Page images
PDF
EPUB

with some attention to the arguments ad- | Lordships by describing in detail the produced by the opponents of this measure, cess employed by the Court for effecting and I cannot perceive that the grounds this object; it often involves an inquiry upon which its necessity has been based, as to who was the survivor of some ten or have been successfully impugned. Those twenty gentlemen named as trustees, pergrounds are, first, that the interference of haps 200 years ago. Now, this is not a some competent tribunal is continually ne- very easy matter to ascertain, as your cessary to regulate public charities, and Lordships may well believe; but it is still control their administration; and secondly, more difficult to trace the heir at law of that to appeal to the only tribunal that has such survivor; it is not very easy someany jurisdiction in this matter, in the case times to discover the heir at law of a genof the smaller charities, is a practical ab- tleman who died yesterday; think, theresurdity. Your Lordships cannot surely fore, what must be the difficulty of tracing imagine that the causes of interference are the heir at law of one who died 200 years few in number; it is not so; they are numer- ago. Yet the Court takes upon itself the ous; but however numerous they may be, I attempt to ascertain these facts; and they can assure you, that the number of applica- are accordingly investigated at a great extions that is now addressed to the Courts of pense in the Master's office. But suppose Equity for these purposes, is no measure the most favourable case, that trustees exat all of the number of applications that ist, properly so called; yet, however desirwould be addressed to a competent econo- ous they may be to manage the charity, mical tribunal of the kind sought to be and administer its funds, in the manner established by this Bill. I hope I shall most conducive to the interests of its not be accused of wearying your Lordships, objects, they often find they have not the if I detail some of those causes of interfer- power so to do, without applying to the ence. And first, there may be a want of Courts of Equity, or to Parliament; they trustees; that is, of persons legally author- cannot, for example, grant building or ized to manage the charity, and administer mining leases. A charity, in which I am its funds. Sometimes the donor appoints myself a trustee, lately had to expend a sum none; sometimes he appoints distributors of of about 6007. in obtaining an Act of Parthe funds only, and neglects to vest the liament to sanction the granting of mining property in them; sometimes he appoints leases. Neither can they sell without such trustees, properly so called, but omits to application. It may seem strange to your make any provision for their renewal; but Lordships, that it should ever be necessary more frequently owing to negligence, or to sell charity property; but it happens in the want of adequate funds, they are not a variety of ways-sometimes the land is renewed within the time limited for that surrounded by that of some wealthy propurpose by the terms of the instrument of prietor, who would give double or treble foundation. In these cases, the charity is its value to be allowed to buy; and in usually administered by the minister and that case of course the trustees are anxious churchwardens of the parish; but as they to sell, and it is often expedient that they have no legal right to interfere, the tenants should do so. Again, there are a great and officers of the charities frequently set many cottages that were left by their their authority at defiance, refuse to pay donors for the residence of paupers rent rents, or deliver up property in their free, but they either gave no funds, or not possession, and charity property is often sufficient funds for their repair. Before seized upon by the descendants of tenants the passing of the Poor Law Amendment and officers, and even by alms-people and Act, these cottages were inhabited by their families. Again, owners of estates paupers placed there by the parish officers, out of which annual sums issue, payable to who sometimes paid rent for the cottages charities, technically called rent-charges, which were distributed in charity; but, at withhold them on the ground that these all events, kept them in repair. Now, de facto administrators can neither make a they have no funds which they can apply legal demand, nor give a legal discharge to these purposes, the paupers have been for the money when paid. Now, we will transferred to the workhouse, and the cotsuppose that the administrators for the tages have become dilapidated and untime being, driven to extremities by some tenanted; and that is the most favourable of these manifold inconveniences, resolve to case, for sometimes they are inhabited by apply to the Court of Chancery regardless beggars and thieves, and are a perfect pest of the expense. I will not weary your and nuisance to the localities in which they

are situate, the authorities of which have of Chancery in the case of the smaller been long looking forward to the enact- charities. My Lords, it is the grossest of ment of a measure of this kind, which all absurdities, and my noble and learned would give authority for their sale, and Friend seems to admit this, when he says, the application of the proceeds to some that the grievance is not peculiar to chariuseful charitable object. Again, if the ties, but extends to all small properties fund has increased beyond the require- under litigation in the Court of Chancery. ments of the trust, they cannot dispose of My Lords, undoubtedly it does, and a great the surplus income without applying to the abuse and grievance it is; in these cases, Court for what is called a scheme, that as well as in the case of the smaller is, a plan for its disposal. Again, trus- charities, there is an absolute denial of tees and officers may misconduct them- justice; but is that any argument against selves, or they may become incapable this Bill? Are we to refuse to redress a through age, or other infirmity, of per- great and notorious public grievance, beforming the duties of their office properly. cause a kindred grievance remains unreThere is another point, which has not been dressed? The truth is, my Lords, the overlooked, and very properly so, in this machinery and processes of the Court of Bill. The law allows to the founders of Chancery are far too ponderous, far too charities the utmost liberty in framing cumbrous, to be applied to these small matthe trusts of their endowments, in settling ters; one might as well employ a steamthe terms and conditions on which their engine to pick up a pin, or the noble and bounty shall be bestowed; it is not extra- learned Lord on the Woolsack might as ordinary, therefore, that some of these well insist upon having a railroad laid down donors, abusing this privilege, as it were, of in the new Houses of Parliament to convey private legislation, sometimes enjoin that himself and the Seals backwards and forwhich is injurious to the objects of their wards from the Woolsack to the Bar, and trusts, sometimes that which is absurd and from the Bar to the Woolsack. I now impracticable, sometimes that which is proceed to illustrate shortly the evils which little suited to a modern state of society result to the smaller charities from Chanand manners, and sometimes that which is cery interference; and the first case I shall contrary to public policy. It may be mention is Popham's Charity, the income thought that liberty should cease at that of which is 217.; in that case, there was a point where injury to society begins, suit for appointing trustees, yet at the time according to a well established social of the Commissioners' inquiry the object maxim, that no one shall be allowed to do of the suit had not been attained, and yet that which is injurious to the community more than 1201. had been spent. In of which he is a member; but this Bill Saunders' Charity, there was a suit to redoes not go so far as this, it merely cover the arrears of a rent-charge of 101. authorizes the Commissioners to apply the The arrears were 3801., but the cost of funds where they cannot be appropriated their recovery amounted to 360l.; so that according to the original intention of the only 201. remained. Again, in the Bushfounder, leaving it to the Legislature to bury Grammar School, the income of deal with injurious charities as it shall which is 987., there was a suit for appointthink fit. My noble and learned Friend ing trustees, for an account, and for removsays, why not adhere to the doctrine of ing the master. The suit lasted for twentycy-pres? That alteration may be made in three years; for twelve years there was no Committee if your Lordships think fit; school, and the charity houses were in but I would observe, that in carrying out ruins, and the costs were 1,1711. Again, the doctrine of cy-pres, the Court is often in the Hayward Charities: in 1831, the obliged to exercise a very wide discretion master of the school received notice to quit -there is often not much analogy between the school premises; he disregarded that the application directed, and the original notice, and he disregarded three successive intention of the donor-for instance, there notices to quit. The trustees then, very is not much analogy between redeeming unadvisedly, certainly-but some allowBarbary captives from slavery, and educat-ance must be made for trustees, on whom ing emancipated apprentices in the Colonies; though of course I do not doubt the abstract utility of this application. I now proceed to the second head; that it is a practical absurdity to appeal to the Court

part of the responsibility for the good conduct of a school devolves-the trustees very unadvisedly proceeded to eject him by force. For this he brought an action; a second action was brought by his wife,

Now these

a third by his son, and a fourth by his | By the Master in Chancery. daughter, in all four actions, for assaults Masters are able, experienced and learned committed on the expulsion. In 1832, the in the law, and well qualified to perform master was restored on petition; and on the duties to which they are appointed; the hearing of the petition, no less than but under the system of the Court they are ninety-nine affidavits were read. Besides mere passive agents, they are guided in these proceedings, there were some in the their opinion as to the particular scheme Exchequer, and a costly Commission to before them, chiefly by the evidence of its examine witnesses in the country. The promoter, and by the affidavit of some decosts of one side only exceeded 1,300l., ponent, selected by him, of whose character and three of the trustees were reduced to and qualifications they have no means of ruin and their property sold. But perhaps judging. Now I would ask your Lordships, it will be said, what matters it if twenty whether this be a better system than that years' income of a charity be expended in proposed to be established by this Bill? costs, if, after all, justice be done? Better under which these Commissioners will costly justice than cheap injustice. But, have power to send inspectors to the spot my Lords, are we reduced to this alterna- to make local inquiries, to employ engi tive? What right have the opponents of neers, and other competent persons, and this Bill to assume that these Commission- will not be justified in giving their ers will perpetrate injustice? Who are sanction to any measure, until its whole they to be? Vice Chancellors and Masters bearings have been thoroughly sifted and in Chancery-the very persons through probed. My Lords, I am aware that I whose agency the court now performs the have already more than sufficiently occugreat majority of its functions. I suppose pied your Lordships' time, and I am unit will not be contended that the mere act willing to trespass further at this late hour of making a Vice Chancellor or Master in of the night, but before I conclude I should Chancery a Commissioner, will at once be glad to say a few words as to the oppodeprive him of all his legal learning, expe- sition to this Bill. And now as to these rience, and integrity. On what ground, trustees-I cannot understand their objecthen, can he be incompetent to these duties, tions to the publication of their receipts except on this, that there is something in- and expenditure; one would think that, herent in the jurisdiction itself which ren- firm in conscious integrity, they would raders it impossible to discharge the duties ther court than shun inquiry; at the same in a satisfactory manner? Let us, then, time, I will not be tempted to show from contrast for a moment the two jurisdic- the Reports of the late Commission, how tions; and here we must distinguish be- many good and sufficient reasons some of tween the judicial and ministerial acts of these parties have for wishing to be exthe Court of Chancery. It is under the empted from the operation of this Bill. latter that trustees are appointed, leases When I saw so many of these City Comsanctioned, and most of those acts performed panies in the ranks of opposition, I was at to which I have already adverted. Now first greatly surprised, knowing as I do, as to a decision of the Court of Chancery what vast sums of money have been exin its judicial capacity: after hearing coun-pended by these Companies in objects sel on both sides, I will only say, that I hope that it will always command that respect to which it is justly entitled; but the Commissioners have in strictness no judicial authority. Theirs is a domestic tribunal; they have no authority as against strangers and third persons, their power extends only to trustees and officers; yet even here a candid opponent would admit that the Commissioners have one advantage, that they obtain their facts from oral testimony, and not by affidavits and answers to written interrogatories, which certainly cannot be described as the best contrivance for eliciting truth, which the wit of man ever devised. Then as to the ministerial acts of the Court, by whom are they performed?

connected with their charities, in obtaining Acts of Parliament to sanction building leases, and so forth, and in protracted litigation in reference to the endowments of which they are the trustees the greatest part of which would have been saved, had this Bill been the law of the land; but my surprise ceased on being informed that these monies did not come out of the coffers of the Companies, but out of the funds of the charities, in other words, out of the pockets of their poor recipients. I say it with great deference to the distinguished authorities near me, but I cannot but think, that the Court of Chancery is far too indulgent in allowing costs out of charity estates: one consequence of this is, that

parties are induced to institute suits with a view rather to the obtaining of their own costs, than the real benefit of the charity in respect of which they are instituted; and I know a case in which two charities, which had been misapplied for some years by one of these Companies (in ignorance it is but charitable to conclude, but still misapplied) were doomed to pay 2,7001. out of their funds to defray the costs of the proceedings which became necessary to correct this abuse. For these reasons, and many others, too long to detail, I hope that your Lordships will give a second reading to this Bill; if you think the power of the Commissioners too great, curtail them in Committee; if you disapprove of the mode in which the expenses of the measure are to be provided for (and I certainly do not approve of it), alter it, but do not reject a measure, to the enactment of which many of the clergy and Charitable Trustees in the country are anxiously looking forward; at least, if I may judge by the number of inquiries, which used to be made at the office of the late Commissioner, as to when a measure of this kind would be brought forward; and I may appeal to all sincere and zealous law reformers, not to oppose a Bill, which may be described as the most praiseworthy and spirited attempt, which has ever yet been made to mitigate the evils of Chancery delays and costs. And now, in conclusion, I have only to thank your Lordships for the kind condescension with which you have listened to the observations which I have deemed it my duty to adduce.

The Question was then put that the Bill be read a second time:-Contents 40; Non-contents 42: Majority 2. House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, May 18, 1846.

ment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester. -By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Pawnbrokers and Silversmiths of London, for Reduction of Duty on Foreign Watches.-By Mr. Hume, from Shipowners of the Port of Middlesbrough, praying that all Expenses for the Erection and Maintenance of Lighthouses, Beacons, and Floating Buoys on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, should henceforth be defrayed out of the Public Revenue. -By Mr. Deedes, from Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members of the Board of Guardians of the Isle of Thanet Union, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor Rates in lieu of Occupiers.-By Mr. George William Hope, from Gentry, Clergy, and other Inhabitants of the Borough of Southampton, and by Mr. Ord, from Artists and other Persons connected with and interested in the Diffusion and Extension of the Fine Arts, in Newcastle upon Tyne, in favour of the Art Unions Bill.-By Mr. O'Connell, from Chairman and Members of the Board of Guardians of the Granard Union, for Alteration of Law respecting Ejectment of Tenants (Ireland).—By Mr. Ferrand, from Overlookers and other Factory Workers in the Employ of Messrs. Rogers, in the Parish of Bradford, for Limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories to Ten in the Day for Five Days in the Week, and Eight on the Saturday. By Mr. Ferrand, from Samuel Gordon, Esq., Of Aungier Street, Dublin, complaining of Injurious Proceedings carried on against him in consequence of his having acted as Secretary of a Society for preventing the Removal of Protestant Tenantry in Ireland, and praying for Inquiry. By Mr. Fitzroy, and Mr. Ogle, from Guardians of the Poor of the Lewes and Morpeth Unions for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.-By Mr. Hindley, from several places, against Enrolment of Militia.-By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Inhabitants of Paisley, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Scotland).-By Mr. Deedes, from Incorporation of Guardians of the Poor of the City of Canterbury, for Alteration of the Poor Removal Bill.-By Dr. Bowring, from Protestant Dissenters assembling in the General Baptist Meeting House in the Town of Saffron Walden, and from William Alexander, an Inhabitant of Great Yarmouth, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.

MAGISTERIAL OPPRESSION.

MR. CHRISTIE begged to know from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he had received any communication from the Poor Law Commissioners as to the steps pursued by them in inquiring into the case of the pauper, James Jervis, who had been committed, although 75 years of age, to prison with hard labour for 21 days, for refusing to pump at the Barrow-onSoar Union workhouse; and also, what steps had been taken with regard to the

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-10 Death by Accidents Com- female servant committed likewise to prison

pensation.

20 Viscount Hardinge's Annuity (No. 2). Reported. Customs Duties.

PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. O'Connell, from an immense number of places, for the Immediate Release of William Smith O'Brien, Esq.-By Mr. Duncan, from Ministers and Elders of the Free Church Presbytery of Dundee, and by Mr. Ewart, from Members and Adhe

for being refractory?

SIR JAMES GRAHAM replied, that he caused inquiries to be instituted into the case of the woman described as a husbandry servant, and the replies not having been satisfactory he had recommended that rents of the Free Church Congregation in the Parish of Dunscore, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for Free a Commissioner (a Queen's Counsel) should Churches in Scotland.-By Sir Robert Harry Inglis, from be sent down to inquire into the entire Friends of Morality and Religion residing in Hadnall facts and report upon them. That gentleand Grinshill, and by Mr. Rashleigh, from Inhabitants of Padstow and Fowey, for the Adoption of Measures for man had been sent; and until he had sent promoting the Due Observance of the Lord's Day. By up his report, it would be impossible for Mr. Bulkeley Hughes, and Colonel Wood, from an im- him (Sir James Graham) to reply to the and Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appoint- question. With regard to the case of the

mense number of places, against the Union of St. Asaph

pauper, James Jervis, he had communi- | been inferred from what was said on a cated with the Poor Law Commissioners, former day, as well as this evening, that Sir and they had resolved to institute an inquiry; but it was a question whether it ought to be a public or a private one.

C. Taylor was one of the convicting magistrates. The fact was not so: the convicting magistrates were Captain Lyon and Mr. Marden. Sir C. Taylor did not adSILVESTER'S CASE-THE GAME LAWS. judicate, although he was present. Hale, MR. COLLETT begged to repeat his the policeman, also positively denied the question regarding a statement which had truth of the assertion, that he had had any appeared in the Hampshire Independent conversation with Silvester about laying of May 9, in which a policeman was repre- a trap for anybody. He (Sir J. Graham) sented to have offered a bribe to a man was always reluctant to question the chanamed Silvester, to lay a false information racter of a person not willingly brought under the game laws against a fisherman, before the House, by the discretion, or pernamed Bridger. [The hon. Gentleman read haps in some cases indiscretion, of hon. the statement at length.] The disgusting Members; but he was bound to state as a case had excited considerable sensation in fact capable of proof that Silvester was a the district; and well it might be called convicted felon, having been found guilty a disgusting case. His complaint was of horse-stealing. Yet he was the person against a magistrate, a minister of the law, upon whose statement reliance was to be and against a policeman for offering blood placed, and upon whose evidence an atmoney. The first attempt having failed, a tack had been made upon the characters more pliable agent was found; and that of Sir C. Taylor and Hale the policeman. agent went to the house of a poor fisher-It now appeared that the hon. Member man named Frederick Bridger, and in the absence of the man sold the game to the wife. For this offence she was dragged before the bench, and sentenced by Sir Charles Taylor to hard labour and imprisonment. The charge was, that she had bought game of a person not authorized to sell it; but how was the poor woman to know whether the person who offered the game was or was not licensed? The wo-ter of a magistrate had been assailed, and man bought it not to sell again, but for consumption in her family: her child was ill, and it was a common opinion in that part of the country that the brains of a hare would cure the disorder; and certain it was that the child got better. The hon. Member, after referring to a variety of documents, concluded by asking whether Hale was still in the police force, and Sir C. Taylor in the commission of the peace for Hampshire?

SIR J. GRAHAM reminded the House that when the question was formerly put to him, it related to an endeavour on the part of Hale, the policeman, to seduce Silvester to lay a trap, by inducing some person to purchase game. He (Sir James Graham) had, therefore, asked Sir Charles Taylor if there was any truth in the story; and by him he had been assured that it was utterly destitute of foundation. He had then called upon the magistrates who held the petty session at which the conviction took place to make their statement, and to accompany it by the evidence taken before them in the case. It would have

Into

had changed his ground, and shifted his
issue to the case of Mrs. Bridger, who, it
was alleged, had been entrapped into the
purchase of a hare and a pheasant.
this matter he (Sir James Graham) had
yet had no opportunity of inquiring; but it
seemed to rest upon what the hon. Mem-
ber called affidavits, probably extra-judicial,
and not of a legal character. The charac-

inquiries had been made to rebut the at-
tack; and when it was supposed that that
would be the question, another case, relat-
ing to different parties, appeared to have
been got up. The case now brought for-
ward by the hon. Member, he had yet had
no opportunity of investigating; but he
hoped the hon. Member would permit him
to have copies of his affidavits, in order
that, if no plan were found as to their regu-
larity, and it turned out that the state-
ments in them were false, the parties might
be prosecuted and punished for perjury.
[MR. COLLETT: My question on a former
day related to this case; and I call for
an answer to it.] The question of the
hon. Member related to an account in
a provincial paper which he had read to
the House, and which mentioned only that
Hale, the policeman, had made a corrupt
offer to Silvester. The reading of this
account the hon. Member had followed up
by his questions, the same as those put to-
night, whether Hale was still in the police
force, and Sir C. Taylor still in the com-
mission of the peace? To those points he

« PreviousContinue »