In

regretted that the noble Duke should have | detail the principle on which it was founded, made a personal attack upon Sir R. Peel, and the evils it proposed to remedy, and I because their duty was to consider the confess it is no pleasing task to me to go Bill, and not the changes in opinion of the over the same ground again; and it must persons by whom it was proposed. He be still less pleasing to your Lordships to would only say, that the noble Duke (the listen to me. But this is not the only Duke of Richmond) had changed his opin- ground of present discouragement. ions as often probably as any other person. consequence of an extensive combination The EARL of RIPON: I am extremely throughout the country against the Bill, I glad to hear that it is the intention of my cannot but feel that a strong impression noble Friend on the cross bench to conduct against it has been created in the minds of the discussion which is to take place next your Lordships. I recollect that on a week on this important subject on princi- former occasion, when a similar subject ples which, if adhered to, will command was debated before the House of Commons, the approbation of the House. The noble Mr. Fox quoted the saying-" Numquam Duke expressed a hope that there would be magis libenter loquor, quam cum quod an absence of all personalities on the se- loquor auditoribus displacet. It is far cond reading of the Bill. I am not sur- from my intention to merit that description. prised that my noble Friend has exhaled I am not of a temper so pugnacious as the his feelings on the present occasion; and I gentleman to whom that was applied; but am particularly glad to hear that we are I must admit that I should feel still greater not likely to have a repetition of such an discouragements than I do feel on the preattack. I am glad of it, partly, my sent occasion, if I were not disposed to Lords, on my own account-but much make great concessions to the feelings and more, I can assure the noble Duke, on opinions of individuals, to make great alaccount of my right hon. Friend who has terations and exceptions in the measure, been the special object of his bitter at- and if I did not feel strong also in the contack. I well know the situation in re-viction that, after a due consideration of spect of this question in which I stand. I know the representations which may be made; I know the censures which may be cast upon me; I know what reproaches may be heaped upon me; but, my Lords, I am prepared to meet them on my own part, and on the part of those of my Colleagues with whom I share the awful responsibility of having introduced this measure. My noble Friend has talked of a distinction which, he says, prevails in our days between public and private honour. That, my Lords, is a distinction which I do not recognise; and I should not think that I retained my character privately, as a man of honour, if I could not maintain my public character in the same way. I beg to say to my noble Friend, whatever threats he may hold out

its provisions, it will be impossible for your Lordships to vote against the second reading. My Lords, I will not trouble your Lordships with a detail of all the circumstances which have led to the introduction of the present measure. Your Lordships all recollect that a Commission was some time since issued at the instance of my noble and learned Friend. That Commission sat for a long period. It made various and able reports on the state of the charities, and concluded its labours by recommending the introduction of some legislative measure, providing more effectually for the due administration of charitable trusts. Before the last report of that Commission was issued, a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, consisting of some of the most able, intelligent, and active Members of the House, for the purpose of considering the reports of the Commission, and giving their advice on the subject. That Committee finally reported, after much inquiry and much consideration, that it was necessary to establish a permanent Commission to superintend the Charitable Trusts of this Empire; and they recommended also that that Commission should be clothed with the authority of, and have powers similar or nearly analogous to those contained in, the present Bill. In consequence of the report of that Committee, it was pressed upon Her Majesty's

Government by Members of the Opposition your attention as clearly and as plainly as to bring in a Bill for the purpose of giving I can to this subject. Every one knows effect to their recommendations. The Se- that the only tribunal in this country which cretary of State for the Home Department has any jurisdiction over Charitable Trusts acceded to the wishes so repeatedly ex- is the Court of Chancery. There is no pressed, and requested me to prepare a other tribunal of any description which has Bill. Accordingly I introduced the Bill the power of controlling any abuse, or now before the House in the Session before assisting persons who complain of the mallast. At the request of a right rev. Friend administration of charitable trusts. I reaI consented to allow it to stand over until dily admit, and I stated so in the last Seslast Session, so that ample time was af- sion of Parliament, that there is no triforded for consideration and inquiry. Last bunal in the country which, with respect to Session I introduced the same measure the machinery which forms part of its conagain, and the Bill was read a second time, stitution, and for other causes, is better on the understanding that it would be re- calculated to do justice in such cases than ferred to a Select Committee. It was so the Court of Chancery-a court which has referred. The Committee consisted of for a long series of years been presided several Prelates, of all the noble and learn-over by men of great learning, wisdom, and ed Lords, and of other noble and distin- prudence; and under whose superintendguished individuals who felt more particu-ence and direction a system has grown up larly interested in the subject of deliberation. The Committee bestowed the most attentive consideration upon the Bill. It sat day after day; several amendments were suggested, considered, and adopted; and after a long inquiry, the Committee made its report, approving of the Bill as it has been laid before your Lordships. On the third reading the Bill passed without opposition, except some dissentient opinion that was murmured against it by my noble and learned Friend. The Bill then went down to the other House of Parliament; but, in consequence of the late period of the Session at which it was brought into that House-that lateness being the result of the delay before your Lordships' Committee-it was impossible to pass it during the last Session. My Lords, I have this year thought it my duty again to lay this Bill upon your Table; and after it has once passed your House with so little objection, with, I may say, such general sanction and concurrence of opinion, I own that it is with no little surprise that I hear of the extensive combi-rience, would recommend an application to nation which has been raised against the Bill, with the view of defeating it at its present stage. My Lords, I have thought it my duty to give your Lordships this short history of the Bill in a clear and concise manner, to show that I am justified in bringing it forward for your Lordships' consideration, and in requesting you to adopt it. When an individual proposes to make any alteration in the law, it is incumbent upon him to state what the law is, what are the grievances complained of, and what is the nature of the remedy which he proposes to provide. I shall pursue that course on the present occasion, and direct

well adapted for the discharge of the duty. But for one circumstance, therefore, I should never have thought of bringing in a Bill of this description. If every charity could practically be brought under the consideration of the Court of Chancery, I should feel an entire and implicit acquiescence that justice would be done. But, unfortunately, my Lords, there are few charities that can come under the consideration of that court. As far as the great charities are concerned, it is a tribunal without exception; but, even in regard to these, it is impossible not to feel that enormous expenses are incurred by appeals, and that great deductions are consequently made from those funds which ought to be solely employed in the purposes of the charity. In the case of charities of more moderate amount, ruinous expenses are incurred in an application to the Court of Chancery, whilst, with respect to the smaller charities, the doors of the court are absolutely closed against them. My Lords, no man of sane intellect, or of tolerable expe

the Court of Chancery in the case of small charities. The consequence is an absolute denial of justice. Whatever abuses take place in their management, parties are bound to abstain from all application to the court; for the expenses of one day's entrance into that court would annihilate the charities to which I refer. Will your Lordships allow such a state of things to continue? That great and excellent person, Sir Samuel Romilly, attempted to remove the evil; and he brought in a Bill providing that, instead of proceeding by Bill, parties should obtain a summary decision on petition. But even this was an

expensive form of proceeding, and the costs | falling into ruins; the trustees were dewere far greater than the smaller charities sirous of selling it, and purchasing stock. could by possibility sustain. Sir Samuel They applied for leave to the Court of Romilly was perfectly acquainted with the Chancery; the matter was referred to the difficulty resulting from the expense of the master, who reported in favour of a sale. Court of Chancery in the case of great The transaction was completed, and the numbers of these charities; and on one property realized 1,350l. The costs of occasion, in a debate which took place in that undefended suit were 3501., and onethe other House, he declared in the strongest third the amount of the charity was thus manner that the Court of Chancery was in- spent in producing an exchange in the applicable to give a remedy to abuses in nature of the property which was for the the charities of this country. Have I not benefit of the charity, and to which no stated enough to show to your Lordships opposition was made. In another case, the necessity of passing some measure of which occurred at Lawford, Essex, some a remedial character? Perhaps your Lord-property had been let by trustees, at a rent ships may suppose that the evil is not suf- of 60l. per annum; it was thought the ficiently extensive in its application to re- property was under-rented, and the matter quire legislative interference. But when I was brought into the Court of Chancery. mention that there are no less than 15,000 The proceeding went on for some time. charitable trusts in this country not ex- The parties, however, became tired of liticeeding 51. per annum in value; that of gation, and it was agreed that each should charities not exceeding 10l. annual value pay their own costs. The cost so incurred there are 18,000; and of charities not ex- by the charity amounted to 600l. Is it ceeding 201. that there are 24,000; when necessary, my Lords, to say more? I I mention this, your Lordships will see the stand here to show, that however well extent of the evil, and the absolute neces- adapted the Court of Chancery may be to sity of administering a remedy. My Lords, inquire into such subjects, it is not calcuwhen I state the case in these general lated to do justice in the case of the small terms, I am aware that I shall not pro- charities to which I have just referred, and duce so strong an impression upon your much less to those of 5l. 107. and 201., of Lordships as I shall if I advert to two which, as I have stated, there are no less or three instances which I shall take from than 24,000. I could multiply instances the Report of the Committee. At Ashby, without number such as I have detailed, in the county of Lincoln, there is a charity, by referring to the Report of the Commisin the shape of a rent-charge, of 30l. per sion, but it is not necessary. I think those annum. This is an amount of no inconsi- I have already quoted must have carried derable character, and much beyond those conviction to your Lordships' minds. But, of which I have just now spoken. The perhaps, my Lords, it will be said that trustees of this charity died, and it was there are no abuses, or that they are of found that there was no surviving trustee. very rare occurrence. My Lords, every The charity was founded in the 16th cen-person acquainted with the world and with tury, and the rent-charge had been paid up to a certain time; the property was then sold, and the person who purchased it paid the rent-charge for a year or two, but he was then told there was no person who could give him a proper discharge, and it was no longer paid. The arrears ran on, and some one then brought the case into the Court of Chancery. The master reported 3751. should be paid; an order was made to that effect, and it was then found that the expenses incurred had been 4007. and upwards, more than the value of the sum recovered. Is this a state of things that you will allow to continue? I will now give your Lordships another case, one in which there was no contest as to the administration of the charity. This was a case at Battle, in Sussex. A house was VOL. LXXXVI. {Series} Third

human nature would expect beforehand that abuses would be frequent and constant under such circumstances. Every person must be satisfied that in trusts of this description, where the administration of them cannot be investigated, and redress cannot be afforded, there must be extensive abuses. But it is not necessary to rely for proof of this point upon general reasoning: I refer you to the Report of the Commission, every page of which is full of instances of this character. My Lords, that Commission reported that in the cases of 385 of the large charities abuses prevailed; and they recommended the filing of informations to that extent. If the abuse of large charities was so extensive, your Lordships will easily conclude to what extent they have proceeded in the smaller cases. But I

2 B

shall now call your Lordships' attention to the opinions of two authorities, who for twenty years gave their attention to the subject; I mean Lord Kenyon and Lord Eldon. Lord Kenyon said

"Whoever will examine the state of the grammar schools in different parts of this kingdom, will see to what a lamentable condition most of them are reduced. If all persons had equally done their duty, we should not find, as is now the case, empty walls without scholars, and everything neglected but the receipt of the salaries and emoluments." Lord Eldon said

"It is absolutely necessary that it should be perfectly understood that charity estates all over the kingdom are dealt with in a manner most grossly improvident, amounting to the most direct breach of trust."

tees for the benefit of a charity; the Bank will not allow more than four names to be entered as the owners-will not allow any trust to be entered upon the bank book. Three of the trustees die, the whole property is vested in the survivor; he dies, it is vested in his personal representative; no representation is taken out, and the property is lost. These, my Lords, are cases of ordinary occurrence; they are reported by the Commissioners over and over again. The Commissioners complain of this as a great and intolerable evil, and they call for a remedy. There is no remedy at present existing, for an application to the Court of Chancery absorbs and annihilates the property. Will your Lordships allow such an abuse to continue? Having the power to legislate upon the subject, will you allow this monstrous injustice to prevail? Will you suffer a great and numerous class of your fellow subjects, who are unable from poverty and wretchedness to assist or help themselves-will you allow them to be out of the pale of the law, and to be the only class of Her Majesty's subjects that have not a tribunal to which they can appeal for the purpose of protecting themselves from robbery, and from the abuses to which this system must necessa

That is a general opinion which will apply to charities of every description. If it applies to the cases of charities over which the Court of Chancery can exercise a practical influence, how much more must it not apply where that is not the case, and where there is nothing to control parties, or to keep order in the proceedings? I ask your Lordships whether it is not necessary to put an end to such a state of things, and whether you will not think I have acted a proper part in endeavouring to apply a remedy? My Lords, I have now shown you how the present system operates.rily lead? I know that my noble and learnIt often happens that property is conveyed to trustees without any power being given of appointing new ones. The trustees die, and the only mode in which the trust can be renewed is by an application to the Court of Chancery. Such an application in the case of a small charity is absolutely impossible. What is the result? A rentcharge is created upon real property. The owner of the property pays the rent-charge for a considerable time; he is afterwards told, according to the case I have before referred to, that there is no person in a situation to give him a discharge; he refuses to pay any longer, and the property becomes his own, free of the trust, because it is impossible to apply to any tribunal to enforce the payment. This, my Lords, is the case of a great number of charities given to trustees, to be aplied according to the will of the donor, where there is no power to renew the trust; but in a great number of cases where power is given to renew the trust, it constantly happens that that power is not acted upon, the trust expires, and the same consequences follow as those to which I have referred. Again, my Lords, with respect to personal property. Stock is given to trus

ed Friend on a former occasion treated this matter rather lightly. The answer which he gave was this, and it made a strong impression on my mind at the time-" Why the same evil exists with respect to private individuals; if the amount is small, they cannot go into the Court of Chancery.' That is an answer which my noble and learned Friend seemed to consider satisfactory; but it was anything but satisfactory to my mind, and I am sure it must be anything but satisfactory to the minds of your Lordships. Why, my Lords, because you cannot do all that you might wish, or cannot go as far as circumstances will allowbecause you cannot in every case affecting a private individual afford sufficient redress

will you withhold protection from that large and numerous class of persons to whom I refer, who are utterly incapable of protecting themselves or helping themselves against the abuses which I have described? My Lords, what is the measure which I recommend? What is the remedy I would apply? I am satisfied that no other course can be pursued, as far as relates to the principle of this measure, than that which I have adopted. You must have an independent tribunal applicable to the adminis