education for eternity. Several other sentiments were proposed by the Chairman, and responded to by the Revs. P. Orr, J. Fullagar, and E. Tagart, Mr. Adams, Mr. Sheppard, &c., &c.

NOTTINGHAM.

At the annual meeting of the members and friends of the Fellow-ship Fund belonging to the High Pavement Chapel, Charles Paget, Esq., in the chair, various sums were voted to assist Chapels and useful Inststutions, including £5 to the Unitarian Association, £5 to the New Chapel at Montreal, Canada, £3 to the Manchester New College, £3 to Miriam's School, £5 to the Chapel at Yaxley, Huntingdonshire. Mr. Joseph Barker's presence added much to the evening's interest.

MARRIAGES.

On the 1st of April, at the General Baptist Chapel, Dover, by the Rev. J. L. Short, Mr. John P. Igglesdon, to Miss Rosanna Buck

man.

On the 7th, at the Unitarian Chapel, Mead-row, Godalming, by the Rev. M. Davidson, John, eldest son of Mr. Isaac Ellis, of Artington, to Eliza, only daughter of Mr. James Ellis, of Littleton, Guildford.

On the 16th at the Unitarian Chapel, Bolton, by the Rev. F. Baker, M.A., Mr. Wm. Peat, to Mary Anne, daughter of Mr. John Pearson, Boston, Lincolnshire.

DEATHS.

On the 28th of March, aged 10 years, Herbert, second son of the Rev. James Martineau, of Park Nook, near Liverpool.

On the 12th of April, at Newcastle on Tyne, aged 47, the Rev. Joseph Mc. Alister, late pastor of the Congregation of HanoverSquare Chapel.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. The present number of the UNITARIAN appears at an increased price. We hope our friends will not object to this, as, in return, we have given twelve additional pages of letter-press. The future price will be Fourpence each number. We have been induced to do this, so as to give us the means of inserting the papers of our Correspondents entire.

"F.," "M. P.," "J. D. R.," and "J. L S.," are thanked for their kind communications.

"F. W. K.'s" request cannot be complied with in the manner he wishes. If, however, he will call on our Publisher, No. 7, Farringdon Street, he may obtain all the information he requires.

"B. F.'s" favour came too late for insertion this month.

We have been reluctantly obliged to omit in the present number several papers prepared for insertion: among others, the tract "On Original Sin," by our esteemed friend, the Rev. W. Turner, Jun., and presume to hope he will excuse the omission; some particulars relating to Miriam's "Little Church and Home," at Walden, near Huddersfield, and those in reference to the History, Object, and Principles of the RAGGED SCHOOLS.

Our friend, Mr. C.'s notice of a Private School, will, we hope, bear with us another month.

*Communications for the Editor to be addressed to the care of the Publisher, JOHN MARDON, No. 7, Farringdon Street, London.,

No. 6.

THE

UNITARIAN.

JUNE, 1846.

VOL. I.

REMARKS ON THE LATE "CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL."

pro

THIS bill, as our readers are aware, was lost on the second reading, by a majority of one: an opposition too small not to encourage, in all probability, its re-introduction in the next Session of Parliament. For two years this measure has been projected. The year before last it was mooted, and last Session it went into Committee, where amendments were made which were adopted by the House of Lords, and, we believe, the bill reached the Commons, but, for some reason or other, was not proceeded with. It was introduced this Session pretty nearly in the same form as last year, except in the posed enactment relating to the appointment of the Commissioners. From this pertinacity of its authors we are justified in looking upon the measure as postponed, or in abeyance, rather than as altogether lost. And this must be our excuse and apology for attempting to draw the attention of our readers to the provisions and character of a bill no longer ostensibly in existence; and by our summary of its contents, and the observations we may feel it our duty to make thereon, to induce them to be on the watch, and to guard against any future measure of a similar character; for if a most strenuous resistance to it be not maintained by parties most interested, the efforts of its framers will, there is little doubt, be eventually successful.

We are not ungenerous enough to suppose that the proposed enactment originated in any sinister intention or design, but we object to it on principle, on the ground of

R

civil and religious liberty, for its centralizing tendency, for the great and grievous injustice and oppression such a measure would inevitably inflict on a large body of those affected by it. There are, doubtless, many charitable funds in this country which need better security than they at present possess for equitable and faithful management, but let that security be based on a more constitutional foundation than the provisions of the late bill would appear to embody. Let us rather have the abuses than our civil liberties infringed or endangered. We have not the faith that some entertain in the discretion, diligence, or independence of Commissioners. We object to the principle on which their appointment is proposed. In the present case, it implies a confession of the inutility or non-availableness of the regularly constituted judicial authorities in seeking redress for any alleged mismanagement or malversation. Let what is amisss in this respect be reformed-let a recourse to the Court of Chancery be rendered a less expensive proceeding, in the matter of charities, rather than create an irresponsible tribunal, accompanied with the immense powers proposed to be vested in these Charity Commissioners. We object the more to the design in question, when we consider the almost utter impossibility of compassing the end proposed, at least to the general satisfaction. So difficult under existing circumstances do we regard the practical execution of this project to be, that we are persuaded if the full measure of our objection should not strike the framers of such a legislative enactment as that which gives rise to these remarks, it would at once occur to any prudent persons planning legislation for a country like ours, as the Inquirer very aptly observes ;-"a country in which such a variety of religious opinions exists, and in which so very many enendowments have relation to the support of these opinions, that the utmost caution would be needed, to attempt withdrawing the management of such funds from the parties in whom it is at present vested, and not to create any suspicion of an intention to use the powers given for religious party purposes. Yet this bill treats as Charities the endowments of Dissenting Chapels and Schools; and matters upon which the very first principles of Dissent deny the right of the State at all to interfere, are submitted to the supervision of Commissioners appointed by the

State. If the principle of such a measure be once assented to, who can foresee the extent to which it may be applied? It, in fact, submits the whole management of Dissenting religious endowments to the control of parties, almost all, of course, belonging to the Established Church, and who are allowed a large discretion on every point respecting the administration of the Trusts."

Such being the unconstitutional character of the bill, we are glad that it met with the resistance it deserved, not only from our legislators themselves, but from parties more or less affected by it, and particularly those who opposed it, on account of its unconstitutional interference with the security and freedom of their religious position. There were a few petitions in favour of it, it is true, and one, we believe from the Society of Friends, presented by the Duke of Wellington; but they could be of little weight when placed in the scale against the immense number of an opposite tendency, preferred by those who, though they might be satisfied with the end sought to be obtained, were also solicitous as to the means and agencies by which that end was to be accomplished. In any future agitation of this important question, we hope the same spirit will animate the Dissenting portion of the community that has been manifested on the present occasion, and sufficient to demonstrate to our legislators that civil and religious freedom, even in respect to our charities and charitable trusts, though in the lapse of time the latter may be liable to some abuse, is too precious to be risked by measures so equivocal in their character and provisions, as the one to which we are about to draw the attention of our readers.

This bill proposed the establishment of three permanent Commissioners of Charities, who should hold their offices during good behaviour. Their appointment was to be vested in the Lord Chancellor, which was an improvement on the former bill, assigning that office to the Secretary of State. And with regard to the qualification of these Commissioners, the bill proposed, somewhat vaguely, that every person to be appointed a Commissioner should be either a person holding the office of Vice-Chancellor or Master in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery, or a person who should have held either of such offices, or the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature

in Bengal, or a Serjeant or Barrister-at-Law in actual practice, and of not less than twelve years standing at the bar.* One would, at first sight, suppose that this enumeration of the qualifications required had been introduced to meet the case of certain peculiarly qualified individuals; and if that supposition be just, would it not have been better to have named those persons as the first Commissioners, and to have established a more simple and rational qualification for the future? We say "more simple and rational," because, we cannot perceive, any more than Mr. Palmer, "what special virtue there can be in the Calcutta Bench, to qualify a retired Chief Justice of Bengal more than a retired Chief Justice of Madras or any other presidency, after ten years broiling within the tropics, for the somewhat novel duties of a Charity Commissioner in England, requiring much patient investigation for their proper discharge." Again, is a Serjeant-at-Law necessarily qualified for the superintendence of Charities by practice in the Court of Common Pleas, which takes no cognizance of Charitable Trusts? or, is the fact of his being in actual practice, susceptible of easy definition or ascertainment?

It was also proposed that the Lord Chancellor should, from time to time, appoint two fit persons to be inspectors of charities for England and Wales, removable at his pleasure, to act under the Commissioners, in making inquiry in districts assigned to them, into the receipt and application of the revenues of any Charitable Trust; and, in cases within the summary jurisdiction of the said Commissioners, into the general administration of such Trust; with full power to call for documents, and to require the attendance of and examine any persons concerned in the management of the charity; also, if authorized by the Commissioners, to examine upon oath or affirmation, transmitting the "examinations" and reporting their opinion, and the grounds thereof, upon any enquiries made by them, to the Commissioners. Moreover, it was proposed that the Commissioners should, from time to time, appoint a secretary, and, with the leave of the treasury, so many clerks, messengers, and officers as they

* S. 2.

See his able pamphlet entitled "Considerations on the Charitable Trusts Bill," &c.

SS. 4, 22, 23, 24, 25.