gations-which, by the way, has cost the country nigh upon a quarter of a million of money, and which has for the present terminated in the imperfect measures of 1853 and 1855-was commenced by Lord Brougham about 1816. In 1837 the final Report of the Commissioners upon Charitable Bequests was made, disclosing such a state of circumstances as rendered it clear that the matter should be taken in hand forthwith. Seven years afterwards, the Government being pressed on the point, promised to bring in a measure next session. And now begin the parliamentary scandals.

In the session of 1844 Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord Chancellor, first introduced a Bill relating to charitable trusts; and if it were not disgraceful and mortifying, it would be almost amusing to see how during the next nine years the Houses did nothing but talk, and reciprocate abortive Bills to each other; and how, after the lapse of that time, they managed to stultify themselves by the statutes which they actually passed. The Government, on the first occasion, just alluded to, certainly did not undertake the important question with any warmth or determination. The Bill was introduced late in the session,-an accident which frequently occurred subsequently. It related only to endowments not exceeding in value 1007. per annum. Nevertheless the yearly value of the property thus embraced by its provisions amounted to upwards of 30,000l. With a candour which perhaps bears some resemblance to indifference, the Chancellor said, with respect to his scheme, that if any noble lord could propose a better, he would gladly adopt it and renounce his own,— which, very possibly, might not be the best. There is, however, one remark in his speech, which, occurring on the outset of these debates, deserves notice, not only as being indubitably true, but as lying at the very basis of the proposed reform. In referring to the practical lack of any superintending control over the charities which he proposed to deal with, Lord Lyndhurst said that the "evil could only be provided against by giving to some tribunal a summary jurisdiction to regulate these charities."

Lord Lyndhurst's Bill, being thus languidly introduced, was not very bravely supported. The Bishop of London "concurred in

VOL. I. NO. I.

L

1

its principles," but entreated the Chancellor not to pass it through committee during the present session. They wanted time to "deliberate on its provisions;" many of the bishops were in the country; "no measure affecting the Church, or the interests of education as connected with the Church, ought to be passed at a period of the session when they were unavoidably absent;" and he begged that the Bill should be postponed till "early next session." Lord Campbell echoed this oftrepeated prayer for delay, with, of course, a passing reproach at the men in office for past neglect, and a doubt about the formidable powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners. To all which remarks the Lord Chancellor replied, that "some such measure had been recommended eight or ten years ago by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Charitable Bequests, but nothing successful had been done as yet with respect to it." He then stated that it was not his intention to take any further steps in the matter during the session. Thus ended, in 1844, the first scene of the farce-very popular at St. Stephen'swhich we may entitle, "Wanted a Statute for regulating Charitable Trusts; or, How to make and mar a Law."

2

In April, 1845, Lord Lyndhurst again offered a measure, resembling the former one, to the consideration of the House, and on this occasion made a statement so luminous that there could be no excuse for any noble lord's being unaware of the condition and history of the whole question, or, one would think, being doubtful as to approving the remedy proposed to be applied. Lord Lyndhurst told the House the well-known history of the previous legislative efforts in relation to the question up to that date; how, in 1818, Lord Brougham had procured the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the charitable trusts in England and Wales; how the commission had been renewed from time to time until 1837; how there were thirty-eight huge folio volumes of Report, containing above 28,000 pages,-a digest of all the procurable information in relation to endowments throughout the country; how "it was always imagined that this Report would be followed by some legislative measure;" how a Committee of the Commons 1 Hansard, vol. lxxvi. p. 1160. 2 Id. vol. lxxx. p. 766.

was appointed in 1835 "to consider the propriety of legislating" upon the facts already presented to them; how "some attempts at legislation were made, but were attended with no practical results ;" and how there were 25,000 various endowments distributed throughout the country, with incomes of less than 501. per annum, as to which it would be absurd for any person to attempt to apply the machinery of the Court of Chancery, unless, indeed, he were interested in their spoliation, more or less complete; and then the noble lord stated again that the principle of the Bill which he had prepared was "to establish a tribunal that will administer justice in all those small cases to which the Court of Chancery is practically inapplicable." It would have been well if this principle had been then accepted and maintained; but political opponents are wont to judge of the value of measures proposed by each other in proportion to the jealousies which exist between them, and the hopes which each side mutually cultivates of damaging the other and securing office for itself.

And so the debate proceeded. The usual dramatis persona of that day acted their several parts,-Lord Brougham supporting the Bill, whilst he pointed out certain defects in it,-Lord Cottenham, not well affected towards the scheme, saying sententiously and truly enough, that "an efficient remedy for such evils required the most serious investigation,”—and Lord Campbell detecting in some of the provisions proposed, as he conceived, monstrous mischiefs. It was accordingly referred to a Select Committee, whence it issued amended, and was passed; but not without sundry deprecations again on the part of Lord Cottenham, who complained that the power given thereby to the Commissioners exceeded any he had enjoyed even as Chancellor. His lordship's dread of Commissioners' tyranny turned out to be groundless, for the child of so many parents died of doctoring and delay, and expired, without giving any further trouble, in the arms of the proper officer of the House of Commons.

In 1846 the Bill was again revived by Lord Lyndhurst; but new foes with old weapons (which were supposed to have been broken to pieces years back) were brought out of the museums

of antique engines of warfare, and burnished up for the combat which was to take place in the House of Lords. The result was, that the hereditary legislators of the kingdom, notwithstanding all they had heard, said, and done before, sagely determined now, that it was better to file a bill in the Court of Chancery in respect of a charity of 5l. a year, than that the tyranny of an inexpensive procedure should be imposed on the public; which they affected to think might uproot society, while it ostensibly was preventing the perversion of trust property. The influence of worshipful companies (who wished to be left alone to manage their charities comfortably) had now also been brought to bear on the august assembly, and the opportunity afforded by their grumbling was thereupon taken to throw the imputation of unpopularity on the projected measure. Sundry unnecessary postponements having been procured, the second reading was duly moved by Lord Lyndhurst, who said it was no pleasant task to him again to go over the whole question-renovare dolorem ;nevertheless, in his masterly manner he did review the objects and character of the Bill, giving some amusing illustrations of malversation, by which the gastronomy of trustees had been cultivated at the cost of the hungry cestui que trust. He closed his speech by declaring that it would be a feeling of shame with which he should contemplate the refusal of the House to read such a Bill a second time. However, Lords Cottenham and Campbell opposed the Government as usual; and this debate indeed serves to illustrate the mode in which useful and necessary measures like the one in question may be retarded, neutralized, or annihilated, when party feeling is strong, and Government weak. In the present case the Whigs were, we suspect, in the discreditable position of impeding a useful measure for their own ends. It is curious (but instructive) to see how an important question, which really was independent of party, was made a field whereon political animosities might display themselves. The vexatious opposition in this case to Lord Lyndhurst's Bill had one good result,-it called forth Lord Brougham, who reminded the antagonists of the Government of the party history of the case.

"Speaking as a Whig," says Lord Brougham in the debate,

"I beg to ask you, Do you remember the controversy of 1818? Did you ever hear of the debates in Parliament on this very subject in the years of grace 1818, 1819? Did you ever hear of a party measure as completely a Whig measure as any that was ever brought in by that party-the Charity Bill of 1819, upon which you were banded as one man, with myself for your leader? Now every one of the topics which have been heard to-night from my noble friends, are to be found in the speeches of the Tory party to whom we were opposed on that occasion. .... On that occasion I had the satisfaction of defeating Lord Eldon, the legitimate predecessor of my noble and learned friend. A majority of two and I carried my Bill. What, then, I beg to inquire, is the cause of the Whigs voting against us to-night? I do not say this is a trap, a pitfall, a stratagem; it is only a little attempt to hurt the Government, to mortify the Chancellor (though God knows he of all men has least cause to care about such petty mortification!), to damage the Prime Minister without turning him out." His lordship then added truly enough, "You do not deny the abuse--you do not say the measure is not required—you do not say that it is not a measure wished for and called for by the country; and therefore, approving its principle, the course which you ought to take is, fairly, candidly, conscientiously, and honestly, to go into committee, in order that you may there examine its details," &c.

...

It is not necessary to follow this debate much further. Lord Campbell naturally addressed a few words to their Lordships, not so much to discuss the measure before the House, as "because," said he, "I have been taunted with inconsistency by my noble and learned friend;"-and then, in the usual style of debate in those days, he passed on to a wordy war with Lord Brougham and a defence of the Whigs. The House of Lords was then entertained by having every objection to efficient interference with the trustees of charities reproduced-the dislike to it by the trustees themselves-the jealousies of Churchmenthe frightful violation of the independence of Dissenters—the danger of commissioners exceeding their powers-and various other commonplace complaints; and then-the second reading