submitted to it. That is a question which applies not merely to estates in the hands of corporations, but to estates in the hands of all other charitable trustees whatever. I certainly was much surprised at the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, that, because Lord Brougham intended to bring in a Bill which contemplated a general supervision of all charitable trusts, they were, therefore, to postpone the present measure. Why, the right hon. Baronet has himself stated, that no such general supervision as that Bill contemplated was necessary, and that extra powers in the Secretary of State would be quite sufficient to answer every purpose. In fact, the right hon. Baronet threw out so much of doubt respecting it, that I had a right to expect that it would meet with the right hon. Baronet's opposition. The right hon. Baronet now seems to think it a very excellent Bill, as he can use it to defeat the present measure, whilst the other might be without difficulty either taken up by him or be abandoned in a future Session, as might best suit his views. This Bill is directed only to a particular object; it will not at all interfere with any general measure that may be brought forward in a future Session, and I see no reason to reject it, unless some better plan be proposed. Indeed, the only alternative offered us is, either to involve the management of corporation charities in Chancery, or to concur in the spirit of the amendments of the House of Lords, and continue the corporate trust funds for another year in the management of the old corporators—who have done so little for education, and so much for Tory candidates. The arguments against the principle of the
332
Bill have no foundation in point of fact. The objections are objections of detail only, which could be remedied in Committee, and under these circumstances I must call on the House to go on with the Bill, and after having heard the objections made, to compare it, as regarded the means to effect its object, viz., the management of corporate charitable trusts apart from political purposes, with the no plan of the right hon. Baronet, and with the abuses which existed under the old corporations. If the House institute that comparison, they will be ready, I am sure, to go along with me in opinion that this Bill will be an adequate remedy for serious evils.
Sir James Grahamthought, that hon. Members on his side of the House had some reason to complain of the statements of the noble Lord. It was not correct to charge those on that side of the House with being pledged, or with entertaining any desire, to uphold the abuses of existing corporations respecting these funds. It was not denied that much mismanagement and abuse had existed under the old corporations, nor that the time was now come when a sufficient remedy must be provided. All that was wished was, that a well-digested, not a tardy scheme should be adopted, and that if, as a temporary arrangement, the suggestion of the House of Lords did not meet the views of the noble Lord, he should, until Parliament should be able to provide more efficient general measures, place the temporary management and control of these funds in the hands of one of his own colleagues, the Lord Chancellor, in whom the noble Lord surely must have confidence, and in whom, from his high legal responsibility he (Sir J. Graham), though not too ready to place confidence in the noble Lord's colleague, was, in this respect, well disposed fully to confide. Why should not a temporary arrangement of this kind be assented to, when the very professed object of the Bill was to satisfy all parties that no political advantage should be given to either party. There was, nevertheless, a very strong feeling entertained by one party, that a predominance would, in point of fact, be given by the Bill to the party opposed to them. The trustees were to be chosen by the same persons as those who chose the town-council; the town-council was to fix the number of the charitable trustees; the presiding officer of the town-council was to be the presiding officer of

333
the charitable trustee, and in the event of an equality amongst them even, he would give the preponderance to the wall of his own political party; and yet it was pretended to say, that no advantage was given by the Bill to the predominant political party in the borough. These details, however, were nothing to the great question of principle at stake, and which they had to guard against, lest the Bill which the noble Lord brought forward as a remedy for old abuses should turn out to be nothing more nor less than a means of perpetuating them for the future, under the specious garb of equality. It was said, however, that for any abuses under the Bill, there was a remedy by a suit in the Court of Chancery; but that was not Lord Brougham's opinion, and he was a high authority on the subject; for, said that noble and learned Lord, alluding to the measure which was at that period before the House, for settling charitable trusts belonging to corporations, "If this property be not settled this Session, the trustees may sell it, and there would be very great difficulty to get it back. It is true that a remedy may be had in the Court of Chancery; but the proceedings in that court are so operose, that the trustees do not care for them." Now, all they (the opponents of the Bill) asked was, that the operation of these trustees should be suspended for one year; if the noble Lord rejected that, he had the alternatives already mentioned. He must repeat, that the principle of vesting in the borough fund the "surplus," a fashionable term of modern date, of a fund on which a sum was charged for charitable purposes, was neither more nor less than giving a benefit to the rich at the expense of the poor.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, the object of the Bill was to secure fair and impartial trustees. If it did not secure that, he would admit, it was a failure; but if it did give that security, he must support it against the no plan of the other side. It was said, that this would identify the town-council and the charitable trustees. He would admit the constituency was the same, but the mode of election was so different, that it would give a full and fair representation of the minority as well as the majority. They were told, that they had the alternative of placing those trusts under the care of the Lord Chancellor. No doubt the Lord Chancellor had the power of appointing trustees, but not,
334
however, in his political character as Chancellor, but in his character as a Judge of. the Court of Chancery, after a suit had been commenced in the ordinary way. Upon the advantage of seeking a settlement of property in that Court, he need not remind the House about the litigation for the oyster, which terminated in the fish being consumed, and the litigant parties were left to contest the choice of the upper or under shell. But suppose it was to be sent to the Court of Chancery, it would be referred to the Master to name trustees, and the probability was, that he would name six from one side, and six from the other; and thus do, at a great expense of time and money, what the present Bill enabled the parties to do for themselves. As to the mayor being at the head of these trustees, he did not see that it was in any degree objectionable. There must be an odd member somewhere, and the mayor would have only the casting vote when parties were equally balanced; and he knew no person better qualified to exercise this power than the mayor. They were told, that this was at variance with Lord Brougham's Bill. But Lord Brougham's Bill related altogether to a different question. This Bill only dealt with charitable property in the hands of corporations; Lord Brougham's had reference to the great mass of property invested for charitable purposes in the country. It was said, that the 8th Clause would take that which belonged to the poor, and give it to the rich. If it could be shown, that it would take even one shilling from the poor, he would withdraw his support from the Bill. If there were any obscurity in the clause, he was sure his hon. Friend would not object to any amendment which would make it more clear. It was clear, ex concesso, that the old corporators were not the fittest trustees, but, except what this Bill proposed, there were no better proposed. If any better or more impartial could be named, he was ready to adopt the proposition for their appointment; but as there were none, he must support this Bill.
Mr. William Williamshad no objection to the general enactments, of the Bill, but he would wish that the freemen, who, as in the case of Coventry, had a great interest in the corporate property, should be allowed to vote for trustees. If the right hon. Baronet opposite would move, that the freemen of Coventry should have a

335
right to vote for the charitable trustees, he would willingly support the proposition.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the present Bill was the inevitable result of corporate reform, and whatever objections might be urged to it, and those objections were not few, he nevertheless thought that any change from the former system must be an improvement. His object was to see that the charitable funds should in future be protected and honestly administered, and any corruption in their management would not be the less objectionable to him, because it might be practised by Whigs in the place of Tories. He was pleased to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in the course of his speech ridicule the idea of any application being made to the court of which he was so great an ornament, for the purpose of getting property administered. The hon. and learned Member's remarks on that point confirmed the opinion which he had always entertained; but he wondered that that hon. and learned Member, being as he was a law reformer, should have slumbered during two sessions with all the weight of his practical knowledge on his mind, and permitted every opportunity to pass for making some experiment in that House for the abatement of what must be considered by all persons as a great nuisance. The question for the House now to discuss was, to what hands should the administration of charitable property belonging to corporations be confided? In his opinion, that property should be confined strictly to the charitable objects for which it was granted by our ancestors, and the medium through which that property had hitherto been distributed, ought as little as possible to be departed from. If a donor had given land or money to a corporation, constituting that body the guardians of the property, he did not think it would be right to place its guardianship in an entirely different body. Therefore, he thought it desirable, if practicable, that the administration of the charitable funds should be continued in corporate hands. But then it would be necessary that the corporations should be made subject to some supervision; otherwise party and political feeling might interfere in the management of the charitable funds. It had been said, that nothing could be better than to give the mayor a control over the funds. That officer had been described as a wonderfully impartial person, and blind like justice, Now, in
336
his opinion, of all the partisans in a town the mayor was the most decided. Still, if the corporations should be placed under the supervision of some authority, some permanent and responsible board, hereafter to be created, he should have no objection to leave the administration of charitable property in their hands. With respect to the 8th Clause, he must observe, that the object he wished to see accomplished, would not be attained by that provision. It frequently occurred, that property left for a charitable purpose some centuries ago, had since greatly increased in value. The best mode of proceeding in such a case was, he thought, not to distribute the augmented property among precisely the same number of persons to which its application was originally restricted, but as far as possible to extend the number of persons interested in the charitable fund, and to confine its administration to such objects as were evidently in conformity with the intentions of the donor. He would illustrate his meaning by referring to the instance of Sir T. Morden's charity. The property originally left to constitute that charity was sufficient to allow of forty decayed merchants receiving the sum of 30 l. a-year each. The property soon accumulated in value, so that every person benefited by the charity might have received 40 l. a-year, and at the present moment as much as 70 l. a-year. The question then was, whether 70 l. a-year should be given to forty persons, or whether the number of persons benefited by the charity should be increased to sixty, and 50 l. a-year given to each. He thought the latter would be the better course to adopt. Such, at any rate, would be a fairer mode of proceeding than that which had been followed with respect to a charity at Colchester. Some benevolent individual had, many centuries ago, left a certain amount of property, the produce of which was to be distributed in the following way:—1s. 6d. per week to be given to five poor persons, and the remainder of the revenue (7s. 6d.) to be paid over weekly to a chaplain who undertook the care of these poor persons' souls. In those days money was of considerably greater value than at present, and 1s. 6d. per week probably enabled the five poor objects of the charity to supply themselves with many of the necessaries of life. But the revenue derivable from the charitable property soon swelled to 400 l. a-year, and the clergyman

337
took the whole amount, minus 1s. 6d. a-week, which continued to be paid to five poor persons. The matter was, however, litigated; but the Court pronounced in favour of the clergyman, because the souls of those poor persons had to be taken care of by him; and decided that 1s. 6d. per week was enough for their bodies. So much for the tender mercies of a court of equity! With respect to the Bill under consideration, he would propose that nothing contained in it should give to the corporations greater rights or interests than they otherwise would have. If such a provision as that could not be adopted, he should certainly vote against the Bill. He concluded by repeating, that he was opposed to corruption, whether practised by Whig or Tory; but he had hoped, that, in the sacred cause of charity, and in a matter so deeply affecting the interests of the poor as that under the consideration of the House, all party feeling would have been extinguished. He confessed, however, that in this particular he had been much disappointed.
Mr. Pembertonconcurred with the hon. Member who last spoke, in thinking it a pity that so much party spirit had been displayed on the present occasion. With respect to the Bill before the House, the question to be considered was, whether it contained the best plan that could be devised for the management of charitable property? The great evil of the old system was, that political considerations mixed themselves up with the administration of funds intended for the purposes of charity. Now, the plain remedy for that evil was, he thought, to take the administration of charitable funds entirely out of political hands; but this the Bill would not do. He considered it very objectionable to make the charitable trustees subject to removal and election, as proposed by the present Bill. He believed it would be found, in nine cases out of ten, that the electors of those trustees were more interested in the mal-administration than in the good-administration of charitable property The great abuse of the charitable funds was their application to the relief of the poor-rates; and as, under the present Bill the electors of the trustees would be the rate-payers, they would be directly interested in diverting the charitable funds from their proper purpose, in order to exonerate themselves from the payment of some por-
338
tion of the poor-rates. He differed in opinion from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, who thought that a Master Chancery, if he had to appoint charitable trustees, would choose six men of one party, and six men of the opposite party. He, on the contrary, felt convinced that a Master in Chancery, having such a duty to perform, would select twelve men wholly unconnected with borough politics, and saving no direct interest in the amount of the borough-rates. He considered it of importance that the trustees should not be subject to removal and election, but that a regular and permanent system should be established. He, therefore, felt bound to oppose the present Bill.
Mr. Lechmere Charltonadmitted, that f no bill on this subject passed into law, the result would be a series of expensive suits in Chancery, by which the objects of the charities would be greatly prejudiced. On the other hand, he feared that the effect of passing the present Bill would be, by the casting vote which it gave to the mayors, to vest in them the whole of the charitable estates in the kingdom. He saw nothing improper in the proposal to allow the late corporators to have the control of charitable property for one year longer.
The Attorney Generalwould occupy but a very small portion of the time of the House, and indeed after the explanations that had been already given with respect to this Bill, but little remained to be said. It could not be denied that the present state in which charities were placed was most deplorable. The object of this Bill was to rescue charities from their present most lamentable condition. If the House did nothing to remedy these evils they would be guilty of great injustice. If they did not adopt the system proposed by this Bill, the consequence would be, that the charities must either be administered by the individual members of the old corporations, or they would fall entirely into the hands of the Lord Chancellor. It was allowed on all sides that these individuals, the members of the old corporations, had discharged their trusts by no means beneficially towards the public. Why not rescue these charities from maladministration? These trustees had shown themselves unworthy of the trust reposed in them, and it was of the last importance that power should be taken from them. What would be the

339
consequence if this Bill were thrown out? The arguments that were used on the present occasion would hold equally good in another Session of Parliament. They were told, that if they would only leave this power to those individuals one year longer, that something would be done at the end of the year, or at least before the Session expired. But they might go on this way from year to year, and he was afraid (he did not wish to impute improper motives, but he had a suspicion) that there was a lurking desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to perpetuate the misrule of those charitable trustees who had so disgraced themselves. What did the abuses complained of arise from? Was it not from the old corporations—the system of self-election, where there was no control or responsibility? What did this Bill propose to do? It placed these charities under popular control—it provided that all the acts of the trustees should be published, and that they should be subject to the examination and revision of their fellow-townsmen. The allegations that the abuses of the old system would be continued under the present Bill were wholly unfounded. The object of the Bill was the obtaining the most fit and proper persons to fill the situation of trustees, and that he thought could be best attained by giving the rate-payers the power of election. He hoped that hon. Members opposite would not divide the House on the Bill, but that it would pass unanimously, and that it would receive elsewhere, notwithstanding what had fallen from an hon. Member opposite, that support and consideration which it deserved.
Mr. Scarlettcould assure the hon. and learned Attorney-General that there was no desire, either on his part or on the part of those hon. Members with whom he acted, to perpetuate the misrule of charitable trustees. All they desired was, that this should be a fair Bill, and that it should provide that charities should be fairly administered. He protested against a measure of so much importance being i brought on at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible that it could receive that full and calm consideration which it required.
Colonel Sibthorphad come down to the House with the intention of voting that the further consideration of this Re-
340
port be deferred till this day three months, and he had heard no argument sufficient to induce him to alter his opinion. He would therefore move that the Report be received that day three months.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that the professed object of the Bill was to relieve charitable trustees from being swayed by political influence, if the Bill had that effect, he certainly should have felt bound to support it. He regretted that after the most attentive consideration which he had given to the Bill itself, and to the arguments of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, he found himself quite unable to come to such a conclusion. He felt, therefore, bound to oppose the ill.
Mr. Vernon Smithfeared that it was an opposition to the general principle of the Bill that was lurking in the bosoms of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that induced them to oppose the Bill in its present stage. He feared that the real ground of the opposition of hon. Members opposite was the elective principle of the Bill—that principle which gave to the people the power of choosing such persons as were fit, from their integrity and independence, to exercise beneficially the trust that would be reposed in them. But the opposition of those hon. Gentlemen was confined to cavil and objection—they had not brought forward any plan of their own in lieu of the present. Before any division took place, he begged to remind the House that they were willing in Committee to concede any points that should be found reasonable. With respect to the casting vote of the mayor as chairman he was ready to listen to any suggestion for the substitution of a different chairman. He would suggest that the council should elect a chairman, and that if they failed to do so within a month, then the trustees should elect a chairman themselves.
Mr. Harveywished to inquire of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) whether he understood him to say that when the Bill was committed it was his intention to introduce certain words into the 8th clause, to the effect that nothing in the clause should prejudice the rights of parties to any surplus.
Mr. Vernon Smithhad no such intention.
The House divided, when the numbers were, on the original motion, Ayes 133; Noes 88;—Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutt, W.

Angerstein, J.

Kemp, T. R.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Labouchere, right hon. H.

Baines, E.

Baldwin, Dr.

Leader, J. T.

Ball, N.

Lee, J. L.

Bannerman, A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Barclay, D.

Lennard, T. B.

Baring, F. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Barnard, E. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Beauclerk, Major

Lushington, Dr.

Bernal, R.

Lushington, C.

Bewes, T.

M'Leod, R.

Biddulph, R.

M'Namara, Major

Bish, T.

M'Taggart, J.

Blake, M. J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bowring, Dr.

Marshall, W.

Brady, D. C.

Maule, hon. F.

Bridgeman, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Brodie, W. B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M.

Bulwer, H. L.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buxton, T. F.

O'Loghlen, M.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Oswald, J.

Callaghan, D.

Palmer, General

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Chalmers, P.

Pattison, J.

Chetwynd, Captain

Pechell, Captain

Childers, J. W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Clay, W.

Pinney, W

Clayton, Sir W.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Curteis, E. B.

Potter, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Poulter, J. S.

Dennison, J. E.

Price, Sir R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Donkin, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Ruthven, E.

Ebrington, Viscount

Scholefield, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Seale, Colonel

Euston, Earl of

Smith, B.

Evans, G.

Stuart, R.

Ewart, W.

Stewart, P. M.

Ferguson, R.

Strutt, E.

Fielden, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stuart, V.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gordon, R.

Talbot, J. H.

Grey, Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, B.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Harland, W. C.

Harvey, D. W.

Thompson, Colonel

Hastie, A.

Thorneley, T.

Hawes, B.

Townley, R. G.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Hector, C. J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Hindley, C

Verney, Sir H.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Villiers, C. P.

Wakley, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Wallace, R.

Howard, P. H.

Warburton, H.

Howick, Viscount

Whalley, Sir S.

342

Wigney, I. N.

Wrightson, W. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Wyse, T.

Williams, W.

TELLERS.

Wood, C.

Smith, V.

Wood, Alderman

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Alford, Viscount

Lawson, A.

Alsager, Captain

Lees, J. F.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Lewis, D.

Attwood, M.

Lincoln, Earl of

Baring, W. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Becket, right hon. Sir J.

Lowther, Viscount

Lowther, J. H.

Blackburne, I.

Maclean, D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mathew, G. B.

Borthwick, P.

Maunsell, T. P.

Bramston, T. W.

Miles, W.

Brownrigg, S.

Nicholl, Dr.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Norreys, Lord

Campbell, Sir H.

Palmer, R.

Chandos, Marquess of

Palmer, G.

Chapman, A.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Charlton, E. L.

Pemberton, T.

Chisholm, A. W.

Penruddocke, J. H.

Codrington, C. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Praed, W. M.

Corbett, T. G.

Price, S. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Price, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pringle, A.

Eaton, R. J.

Pusey, P.

Egerton, W. T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Egerton, Lord F.

Richards, R.

Elley, Sir J.

Rickford, W.

Estcourt, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Fielden, W.

Sandon, Viscount

Forbes, W.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gladstone, T.

Somerset, Lord E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. W.

Stormont, Viscount

Gore, O.

Thompson, Alderman

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Gresley, Sir R.

Twiss, H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hardy, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hogg, J. W.

Wall, C. B.

Hotham, Lord

Wynn, right hon. C. W.

Hoy, J. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Yorke, E. T.

Jones, T.

Young, G. F.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Clerk, Sir G.

Knightley, Sir C.

Ross, C.

Report taken into consideration, and agreed to.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Established Church Bill.
Mr. Humehoped the noble Lord would not press this Bill. This was only one of three Bills, two of which had been brought forward only a few days ago. If the noble Lord pressed the order of the day, he

343
should move the adjournment of the third reading for a fortnight.
Lord John Russellcould not acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Member. It was useless to postpone the Bill for a few nights. If the question was between not reading the Bill to-night and postponing it till next session, he should prefer the latter.
Mr. Humesaid, it was impossible that the Bill could pass, and if the noble Lord expected it to pass to-night he would find himself very much mistaken, and if it did pass it would do great injury to the cause which the noble Lord professed to advocate. The country had his Majesty's recommendation, and the pledges of the noble Lord and his predecessors, as to the removal of the church rate, which produced differences in parishes tending to place the Church itself in danger. From anything he could learn from persons in the Church, the measure brought forward by the Government was deemed harsh and ill-considered. The dissenting interest and many church men desired a reform; and if this Bill went elsewhere, it would be found too good not to come back. He entreated the noble Lord to listen to what he said, and not only he, but almost every body on that side of the House. This was only part of a system of reform, and in order to give his Majesty's Ministers an opportunity for reconsideration, he moved that the third reading of this Bill be postponed till this day fortnight.
The Speakersaid, it would be more regular if the order of the day were first read.
The order of the day was read. On the question that the Bill be read a third time,
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved, that it be read this day six months.
Mr. Lennardcomplained that this question, which formed a whole, had been brought forward in different Bills, so as to make it embarrassing to collect the entire scope of the Government. The present Bill professed to regulate and fix the future incomes of the Bishops. Another Bill was before the House, which gave the Bishops a great increase of patronage. Suppose the Lords rejected this Bill, and passed that giving the patronage? There were many defects which might be seen if the measure came forward at once, but which escaped notice when the details were thus dispersed. There was yet a want of information to enable Parliament to legis-
344
late. He found in the Report respecting the see of London, that it had an income of 13,000 l., which was said to be likely to decrease; but looking to the large towns which were growing up about Hyde Park, with large ground rents, he thought the income was likely to increase. Another objection was, that the Bill did not contain any provision for the surplus, if any should arise on the sees in future; it only provided that the larger sees should contribute to a fund towards the lesser, to a certain amount; but what was to become of the rest? There was only one benefit conferred by the Bill, that of depriving Bishops hereafter of holding livings in commendam; but in return there was the evil of translation and the inequality of incomes. But when Parliament was going to restrict the allowances to the Bishops, why not make an arrangement in respect to the larger livings? There were 5,000 livings under 200 l. a-year, and a great many under 50 l. On the other hand there were livings with enormous incomes. In the diocese of Durham there was one of 4,800. a year; another of 3,300 l.; others of 2,000 l., 1,500 l., 1,200 l., 1,000 l., In Canterbury there was one of 3,000 l.; in London one of 1,590 l.; and so on. Why neglect the opportunity to equalise livings, by increasing the smaller from the larger? He could assure his Majesty's Ministers, that the Dissenters in the country were resolved to take the matter of church-rate into their own hands, and the Government would then find, that they would be obliged to abandon such measures as this.
Sir Robert H. Inglissaid, it was clear that this Bill did not satisfy two large bodies in this House: for the one, it went too far; for the other, not far enough. He opposed it, because it gave a vantage ground to those who thought that it did not go far enough, and who, in his judgment, sought the overthrow of the whole system of the Church. For the first time, in respect to England, by an Act of the Legislature, unsanctioned by the Church itself, it recognised the principle, that Church property was public property. He was himself very unwilling to occupy the attention of the House; but he was still more unwilling to admit such a Bill to pass without finally recording his opposition to its principles and its provisions. On two former occasions, indeed, he had requested the attention of the House to his opinions upon the subject; but on those occasions he had expressed rather the respectful sorrow

345
which he felt when he considered the authors of this Bill, than the deep aversion which he entertained for the measure in itself. The speech of the hon. Member for Weymouth on a late occasion, which, as he had himself spoken earlier in the debate, he could not then notice, left him no option, but compelled him now at once to state distinctly his views upon the question. From that' speech it appeared that his forebodings as to the effects of the Bill were realised, even while the Bill was still itself in progress. He told the House that he was not satisfied with it, and required more; another proof (if, after the experience of the last eight years, any were wanted) of the folly of attempting to satisfy enemies by concession. That hon. Member (without one word of praise,—praise which he, at least, might have afforded to bestow on the Church reformers within the Church—their individual characters he praised, but not their Bill—proceeded at once to consider, that the property of the Church was now, by the confession of its leaders, public property, which an Act of Parliament might equitably take, and redistribute. Under these circumstances it became his painful duty to oppose this Bill, not only as evil in itself, but as the foundation and justification of other evils. He did not deny the excellency of some of the objects contemplated by the hon. Member for Weymouth. He admitted the lamentable poverty of some of the ministers of the Established Church; but the destitution of one body of the Clergy, which he regretted, was not to be relieved by a kind of legalised robbery of another. If the destitution existed, let it be remedied by other means. The Church of England had not been endowed by the State. He knew the meaning of the cheers which here met him; and was prepared to answer the argument which they implied, in one word—the State, at the Reformation, did no more than confirm the measures which the Church, individually and collectively, had previously adopted. The State, therefore, had no right to interfere with the property which the State had not given to the Church. And how was the amount of that property ascertained in the present day? By a Commission, the least evil of which was, that it was the origin of the present measure. He had himself objected, in the first instance, to that Commission, as an inquisitorial proceeding into the property of one class of the King's subjects, which would not have been tolerated in another, and as sanctioning the principle,
346
that such property rested on different grounds. He had never denied that, if the clergy had sought aid, they might fairly have been required to state, in the first instance, what their own existing means were. But they had asked nothing, and ought not to have been required to make those returns upon which the present Bill, and its companion Bills, were founded. He stated this with great and sincere regard for the Ministers who had advised the present Commission, and with the highest consideration for those who composed it. But in justice to himself, he must add, that his opposition to such a Commission did not commence with the last change of Ministers. He had objected to it when it was framed by his Friends, and consisted of his Friends only. He objected to their Report, when it was signed by none but those in whose political principles he concurred. There was no precedent for such a commission in any good age of the ecclesiastical history of England; but, if its labours had been limited into an inquiry into the destitution of the great towns, and into the duty of providing, out of the national funds, a just extension of the means of religious worship, according to the national faith, he would have gladly accepted its recommendations. If, in short, it had called upon the nation to do, what as yet the nation had never done (never, till within the last twenty years, with the exception of the churches, voted, but not built, in the reign of Queen Anne, never, in short, devoted any part of the national revenue to the promotion of the national Church), he would have rejoiced in the authority given to such a proposal. But when he found, that the Commission proposed to re-constitute all the dioceses of England; to abolish three of its sees; and with two exceptions, to redistribute all its Episcopal revenues, he felt unmitigated regret and aversion at the contemplation of the measure. He had referred to the suppression of the Sees; he must particularise that of Man; which the sanctity of the name of Wilson ought to have been sufficient to protect—a see amongst the oldest in the empire, and the benefits of which have been, and are, most important to the people. At one time he had, indeed thought of introducing a clause to save this Bishoprick; but in this House the attempt would be fruitless. In these observations, he limited himself to the single Bill before the House,—without adverting to the companion Bills founded upon the Reports of the same

347
Commissioners. To parts of those other Bills he had the strongest objections; but he was bound to own, that his great objection was to the principle which would be recognized by the passing: of the first—the one now in progress. He would not advert, on the other hand, to any other remedy which might have been applied, in lieu of the proposed measures: though such remedy might be found in the internal economy of the Church itself. But nothing seems to have satisfied the Commissioners, but the retention of the identical number of Bishops, and the subdivision of all their sees, and the re-distribution of all their revenues. This, at least, is the substance of their Report. He was not prepared to deny, that if the matter were res integra, if we were now, for the first time, to divide England into dioceses, it would be better to make some alterations. But this was a minor point. His great objection was, that it subjugated the Church in its property and in its regulations to the control of the State; and, as he had stated on a former occasion, changed the character of the Prelates of England from great proprietors to stipendiaries. He did not deny that this might be done by the wisdom and the might of this House; but he did deny the right. He would admit that there were poor benefices which he would desire to see raised: but he would not admit that there were richer Bishopricks than the constitution and circumstances of civil society in England render desirable. He would contend that the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, had not more than enough for his obligations, not more than enough for his rank, not more than enough for his positions in comparison with those who are his associates in the other House; and let it always be recollected that, whatever be the wealth of these higher stations in the Church of England, it is open, in fact, to all the people of England. His right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Peel) had lately referred to those who now fill the five great sees of England. He might refer to those who had filled them from the Reformation downwards, and might easily prove how few persons of noble birth had been placed in those eminences, and how open they had been to the humbler of the clergy. For the first two centuries, no one of noble blood had been raised to Canterbury;—from the Reformation to the time of the
348
present Archbishop, no such had been found in York. In Londont here had never been one, with the exception of Henry Compton,—but his greatest objection remained. It was true, that it was not as yet proposed to appropriate to any other than ecclesiastical purposes the ecclesiastical funds of England; but those funds were to be re-partitioned without any regard to the intentions of the donors. He had already said, that the state was not among those donors—they were the prelates and those nobles of other ages. He would take an example, which he had often quoted in private conversation, the case of Adam de Beke, the great Bishop of Durham, six centuries ago. He chose to leave his estates to that see. He might have left them (he would not say, to the ancestor of the Earl of Durham, for he admitted that there was a distinction between individual and corporate property,—but) to the corporation of Durham. Would the House in this day, have said, did it say, in any analogous instance—the corporation of Durham is rich, the corporation of Bristol is poor—give of what is called the superfluity of Durham to the poverty of Bristol. The answer was obvious: if Bristol be poor, and, for national purposes it be thought right to enrich it, it must be done from national funds, and not from the funds of any one other corporation. The principle was fatal to the security of all property; and the argument was as strong in the case of a bequest 600 years ago, as if it had been made ten years ago. In fact, if any one will were not safe, where would the Legislature stop in changing the distribution of private wealth? If it were obviously illegal and unjust to take from a lay body, could they justly seize upon the revenues of an ecclesiastical corporation? The hon. Member for Weymouth talked of assigning income to the Archbishop of Canterbury: and said, "Before I will assign 15,000 l. a year to him, I must first relieve the poor curates; and provide for the destitute districts." He applauded both these objects; but he denied the right of the hon. and learned Member to promote either in this way. The funds of the Archbishop of Canterbury belonged in perpetual succession to that see:—they were held by an older title than any which any layman can show for any property in his possession:—they were gifts to that see: sometimes, it was true, gifts

349
of kings:—of kings, however, in their then character of the great proprietors of the soil: but in the greater number of instances, of Bishops and pious laymen.—The see of London was endowed in the same way; and the estate at Fulham had belonged to the Bishops by gift, from the 7th century. Yet it was with property such as this, that the hon. Member for Weymouth dealt, as with a set of playthings which he had himself purchased. When listening to the hon. Member for Weymouth, he thought of Sir Edward Dering, and of Sir Harry Vane; in what some might call a happier sera of the history of England. Without pursuing this allusion further, he was bound to own, that, in respect to the subdivision, proposed by the hon. Member for Weymouth, on the one hand, and by the Commissioners on the other, there was no difference in point of principle. Both disturbed the existing rights of property; both alleged expediency; both confined their re-distribution to ecclesiastical purposes;—how long this limitation would be conceded, who could venture to predict. For himself, he felt at liberty to say, that the effect of the concessions made in the last eight or nine years had not convinced him, that on former occasions, he had been a false prophet. But to this subject he need not now, or here, refer.—Once for all, he would say, that if this Bill did pass the legislature, it would form a most dangerous precedent. He objected to it in the first place, as interfering with the integrity and independence of the church; and in the second place, as interfering with the rights of property. Such interference might stop for the present with spiritual corporators; but the next step would be to attach the property of lay corporations; and he must be a bold prophet, who, after the doctrines laid down, and the examples here set, would venture to predict, that lay property in the hands of individuals would continue in its present security.—Under these circumstances, though perfectly aware of the inconvenience of supporting the hon. Member for Middlesex in the rejection of this Bill, considering that the motives of their objection to it were not only distinct but opposite, he still felt that he could give no vote on this question except in concurrence with that hon. Member, against the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Fowell Buxtondenied the inde-
350
feasible right, and contended that if such a doctrine were admitted, it must prove a bar to all improvement. Surely the House must see, that if the position of the hon. Baronet were well founded, no alteration could ever be made in the destination of Church property, and then the apportionment of it made in the reign of Henry the 8th was invalid, for at that time the property now in question was the property of another Church, and the Protestants took possession of it. Our Protestant ancestors said, that what was called the property of the Church was a fund applicable to the purpose of instructing the people, and expressly granted for that purpose, and they hanged its destination, but always of course keeping that great object in view. Looking, then, at the question in all its bearings, he should say, that no reform could be satisfactory unless it met all the more glaring and positive defects in the present state of the Church. If the defects which he desired to see repaired were stated upon the authority of enemies of the Church, he might hesitate before he admitted those statements, but the statement of those abuses came before the House upon the authority of the Commissioners themselves—many of them churchmen, many of them Bishops; they admitted that a large portion of the clergy had great and numerous duties to perform in large and populous parishes, while the provision made for their remuneration was exceedingly scanty—that a very large portion of the people of England were without religious instruction. He complained of the Bill leaving the great and monstrous evil of inadequate instruction comparatively untouched, while it came recommended to them, on the ground of its being a great reform. In his opinion 10,000 l. a-year was enough for the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was true, that 5,000 l. a-year might be considered a small sum, but if applied to the improvement of the small livings, it would raise thirteen of them to 500 l. a-year each. He thought further, that Deans would be sufficiently paid with 1,000 l. a-year. Finally, looking at the Bill through its provisions, he could not help saying, that he thought it impolitic as a piece of legislation, and dangerous to the Church of England.
Mr. Charles Buller: I wish, Sir, to call the attention of the House and of the country to the extraordinary position in which his Majesty's Ministers have placed themselves by hurrying on this Bill in so astonishing a manner; for I will venture

351
to say, that, in all the annals of Parliamentary precipitation, nothing will be found that at all equals the course which has been taken on this Bill. Other important Bills have been hurried through Parliament, perhaps, as regards time, with even greater rapidity. But that peculiarity which attaches to this of all other measures is, that it does not contain one substantive enactment; it is a Bill which throws the duty of legislating for the Church of England, on another body; it is a Bill which, in fact, does nothing but make into law of Parliament a big blue book now lying on our Table, (the third Report of the Church Commission); that big blue book, containing more than 1,000 pages, and including several maps, painted in a way that puzzles the human mind exceedingly; that big blue book not having been placed upon our Table till this Bill was read a second time. I say this is unparalleled in the annals of legislation. I am not about to enter into the controversy with the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, to which he invited me, on account of a cheer I gave him. I want to ask his Majesty's Ministers by what insanity it is that they now come forward to alienate from them their supporters, in order to carry into effect the recommendations of Commissioners appointed by the right hon. Baronet opposite. The right hon. Baronet opposite may indeed be proud that, after we have driven him from office, and deprived him of its station and its pitiful salary—let me not be mistaken—I meant nothing more than that, after the right hon. Baronet has been deprived of office, and the salary which he does not, of course, regard—he still retained the substantial power of office. He has left to his successors a legacy of measures which they are carrying into effect. I am sure that, had such a proposition of Church Reform as this, been made by the Government of the right hon. Baronet, it would have been scouted by the country, and never carried in this House. But by this prudent manœuvre—by leaving it to a reforming House of Commons, a reforming Government, which displaced his Ministry upon reforming principles, he will carry it into effect, and by carrying this measure of "Church Reform," he will do more to keep up the bad institutions which he was driven from office for supporting, than if he had remained in power to this moment. I agree with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University, that it is unwise
352
to attempt to conciliate political opponents by concessions. I only wish Ministers would think of that. I know it is their object upon the present occasion to conciliate their opponents; but they will never succeed. And I say that these three measures (for it is idle to consider them separately) will alienate from them all their best supporters. The measures they have introduced for abolishing pluralities, is a measure for legalizing that abuse. This Established Church Bill is a Bill for legalising translations, and for legalising inequality in the incomes of the Bishops. And are not these measures calculated to disgust and alienate all those who, though sincerely desirous of the true interests of the Church, were to put an end to all these abuses. This is a Bill especially calculated to alienate the dissenting portion of the community from Ministers. They must, they do exclaim against a measure which will vote away all the revenues of the Deans and Chapters to the maintenance of the present enormous and unequally distributed Church Establishment, instead of going towards the support of the fabric of the Church, and thus reducing the amount of, or doing altogether away with, the Church-rates at present paid by those who are daily showing more unwillingness to pay them, and whom I hope will soon accompany that unwillingness by a determined resistance to this payment. Ministers will not of course think these remarks very friendly; but I wish them well, and they have much worse friends in this House than myself. I don't allude to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who to night have been cheering them on so loudly. I allude to those who have inspired them with the unfortunate notion that they can, with liberal professions, carry on the Government of this country upon Tory principles. I view their conduct with great regret, because I think it is depriving them of all their honest adherents, and that it is placing them in the position in which they were in 1834, and which enabled their adversaries for a while to eject them from office. I hope, that as they are not too late, they will yet perceive their error, retrace their steps, and abandoning this miserable pretence of Church Reform, bring forward some sound and substantial measure that will again entitle them to the sincere and hearty support of the country.
Lord John Russell: Sir, I feel that, after what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just gat down,

353
I cannot remain longer silent. Undoubtedly I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman express his regret at what he conceived to be an error on the part of his Majesty's Ministers; but I think that, if his regret were very deep, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have tempered some of the language with which he accompanied the expression of it; for, instead of its conveying anything like an amicable feeling, it appeared to be dictated by the utmost bitterness of political opposition. I confess I must plead guilty to the charge of not having acted, on the present question, with any party view. I conceived it to be my duty, whether I were in office or not, to attempt a reform of the Church, which, whether it might go the exact length of my views on particular points or not, should be an efficient reform of the greatest abuses and defects in the Church, and such as the leaders of the Church could concur in. Undoubtedly, another course might have been taken; I might have said, that I would never agree to any measure of Church reform, but one that should exactly suit every view I entertained on the subject—which should altogether prevent the translation of Bishops, and reduce the incomes of the Archbishops to the very lowest scale at which they could be enabled to live in comfort and independence. If, however, I had taken that course, I should have been met by the decided and active opposition of those who would resist such a measure, on the grounds that it was framed with extreme views, and that it must be made a matter of contention between us. I thought the better course to take was one which had the approval of those affected by the Bill, and whose assent implied a great concession on their part. They agreed that the excessive revenues of the Bishops should be reduced, that the number of their chaplains should also be reduced, and that a large sum should be applied to increase the incomes in parishes where the incomes were small. Sir, I own that such great practical effects, if they could be obtained, not only without opposition from those quarters from which opposition was to be apprehended, but with their concurrence—I own that such a result, in my view, appeared very much better for the interests of the country, very much better for the welfare of the Church, and for the cause of religious instruction, than keeping up a
354
battle on some precise notions which we might have entertained upon this subject. Suppose I had said, that the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be reduced to 8,000 l., and that of the Bishop of London to 4,500 l.;—it must be recollected that the Bishops sit in the House of Lords, and that they would not be likely to assent to such a reduction. But, after all, what would it amount to? The entire sum that could be saved by the proposed reductions in the incomes of the Bishops would not have exceeded 25,000 l. a-year, and was it for such a sum that we were to lose the chance of carrying the present plan into effect without opposition? I must say, that as regards the progress of reform, it does seem much more advantageous to take the course which we have adopted than to incur the risk, by taking that recommended by some hon. Gentlemen, of losing the measure altogether; and I do think it better in all measures of reform, if we find those who are opposed to our views disposed to make some concessions, that Reformers should receive such concessions in a similar spirit, and endeavour to carry those measures into effect with as much concurrence and amicable arrangement as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard differs materially from my hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, whose motives I sincerely respect, and with some of whose views upon this subject (though I do not quite concur in all of his arguments), I own that I agree. But I think he has not done justice to the Commissioners with regard to providing the means of augmenting the small livings. We cannot go the whole length with my hon. Friend, and consider the whole of the incomes at present enjoyed by the clergymen of the Established Church as so much disposable revenue, to be distributed as we think fit. There is great difficulty, for instance, in respect of private patronage: with which, being in the nature of private property, we cannot deal without satisfying the proprietors. As to public patronage, that is patronage in the hands of the Crown, of the Bishops, or of the Deans and Chapters; there is a scale established, by which livings of less than 150 l., with a population under 1,000, are raised to 150 l.; if populations under 2,000 to 200 l.; if under 5,000 to 300 l.; if 5,000 and upwards to 400 l. Now, according to this scale, the sum required to meet the wants of the clergy would be

355
145,195 l.; the sum which it is estimated will be at the disposal of the Commissioners, according to this Bill, is 129,000 l. They will be enabled, therefore, to appropriate a large sum towards attaining the objects which my hon. Friend has in view. With respect to the Bill now before the House, I confess, Sir, I cannot see it in the same light with the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, who has described it as legalizing evils, which it, in fact, diminishes. For example, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "it legalizes translations." Why, translations are already legal. There would be no difficulty at this moment in removing a Bishop from a See with an annual income of 2,000 l. to one of 10,000 l., or 12,000 l. Now, what does this Bill do? It enacts that the income of the former See shall be raised to 5,000 l.; whilst the revenues of the latter shall be diminished to 7,000 l. Is that legalizing translations? Is it not striking at the root of the evil as it at present exists, by equalizing, to a great extent, the incomes of the Bishops? I say, that this Bill, instead of encouraging—by nearly equalizing the incomes of the Sees, will almost entirely do away with translation. I am exceedingly sorry that, in my views of this Bill, I differ so materially from many of my hon. Friends. But I must say, I agree more with my hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, than with those who object to this Bill on the ground that a large portion of the revenues of the Church ought to go to the relief of Dissenters. My hon. Friend has shown, that a very large sum is required to augment livings under 120 l.; and I must say I do not think you ought to appropriate any part of the Church revenues to the reduction of church-rates, while so many livings remain with such small incomes attached to them. As to pluralities, the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard says, that the Pluralities' Bill legalizes pluralities. To abolish them altogether would, under present circumstances, be very difficult. But I believe the restriction contained in the Bill will have the effect of discouraging and diminishing them; and I must say that in the case, for instance, of two livings—one worth 50 l. the other 60 l. a-year, situated near each other—it is much better to have one incumbent for both, with 110 l. a-year, than to have two incumbents with incomes of 50 l. and 60 l. each. The object of preserving pluralities (so far as they are by this Bill
356
preserved) is rather to unite small, than to preserve large, incomes. It does not preserve the abuses of pluralities. It will do away, I believe, entirely, with nine-tenths of them. Sir, I must say, that however much I regret the opposition which this Bill has received, it does involve a very great measure of reform in the Church, and that it does, above all, assert an important principle, strongly deprecated by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford—namely, that Parliament has a right to deal with Church revenues, and to superintend their distribution. I do not say that, after this Bill has passed, I shall not be ready (if at a future period the incomes of the Bishops shall be found too large), to vote for diminishing them still further. But I contend that the passing of this Bill will be advantageous, as preserving the good opinion of the country to the Established Church, by proving that the Bishops of that Church are ready, not only to concur in the correction of defects, but to yield to the general opinion of the country; and at any future period, if further reform should be considered necessary, to listen to any reasonable and moderate proposals having that object, I feel it, therefore, my duty to persevere in this Bill.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he was unwilling to rise, from an apprehension that what he thought it necessary to say might expose him to misconception. The hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Liskeard) had seemed to argue as if the introduction of the present measure ought to be regarded in the light of a great political triumph to the opposition. There was not the least foundation for any such opinion; he himself had not the slightest interest in the result, and he could not look upon the proceeding at all in the light of a concession. The hon. Member for Liskeard had spoken of the present proceeding as apolitical manœuvre which had proved quite successful—it was no such thing. He and his friends were no parties to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When he was appointed to the chief office in the Administration by the Crown, he advised the Crown, seeing a strong feeling in favour of reform in the Church—to issue a commission, and he did so in the full conviction that a reform which was sanctioned by the heads of the Church, which had the weight of their authority, and came recommended by

357
their high example, would be the most likely to prove satisfactory to the great body of the people, and be, therefore, permanently advantageous to the Church itself. He did think that by means of that consent they would be enabled to carry a measure of reform better calculated to impart efficiency to the Church in all its portions, than if it came without the approbation and goodwill of the bishops and of the dignitaries of the Establishment. When he retired from office, he retired from any connexion with the Commission; its continuance was a matter of perfect indifference to him; at the same time, he felt bound to say that he could not at all understand what object the present Government could have in bringing forward the present measure, except to increase the efficiency of the Established Church; but, in addition to that remark, he begged again to say, that he had no personal or political interest in the result; he had had no connexion with the measure, or with the noble Lord who had undertaken its introduction. To him it was no favour—no concession; justice, however, required him to say, that the parties concerned in the production of the measure appeared to have acted upon perfectly independent grounds; there was, therefore, no triumph on the one hand, and no disappointment on the other; and it would have occasioned him much regret if there had been any thing of personal or political feeling. There existed nothing that in the least approximated to feelings of that nature. The best possible proof that honest and upright feelings governed the parties concerned in the proceeding was to be found in this, that those who advised, and those who continued the Commission—that the Crown, the Commissioners, the heads of the Church, and others possessing patronage, were willing to relinquish that patronage, and to place it at the disposal of the Commission, to be made available for the purposes of a just, a useful, and a salutary reform. Who was there that did not know how valuable canonries and sinecures in the Church were? And yet many of these valuable pieces of preferment were given up by Bishops and others who possessed in them vested rights, and who, according to usage, might have bestowed them upon members of their own families, who naturally looked up to receiving such species of provision. They were clearly, then, influenced by a bona fide desire to pro-
358
mote the general good of the Church With respect to the particular Bill then under consideration, it did appear to him to go far enough in diminishing the incomes of the Bishops. He desired to see them in possession of incomes sufficient to support the decent and decorous dignity of their rank. He would not listen to any thing less; they ought to be in a condition to provide for their families, to defray the expense of residences in London and in the country, of contributions to charities, and of keeping up a liberal and becoming hospitality—in short, of all that might be requisite for enabling them to live upon terms of equality with other persons of similar rank. Bearing in mind these considerations, he should say, that 15,000 l. a-year was not too much for the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he should defend 15,000 l. a-year as well on these grounds as on that of the general interests of the Church. To those who proposed to reduce such an income still lower he should say, that they ought to inquire, could the expenses of the rank and situation be defrayed for less, and not apply themselves to a minute inquiry as to whether there existed elsewhere incomes inadequate for their purposes. To such description of inquiries he saw no limit. Their duty was to see what the highest rank in the Church required, and not to injure the efficiency of that for the sake of pushing inquiries to an extreme point in the opposite direction. Upon these principles, then, he should support the Bill, and he hoped nothing that he had said would prejudice the success of the measure.
Viscount Ebringtonwould support the third reading of the Bill, because he concurred in its general principles and objects, though there were some of the details which did not meet his approbation. He would have been better pleased if they had reduced the larger salaries, and made a provision to secure the residence of the Bishops in their dioceses when they were not engaged in other duties. He should also have been better pleased if the territorial possessions of the Bishops were to be placed in the management of a Board of Commissioners, and a regular and fixed income paid to the Bishops in lieu thereof; he considered it would be more advantageous to the Church, as it would enable the Bishops to discharge their episcopal duties without the anxiety attendant upon

359
the management of large landed estates. He hoped that this suggestion would be considered deserving the attention of the friends of the Church in the other House of Parliament. With respect to another Bill before Parliament, namely, that which took away the patronage of the Deans and Chapters, and transferred it to the Bishops, he trusted that at this period of the Session his noble Friend would not press that measure, as they would not have time to give it sufficient consideration. He did not think they ought to deal with this patronage hastily, or until they had ascertained what was its amount. He had moved for a return on the subject. He considered the measure before the House would be found beneficial, and he gave it his cordial support.
Mr. Brotherton and Mr. Duncombe rose together. The former hon. Gentleman moved an adjournment of the debate.
The Speaker having put the question,
Mr. Goulburnrose, and stated, that the hon. Member for Finsbury having been named by the Speaker, and being in possession of the House, and the hon. Member for Salford having, notwithstanding, made a motion, he did not think, a motion so made was regular.
The Speaker decided that Mr. Thomas Duncombe was in possession of the House.
Mr. Thomas Duncombeproceeded. He professed that, notwithstanding the feeble attempt made by the noble Viscount to bolster up this miserable attempt of the Ministry to introduce reform into the Church, he would not sit in that House another day without expressing unequivocally his disappointment—nay, he would say, his disgust—at the conduct his Majesty's Ministers had thought fit. to pursue. He, at once, acquitted the right honourable Member for Tamworth of all responsibility as to the nature of the measure before the House It all rested upon the shoulders of the present Government. They might talk of the Irish Tithe Bill, and even the miserable pretext, the appropriation clause, as the security they offered to the public of their sincerity, but the Bill before the House would be the true touchstone whereby it would be ascertained whether the King's Ministers retained the confidence of the people. He objected strongly to the constitution of the Commission. It was exactly so constituted that no other result could flow from their labours, than that which he and many of his
360
friends looked upon with concern, and even disgust. Of the thirteen on the Commission, five were Cabinet Ministers, five were Bishops, interested in supporting the abuses complained of, and the remaining three were very respectable men in private life, but they were inveterate Tories. He was delighted to hear of the schism between the Bishops and the Chapters, and he thought it probable that when the Bishops and Deans and Chapters fell out, the proverb would be verified, and the laity were likely to come by their own. On another occasion he should repeat his objections to the unconstitutional and undefined powers which were given to this Commission. He was quite surprised that his Majesty's Ministers should ever have thought of intrusting such powers to a Central Board. If such a proposition had been made when the Tories sat on the Treasury side of the House, they would have had 100 or 150 Whig patriots starting up, whom not even the authority or dignity of the right hon. Gentleman's (the Speaker's) predecessor would have prevented from declaiming simultaneously against so unconstitutional a proceeding.
Lord Francis Egertonsaid, that having possession of the House, he would retain that privilege but a short time. He had received a rebuke for being too concise in presenting a petition which had been intrusted to him by dignitaries of the Church. He was sorry that the mention of vested interests should have been received with any thing like derision, for if hon. Gentlemen made the case their own they would soon find that nothing could be more dangerous. Whatever were the merits of the petition, the petitioners, both as members of the profession to which they belonged and on the score of private character, deserved the consideration of the house, and he hoped that the allegations contained n it would be treated with attention. He gave notice, that when the recommendations contained in the fourth report of the church commissioners came before the house in a tangible shape, it was his intention to introduce certain amendments wich would embody the spirit and substance of their prayer.
Mr. Blackstonewished to ask the noble word whether the two new bishops of Manchester and Ripon, were to have seats in the House of Lords, and what was the tenure by which they would enjoy that privilege?
Lord John Russell, in reply, said that there was no doubt that the Bishops of Manchester and Ripon would be entitled to have seats in the House of Lords.
Mr. Arthur Trevorrose, but was assailed by loud cries of "adjourn." He would ask, was this conduct creditable to a British House of Commons? [continued cries of "adjourn."] He would tell hon. Gentlemen who were making those unseemly noises, that such a course of proceeding was extremely undignified and unworthy, and he should, therefore, move that the Debate be adjourned.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, and the Debate was adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Arms (Ireland); Antigua Indemnity—Read a second time:—Cessio Bonorum.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Southampton, for an Inquiry, and that some check may be given to the vice of Drunkenness; and from Enisworth, against Oyster Fisheries' Bill.—By Lord WYNFORD, from the Isle of Ely, for Repeal of Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By the Earl of ROSSLYN, from Kirkaldy, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.

CHANCERY (IRELAND).
Lord Lyndhurstpresented a petition from Mr. David Daley, praying that the principle adopted in the English Chancery Bill, the 3rd and 4th William 4th., might be applied to the Irish Court of Chancery Officers' Abolition Bill.
Lord Plunkettstated, that the petitioner had obtained an ample compensation, and that he wanted to obtain a situation as assistant registrar, to which he was not entitled. He conceived that he was bound to abide by the provisions of the Act upon this subject, which he (Lord Plunkett) had had the honour to introduce. There would be a saving of nearly 3,000 l. per annum to the public by the new arrangement in that department.
Petition laid on the table.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
On the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the House went into Committee on the Bill for Regulating Parochial Assessments.
On the first clause (which provides, that from and after the 21st day of March next after the passing of this act no rate shall be allowed by any justice which shall not be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments rated thereunto) being read,
The Marquess of Salisburyexpressed his determination to oppose the clause, as not likely to produce any real benefit, while the machinery which would be necessary for carrying the new valuation
308
into effect would be troublesome and ex-pensive.
The Duke of Richmondcontended, that the Bill would be extremely beneficial, inasmuch as it would put an end to those unequal and often fraudulent assessments which were complained of under the existing system.
The Marquess of Salisburybelieved, that fraudulent assessments could not easily be effected when the amount of rent was known.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it was impossible that the poor-rates could be fairly levied on a parish unless some measure of this kind were adopted. At present, the overseers made the rate as they thought fit, and the magistrates signed it ministerially. If its correctness were disputed, justice could only be procured by a tedious process; whereas the Bill provided that the justices should assemble at least four times a-year in petty sessions, for the purpose of hearing complaints.
The Earl of Liverpoolopposed the clause. If the actual rent were known, the overseer would, of course, as the law now stood, apportion the rate accordingly.
The Duke of Richmondcontended, that the rate ought to be founded on the net annual value. The Bill, in fact, only compelled the overseers to do that which they ought to do at present—namely, to make a rate equally and fairly.
Lord Wynfordsupported the Bill, as calculated to remedy a great public grievance. The first clause contained the principle of the measure. That principle was admitted when the Bill was read a second time, and if the clause was now lost they would abandon the principle to which they had previously agreed.
Lord Ellenboroughapproved of the third clause which provided for appeal to the justices assembled in petty sessions; but the question was, whether it would be expedient, at the present moment, to pass the two first clauses, enacting that rates should be made on the net annual value of the property, and prescribing the form in which the rate shall be made. That they ought to come at last to the principle recognized by the first clause he admitted, for he believed that great irregularity prevailed in assessing the value of property in different parts of the country, the estimate being sometimes one-half and sometimes one-third of the real value. The country was, however, accustomed to the system, and it could not be altered

309
immediately without great inconvenience. There would be very great difficulty in making the valuation according to the provisions of this Bill; for it was set forth, that the rate "shall be made upon an estimate of the net annual value of the several hereditaments—that is to say, of the rent at which the same might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, deducting there from the probable average annual cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain them in a state to command such rent" He conceived that it would be almost impossible for an overseer to form an accurate judgment upon all these points. Now, though he was not opposed to the principle of the measure, yet it struck him that the mode proposed for carrying it into effect was not precisely the one that ought to be adopted. By the Tithe Bill, which stood for consideration this evening, it was provided that a new valuation should be made; and he thought that it would be better to wait until that provision was carried into effect. He was therefore of opinion, that the 3rd and 4th Clauses, should be passed, and the 1st and 2d (for he did not object to the principle) postponed until the valuation was taken under the Tithe Commutation Bill.
Lord Kenyonconceived that overseers ought to be compelled to make a fair return. That could be done under this Bill, with very little expense or trouble, and that injustice would be avoided which had hitherto been complained of. He hoped that they would not reject the principle of the measure by the omission of these two clauses.
The Earl of Ripon, was opposed to the clause.
Lord Wharncliffe, adverting to the mode in which it was proposed that overseers should frame the estimate, contended that it was so intricate that they would be incapable of making a correct estimate. It would, therefore, be necessary for them to call in other parties to their assistance, and thus a great expense would be incurred.
The Duke of Richmondrepeated, that the Bill only compelled overseers to do that which they ought to do at present—namely, to make a fair and just rate. Instead of the assessment being fairly levied, it varied in many places from one-fifth of the net value up to the full amount of rack-rent.
Their Lordships divided on the original
310
clause—Contents 31; Not-contents 28—Majority 3.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS.

DUKES.

Hood

Argyll

Melbourne

Buccleuch

LORDS.

Richmond

Ashburton

MARQUESSES.

Duncannon

Conyngham

Dinorben

Lansdowne

Dacre

EARLS.

Hatherton

Albemarle

Kenyon

Brownlow

Lilford

Burlington

Plunkett

Chichester

Strafford

Granville

Seaford

Minto

Templemore

Morley

Wynford

Radnor

BISHOPS

Ripon

Bristol

Exeter

Clauses agreed to.
The House resumed; the report to be received.

TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND).
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the order of the day for bringing up the report of this Bill, said, considering that a great many amendments had been made in the Bill, with the general concurrence of the House, he thought it might be convenient to their Lordships if he very shortly adverted to the few points which were reserved for consideration. In the first clause, providing for the appointment of the Commissioners, their lordships would recollect an amendment was proposed by a Noble Baron to substitute the name of his Majesty for that of the Secretary of State, and subsequently another amendment was moved in the same clause by a right reverend Prelate, who proposed that the Commissioners should only be removeable jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other power, viz. his Majesty. In this amendment their Lordships seemed disposed to agree were it not for the obvious objection that it would be indecorous that the Archbishop should be joined with his Majesty by name. The two amendments could not be adopted. That being the case, he proposed to restore the name of the Secretary of State, the nomination resting with the Government, who would be responsible for it, and that arrangement would admit of their adopting the suggestion, that the Secretary of State jointly, and only jointly, with the Archbishop, should

311
have the power of removal. He would recommend their Lordships to prefer this course, because he believed the effect of it would be, to raise the Commissioners in the estimation of the public. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the amendment.
The Archbishop of Canterburyconcurred in the amendment moved by the noble Marquess. He thought the Commissioners would appear to the public more independent if they were only removeable by the joint act of the Archbishop and of the Secretary of State.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he would postpone the clause, in order that it might have some further consideration, till the third reading, when it might be moved by way of rider.
Several verbal amendments were agreed to.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had no further amendment to suggest until Clause 16, for which, as it at present stood, he should propose the substitution of another, which would more clearly and accurately define the authority of persons who might act as agents. It was to the effect that any landowners or titheowners be allowed to appoint agents, in order to carry into execution the provisions of this Act; that anything which by this Act, is directed to be done, by or with relation to any person, may be lawfully done by, or with relation to the agent of such person; that such agent be allowed to vote on any question upon which the principal of such agent might have voted; and that the powers of attorney under which such agents acted be appended to every agreement entered into by them."
The clause agreed to.
The Archbishop of Canterburyrose to propose an additional clause to the Bill. He could see no reason why tithe-owners should be deprived of any prospective right which they would enjoy under the present law. With respect to waste lands, he had already expressed his opinion, that when they were brought into cultivation they should not be subject to tithes, because that would act as an impediment to the expenditure of capital, which it was the object of the Bill to encourage, but that a portion of them should be set apart as the property of the titheowner; and he now proposed the introduction of a clause, after Clause 38, to enable the Commissioners to set apart from all common lands brought into cultivation such a portion of land as would now of right belong to the tithe-owner.
Lord Ellenboroughdecidedly objected to the clause. It might come into operation 100 years hence; and then they must refer back to the valuation under this Bill, and must strike off the rent-charge. At the present moment, if any enclosure were to be made, many persons, for the purpose of conciliating the titheowner to consent to such enclosure, might be willing to give a portion of the land; but when, instead of tithes, they paid a rent charge, there would no longer be the same inducement for them to give a portion of their land in order to obtain that consent. At the present, the value of such tithes would be infinitely small; but when portions of the land were given they were always given according to what might be the future value of the tithes. Now, there was nothing prospective in this Bill; but if they introduced the present clause, then it would become prospective to any extent.
The Marquess of Lansdownefelt compelled, and he did it with great reluctance, upon the grounds stated by the noble Lord (Ellenborough), to oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate. He opposed it upon the general principle. The Bill at present afforded security to the titheowners for a rent-charge according to the value of tithes which they had hitherto received; and at the same time relieved the landowner from all eventual burdens, and all obstacles arising out of the tithe-law.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, there were very few parishes in England in which there were any commons worth enclosing which were not already enclosed, and he felt that it was a much greater hardship upon the landowners to be called upon to pay tithes for lands which might go out of cultivation, than for the titheowner to be deprived of tithes for lands which might hereafter be enclosed. The Bill, upon the whole, was, he thought, favourable to the titheowner; and, as his greatest objection to this Bill was with respect to the manner in which it dealt with lands that might go out of cultivation—he should most decidedly oppose the clause of the right rev. Prelate, which would inflict an additional hardship upon the landowner. He knew in many cases, particularly if there should be any alteration in the corn-laws, that it would be the interest of the owners of land to give up the land altogether to the tithe-owner rather than pay tithes for it.
The clause negatived without a division.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to propose a clause after Clause 28; it was a

313
clause of some importance, and one which he thought would meet with general concurrence. It had been suggested, that it would be expedient that rent-charges should be convertible into land, provided that land did not exceed a certain amount. The right rev. Prelate had proposed twenty acres. His object was to carry that into effect with respect to clerical owners, and with regard to lay owners to convert rent charges into land without any restriction as to extent.
Lord Ellenboroughwas not prepared to offer any opposition to the principle of the clauses; but he certainly did think that they should form the subject of a separate measure.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged to express his gratitude, as a Bishop, for the introduction of the clauses which were now proposed. He was sure they would be considered a great boon by the country. As to the number of acres, he, however, thought that regard should be had to the quality of the land.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that, with regard to the number of twenty acres, he thought twenty acres of the richest land not too much; and even twenty acres of poor land was a very considerable accommodation in the conversion of a rent-charge into land. Those reasons, with the advantage of having some definite number, had induced him to make the suggestion which he had done.
Lord Wynfordapproved of the clauses.
The Earl of Devondid not think it prudent to introduce a clause of this nature into the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that so much doubt existed as to the propriety of converting the rent-charge into land in the case of lay titheowners, that he thought it better to postpone the clause for further consideration to a future stage of the Bill.
Clause accordingly postponed.
The remaining clauses agreed to. House resumed; Bill to be reported.