Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page


Family Notices

^ N G AppQ I N T M E N T S.

i-fyt,8 ^ ° B D W B 8 T MAR…



VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT-MARCH 13. BEFORE SIR R. MALINS. MOTION TO GOMMIT SIR ROBERT PEEL. This was a motion to commit Sir R. Peel for contempt in not complying with an order of the Charity Commissioners directing him to render an account of how moneys had been expended by him in or towards the maintenance of a school at ram- worth. The Vice Chancellor, in delivering judgment, said he had had an opportunity of considering the acts of parliament since yesterday, and therefore it would not be necessary to reserve his decision. The motion was to commit Sir R. Peel as an alleged trustee of this charity, which was founded by the first Sir R. Peel. The correspondence between Sir R. Peel and the commissioners had been carried on during the year 1867 and this year, and during the whole of the time Sir R. Peel had resisted the authority of the commissioners. He denied that they had any juris- diction in the matter. In the end Sir R. Peel was served with a notice to appear in this court. He did not do so last Thursday, but in not doing so he (the Vice Chancellor) felt satisfied that he meant no dis- respect to the Court. The motion was one of form and substance. As to the form of it he (the Vice Chancellor) was of opinion that Sir R. Peel having the privilege of Parliament, it would be impossible upon the cases referred to in Burrows and Rus- sell and Myine,' to commit Sir R. Peel to prison for such an offence as not rendering an account, if any offence had really been committed. But the material question was one of substance, and if the application were right, the matter of form might be got over. He understood that the commissioners desired only to have a decision of their right to this account. This question depended upon the acts of parliament of 1853 and 1855. The first referred to property absolutely disposed of in charity, otherwise the commissioners had no power or control over it. By the will of the first Sir Robert Peel this charity was founded, and if the question stood on the will there would be little doubt, but he made a codicil, which gave to the late Sir Robert, and all other per- sons who should be entitled to the estates, full power to do whatever they pleased with the fund— he or they might apply it to the charity, or in any manner thought proper. Sir R. Peel most properly swore that every farthing of the income of the funa had been applied to the school. He (the Vice Chan- cellor) was of opinion that, looking at the acts of parliament and the codicil, the motion had been wholly misconceived by the Charity Commissioners. When their authority was denied, they should have filed an information to have the question raised -de- termined. He was of opinion that Sir Robert Peel had acted rightly in resisting the demands of the commissioners, and he should have done the same thing himself. The case was an illustration against allowing a court to exist which heard matters in pri- vate. In this case Sir H. Peel had full power to do what he pleased with the fund. He had not only applied the income as his grandfather desired, but he had expended his own money ^addition towards the maintenance of this school. The whole disposition of the funds was perfectly voluntary on the part of Sir R. Peel. He thought the commissioners, who were gentlemen for whom he had the highest respect, should be very careful how they acted in disputed cases. They had, by promoting this motion, wholly miscarried, and had totally misconceived the powers given them by the acts of parliament. He had no jurisdiction in the matter, and therefore the motion must be refused, and with costs. —* BRITISH PREMIERS. The resignation of office held by Lord Derby ren- ders it interesting to recall the Premiers who have held the office for the last 114 years. The Duke of New- castle came into power April 5, 1734, and held office for eight years and 52 days. The Earl of Bute took office May 29, 1762, and held it for 322 days. The administration of Mr G. Grenville commenced April 16, 1763, and lasted for two years and 87 days, Thu Marquis of Rockingham took office July 12,1765, and held it for one year and 21 days. The Administra- tion of the Duke of Grafton, which commenced August 2, 1766, lasted three years and 179 days. The Administration of Lord North was one of un- usual duration, commencing January 28, 1770, and and lasting 12 years and 34 days. The Marquis of Rockingham again came into power March 3, 1782, and held it for 132 days. He was succeeded July 13, 1782, by the Earl of Shelborne, whose term of power was 266 days. The next Premier was the Duke of Portland, who came into power April 5,1783, and remained in office t60 days. Then came a very long Administration, that of Mr Pitt,-who came into power December 27, 1783, and held office for 17 years and 80 days. Mr Pitt was succeeded, March 17, 1801, by Lord Sidmouth, who remained in office three years and 56 days. Then came the second Pitt Administration, commencing May 12, 1804, and lasting one year and 246 days. Lord Grenville took office January 8, 1806, and held it for one year and 64 days. The Duke of Portland again became Pre- mier March 13, 1807, and remained in office three years and 102 days. He was succeeded June 28, 1810, by Spencer Perceval, whose term of power extended over one year and 330 days. The Earl of Liverpool's Administration, which commenced June 8, 1812, was a very long one, lasting 14 years and 307 days. Mr Canning succeeded Lord Liverpool April 11, 1827, but only remained in office 121 days. Lord Goderich who succeeded Mr Canning August 10, 1827, also held office only 168 days. The next Administration was that of the Duke of Wellington, which commenced January 25, 1828, and lasted two years and 5?9'I days. Earl Grey commenced his Administration November 22, 1830, and continued in power three years and 231 days. Lord Melbourne assumed the reins of Government July 11, 1834, but only held them days.. Then came the second Administration of the Duke of Wel- lington, which commenced November 16, 1834, but only lasted 22 days. Sir Robert Peel took office Dec. 8, 1834, but only remained in power 131 days. the second Administration of Lord Melbourne, which commenced April 18, 1835, lasted six years and 138 days. Sir Robert Peel took office a second time September 3, 1841, and held it for four years- and 97 days. Then Lord J. Russell was sent for, December 10, 1845, bnt his Lordship only held office ten days. Sir Robert Peel returned to power December 20, 1845, and remained in office 188 days. The second Administration of Lord John Russell, which commenced June 26, 1846, lasted five years and 239 days. The Earl of Derby came into office February 22, 1852, and held it 300 days. The Administration of the Earl of Aberdeen, which commenced Decem- ber 19, 1852, lasted two years and 45 days. The first Administration of Lord Palmerston, which com- menced February 5, 1855, lasted three years and 17 3ays. The Earl of Derby's second Administration commenced February 21, 1858, lasted 111 days! Fhen came Lord Palmerston's second Administration, which, csnmencing June 13,1859, lasted six years ind 128 days. On the death of Lord Palmerston, Earl Russell became Premier for the third time, but lis Lordship only held office on this occasion 240 lays. The Earl of Derby's third tenure of power e commenced June 27, 1886, and has now terminated tfter the lapse of one year and 241 daya.—Times,


[No title]