of the Bill was negatived. The close of this not very creditable piece of parliamentary tactics is contained in few words in Contents, 40; non-contents, 42; majority, 2. House adjourned."

Hansard.

The next epoch in the history of abortive attempts at legislation for the management of charitable trusts was under the auspices of that party which mainly had contrived to defeat Lord Lyndhurst's measures: it would be tedious, however, to follow Lord Cottenham's divers failures. His Bills were perhaps never worth the passing. They were not framed on a comprehensive principle, and besides being in themselves imperfect, it was so contrived that they miscarried session after session for three successive years, at various periods of their parliamentary existence.

One would now have supposed the subject had at any rate been ventilated enough. The necessity for legislative interference seemed to be generally admitted, except indeed when a specific remedy was proposed; for on any such occasion timid "interests" found tongue, and protested against the cruelty of inflicting upon them efficient control. Yet another Commission was still deemed necessary, and so in 1849 one was constituted, and, as it turned out, was of some practical advantage. In their report the Commissioners repeated what had been notorious for many years; viz., that the administration of charitable trusts throughout the country required some public supervision, and suggested certain provisions, which should be incorporated into a statute: thus the basis of the much-needed statute seemed again laid. This, however, did not prevent another period of law-making slips. The session of 1850 witnessed another Bill on the subject, which passed the House of Commons, but was too late for the House of Lords. The Bill of the following session (1851), on the other hand, went through the Lords; but of course it was too late to be passed by the Commons.

In 1852 again, the same Bill as had been introduced the previous year, was again brought forward, and perished as usual. But in 1853, by a special Providence, both the legislative Houses entertained, considered, and actually passed-after ten failures-the enactment known as "The Charitable Trusts

Act, 1853." Surely this, then, must have been a perfect measure! Brought in by the Whig Attorney-General, taken in hand, and eventually carried through, on the change of Ministry, by the Conservative law officers, we shall find the powers given by this well-considered Act to be ample, and the remedies appropriate! Referring, however, again to the great British record of legislative failure and mistake contained in the volumes of Hansard, we see that on July 6th, 1854, less than a year after the Act had come into operation, upon a sum of 15,000l. being asked for in respect of the expense of the Charity Commission, an honourable member (Mr. E. Ellice) took the opportunity of observing that if the powers of the Commissioners were really so limited as they were represented to be, and the means of reforming the abuses of charitable funds, and the remodelling of schemes for their better application, were not to be extended to the Board, "it would be better at once to say to the public, It is impossible for us to interfere with the administration of the Court of Chancery, and therefore you are left in the same difficulties in which you have been placed ever since the report of the original Charity Commissioners." To which Sir George Grey courteously replies, admitting the defects complained of:-" He could bear a willing testimony to the zealous manner in which the paid Commissioners had directed themselves to the discharge of their duties; but at the same time he must admit that the Commissioners themselves felt that their powers were quite inadequate to the discharge of the duties which were expected from them. It was, however, thought better not to apply to Parliament for any extension of their powers, until there had been a year's experience of the working of the Commission; but no doubt a measure having this object would be laid before the House next session." The fact, then (which was known to all who had studied the Act), that the statute of 1853 did not effect what was most desired, was openly confessed in Parliament; and it is apparent that the same ignorance and jealousies, -the same strong Interests,-the same weakness of Governments, - -the same indifference or animosities of Political Parties, which had prevented legislation on this subject for

upwards of thirty years,-had operated to produce such compromises, that the statute, when at last it came to be tested, was, after all, for many important purposes, a failure. An Act of Parliament of sixty-eight sections had, it is true, been enacted; but those clauses which would have rendered them available, had been omitted. The watch had been constructed, but upon the particular condition that the mainspring should not be intruded into its machinery: it was not allowed to go, because it might go too fast.

This absurd state of things produced considerable disappointment. Although the Commission was hard at work, and doing all that lay in their power, no practical fruit was visible to the popular eye; and indeed it was true, that whenever trustees of charities were disposed to baffle or disregard the Board of Commissioners, they were generally able to do so with impunity. Hence an outcry was raised by the newspaper press; and as it is more easy for writers to abuse men, than comprehend the merits and flaws of Acts of Parliament, the Commissioners were personally attacked and slandered. "Who is Mr. Peter Erle?" asks one writer. Now any practising barrister or solicitor could have told him (if he had wanted information) that Mr. Erle was an eminent and experienced conveyancer, and about the best man the Government could have selected, as possessing special qualifications for the arduous post of Chief Commissioner. The majority of the hurried "general readers" of a "stinging" article probably would not be able to supply the answer to the query just put; and thus a part of the public was, we suppose, led to infer that the Government had made, in nominating Mr. Erle, an improper, if not corrupt, appointment.

Another Commissioner, the late Mr. Richard Jones, was also attacked and run down on the score of his being a clergyman, -a most ludicrous charge (except to the aforesaid "general reader"); for assuredly, whatever may have been the failings of that able gentleman, they did not flow from, nor were they connected with, his clerical calling. As a Tithe Commissioner, and in other public capacities, he had shown himself to be a man who united to remarkable aptitude for business, great and varied learning. Nor were the other appointments

connected with the Commission which were at first made, open to censure, so far as we know; indeed, to any person informed on the subject, it is obvious that the machinery was in fault, not the men.1

It was then necessary to amend the "Charitable Trusts Act, 1853,"-this nerveless offspring of thirty years of parliamentary debates and Committees; and the second Annual Report of the Commissioners having clearly pointed out in what respects the Act was inoperative and defective, the requisite Amendment Bill was prepared in accordance therewith. The second reading of this Bill was moved in April, 1855, by the Lord Chancellor, who explained that the imperfections of the statute of 1853 (just two years old) had rendered the labours of the Commissioners comparatively of little avail; that though they had done all they could, yet their hands were so tied as to render it necessary, in order to make a working measure, that the proposed amendments should be passed. At the instance of Lord St. Leonard's, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and we next find it in difficulties in the Commons; but the second reading, after some opposition, was there permitted, upon the understanding that at a future stage it should be discussed fully. On this occasion Lord Palmerston said, "The real object of the Bill is to vest the Commissioners with certain powers of administration, which would prevent the necessity for long, expensive, and multiplied Chancery suits." Why! this had been the "real object" of all the "attempts at legislation" these thirty years, and it had yet to be accomplished! In August, 1855, a debate arose on the order for going into Committee, and the old stories again were actually heard,—Beware of "centralization," the mischief of "irresponsible and dangerous powers,""lateness of the session,"-"hurried legislation," and the like.

And now a new element of opposition sprung up to life—that of the Chancery barrister M.P.'s. They did not see the evil of

We have heard that Mr. Jones, who clearly was disgusted with the inadequacy of the statute in question, declared that "the Legislature had only made the Board a donkey to be ridden up and down Chancery Lane, and in and out of Courts of Equity, and the public must not grumble if they were not carried quickly-and did not get where they liked, after all."

VOL. I. NO. I.

M

"long, expensive, and multiplied" Chancery suits in the same light as did Lord Palmerston. The Government, too, was weak, and seemed indifferent; the Equity counsel were strong and interested; and consequently the latter body triumphed (aided by the "Opposition "), and threw out or mutilated all the more important parts of the measure in committee. Our readers will be interested to see the brief summary given in the House of Lords of the havoc done in the House of Commons by the combination of the honourable members for Chancery Lane, and the right honourable members for Non-interference, and the venerable representatives for the large boroughs of Jealousy and Suspicion, and the populous cities of Vested Interests, Twaddle, and Roundabout Procedure.

The Lord Chancellor, when the husk of the Act came back to the House, simply stated that many of the most essential provisions of the Amendment Bill had been rejected by the other House of Parliament; that in its mutilated state the Bill came very short of the advantages which would have been derived from it had it passed in the shape in which it was sent down to the other House; but he thought the best thing to be done was to accept the Bill for what it was worth. Lord Campbell too "deplored" the mutilation, and lamented the loss of those powers once deemed so dangerous (when seen in Lord Lyndhurst's Bill nine years ago), but now so salutary, and which, if retained, would have rendered the Commissioners able to have determined matters judicially, without the intervention of the Court of Chancery. Amidst the concurrent testimony of all sides to the skill with which the professional men "in another place" had succeeded again in rendering the Bill abortive, the abortive Bill-the amendment statute of 1855-was passed. The Board of Charity Commissioners has again, therefore, the misfortune of being thus refused the requisites for carrying out the objects for which it was formed, and so is sentenced again to comparative inefficiency.

Lest any one should think that we misrepresent the result of the legislative labours on Charitable Trusts, we have for the most part borrowed the language of those whose confessions on the subject are conclusive. And if any corroboration of our