11

S. 412 (E. C. L. R. vol. 91), K. & G. 132, pursuant to the trusts of two wills, certain lands in Northamptonshire were purchased in 1776, and vested in trustees upon trust to apply the rents and profits, amongst other charitable purposes, to and amongst certain persons described as "the six beadsmen of Daventry," as to whose origin there was no evidence. The persons thus described had received 50s. a year each for the last twenty years; but they had all been appointed since the passing of the Reform Act, by resolution of the bailiffs and burgesses of Daventry, in whom the appointment had from very early times been vested, and who were also trustees under the above-mentioned wills. And it was held that the parties so appointed had not an estate which came to them by promotion to an "office," within the meaning of the 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 18, but were mere recipients of charity, and as such disqualified by reason of s. 36. So, in Heath, app., Haynes, resp., 3 C. B. N. S. 389 (E. C. L. R. vol. 91), K. & G. 199, the inmates of the Earl of Leicester's Hospital,-a charity regulated by a private act of parliament, each had allotted to him by the master rooms therein of more than the yearly value of 10%., of which he had the exclusive use: the appointment was for life, subject to removal for breach of any of the rules; and the inmates were rated in respect of their several occupations: and they were held not entitled to be regis tered. Heartley, app., Banks, resp., 5 C. B. N. S. 40 (E. C. L. R. vol. 94), K. & G. 219, is an extremely strong case. There, the military or poor knights of Windsor were held not to have such an "office, or such an interest in the houses occupied by them, as to entitle them to be registered for the borough, under the 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 27. In delivering the judgment of the court, Cockburn, C. J., *there *489] says: "We must not suffer ourselves to be led away by names, however dignified or high-sounding. Although the persons deriving benefit from this royal and noble foundation are dignified by the honourable title of military knights, there is nothing whatever of knightly service connected with the institution, which is one of a purely eleemosynary character. It purports to be so by the very terms of the ap pointment of the object of the royal bounty: and the whole scope and object of the institution, as well as the terms and conditions on which the advantages of the royal bounty are to be enjoyed, all clearly establish the same thing. It is plain that the charitable support of men who have fallen into poverty and decay in the military service of the realm, was the primary and main purpose of the institution, and that, for that purpose, the pecuniary and other advantages incidental to the appointment were annexed to it; while, with a view to its half collegiate and half monastic character, peculiar obligations and observances were imposel. Looking to the substance of the thing, not to the name by which it has been dignified, it is plain that it is a charity,-a royal and noble charity, it is true, but still a charity and nothing more." Again, in Freeman, app., Gainsford, resp., 11 C. B. N. S. 68 (E. C. L. R. vol. 103), K. & G. 448, a hospital was founded at Sheffield, under the will of Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury, for twenty "poor persons who should give themselves to the service of God and to pray for the prosperity of the noble family of the founder and his posterity." The persons eligible as members or inmates were to be "poor indigent people, well esteemed of for godly

life and conversation, of good conditions, peaceable and quiet amongst their neighbours, and such as by persons of honest repute should be judged fit objects of the charity." Each poor person on his or her election was placed in rooms *with certain allowances. They were prohibited from letting or assigning, or permitting any person [*490 to occupy the rooms jointly with them; and they were to be remova ble by the governing body if found guilty of certain irregularities. It was held,-upon the authority of Heartley, app., Banks, resp., that the inmates had no such estate or interest in the rooms occupied by them as to entitle them to be registered as voters for the county. In giving judgment, Erle, C. J., says: "It appears from the statements in the case, that Shrewsbury Hospital was founded under the will of Gilbert Earl of Shrewsbury: and, by the constitutions which are before us, it appears that the persons to be elected members or inmates thereof are to be 'poor persons who shall give themselves to the service of God and to pray for the prosperity of the noble family of the founder and his posterity. They are to be 'poor indigent people, well esteemed of for godly life and conversation, of good conditions, peaceable and quiet amongst their neighbours, and such as by persons of honest repute shall be judged fit objects of this charity. All the other regulations or constitutions are entirely consistent with that. It appears that in practice each of these poor persons upon his election is placed in a set of chambers, and probably continues therein from the time. of his election until he dies: but the question is, not as to the time of occupation, but what are his rights when placed there. It seems to me that he is elected as a mere object of charity; and that, when the governor assigns him rooms for his residence, he does not confer upon him any estate which he could enforce by bill in equity." Here, the parties objected to were duly qualified as freemen of the borough: and the question is, whether they are not disqualified as almsmen. The 36th section of the Reform Act disqualifies all persons who *shall within twelve months of the last day of July "have [*491 received parochial relief or other alms which by the law of parliament now disqualify from voting." [BYLES, J.-The case finds that these hospitals are each "by repute a corporation by prescription." Are these persons members of the corporation?] If they were they would have no vote as such. In Elliott on Registration, 2d edit. 250, it is said: "As the law existed before the passing of the Reform Act in many boroughs, particularly in those in which the franchise was in the nature of a personal right, the receipt of alms was held to be a personal disqualification. Mr. Rogers observes,— Rogers on Elections, 7th edit., p. 99,- Persons who are, or who have been within a certain time, obliged to depend wholly or in part on eleemosynary assistance, have been held by Whitelocke and other writers to be disqualified by the common law, not only because from their indigence they were unable to contribute to the wages of their members, but because from their dependent situation their voices were no longer free.'" Again, at p. 257, Mr. Elliott says: "What 'other alms' will by the law of parliament now disqualify,' will, in many of the old boroughs, be explained by the determinations of committees and the custom of the place. The following cases have been decided by committees with respect to particular charities:-In the

Taunton Case, 1 Doug. E. C. 370, it was resolved that 'alms' means parochial collection, or parish relief, and that 'charity' signifies sums arising from the revenue of certain specific funds which had been established or bequeathed for the purpose of assisting the poor." That is the case here. "In the Aylesbury Case, 12 Journ. 487, one John Bedford devised lands to be dealt in alms to blind people, crooked, sick, and lame people. This charity is distributed annually by the feoffees to the poor of *Aylesbury, in small sums of 2s., *492] 3s., 4s., or 5s. each, and is commonly continued to the same per

sons for their lives; but it is in the discretion of the feoffees to change them if they think fit. The House resolved that all persons receiv ing this alms within the borough of Aylesbury, pursuant to the will of Mr. Bedford, or any other persons receiving any other charity annually distributed within the same town, are in respect thereof disabled to vote in the election of burgesses to serve in parliament for the said borough." It is extremely difficult to distinguish that case from the present. The objects of this charity are to be selected from among the poor, lame, and impotent inhabitants of the town, having no competent means to live. [BYLES, J.-In the Aylesbury Case, the trustees or feoffees were to divide the fund as alms eo nomine. Here, the participators in the revenue are members of the corporation.] In the Reading Case, 2 Doug. E. C. 105, it was resolved that persons receiving Kendrick's Charity, or any other annual charity distributed in the borough of Reading, were disqualified. Greenwich and Chelsea pensioners are not disqualified, because their pensions are rewards for past services. Mr. Elliott, no doubt, refers to cases which bear a somewhat different aspect; but they are all more or less explainable upon various grounds.

Welsby, contrà.-It is not proposed to dispute any of the cases decided in this court since the Reform Act. But, it being conceded. that these persons are qualified under s. 32 of that act as freeten, the question is whether they are disqualified by the operation of s. 36. What the law of parliament upon the subject of alms was at the time of the passing of the Reform Act, is to be gathered from the decisions of election committees, which doubtless are somewhat conflicting. *These foundations are reputed corporations by prescription. *493] The brethren constitute the corporation. But for that, it might have been contended here that they had a freehold (equitable) interest, or that they occupied as owners within s. 27. The case states that these two hospitals are under the government of the charity-trustees appointed by the Chancellor; that the property of the same consists in landed estates and houses; that the income arising from the former is divisible annually among the brethren in equal proportions, and a house assigned to each of the brethren wherein to live; that each house is kept in repair by the brother who lives in it (not an immaterial circumstance); and that the right of appointment of brethren is vested in the charity-trustees. [WILLIAMS, J.-The very point was raised on these foundations in 1690, in the Sandwich Case, 10 Journ. 457, of which Serjt. Hey wood says,-County Elections 265,— "The right of election was agreed to be in the freemen of this port inhabiting within this port. Mr. Serjt. Thurbane having 225 votes, his election was not disputed. Mr. Brent had 124, and Mr. Mitchell

114. The two former were returned, and Mr. Mitchell petitioned. He insisted that four of those who voted for Mr. Brent were made free after the teste of the writ, that another was not an inhabitant within the port, and that five were servants. By this means the petitioner would have had an equal number of votes with Mr. Brent: but three of those objected to as made free after teste of the writ were entitled to their freedom by birth; and at all events it was necessary to disqualify more, to obtain a majority in his favour, and be seated. He therefore objected to more than thirty as almsmen, or receiving charitable donative. But, it appearing to the committee that 'freemen in general had always voted at elections of parliament men for the said port,' the *committee came to two general resolutions. [*494 The first resolution was, 'that it is the opinion of this committee that the freemen of the port of Sandwich, inhabiting within the said port, although they receive alms, have a right to vote in electing barons to serve in parliament.' The second, that Edward Brent, Esq., was duly elected.' The first resolution being reported, the question was put, that the House do agree with the committee: it passed in the negative: and yet, what is singular enough, the House agreed in the second resolution by a majority of one (the numbers being 175 to 174) that Edward Brent, Esq., was duly elected."] The case finds that these brethren have always heretofore voted without objection. Many cases are referred to both in Elliott and in Rogers which establish this distinction between "parochial relief" and "other alms," viz. that, "with regard to charitable foundations and endow. ments, those only disqualify whose funds have formed a part of the parish resources for the relief of the poor,(a) and have been managed by the overseer or other officer whose duty it is to provide for and pay paupers, and have been conducted by his agency into the same channels and applied to the same purposes to which they would have been applied if they had been the produce of the ordinary parish rates:" Rogers 104. The difference," says Mr. Elliott, p. 258, "between alms and charity was discussed in the case of the Harpur charity, which arose from estates granted by Sir William Harpur to the corporation of Bedford for certain charitable objects, the surplusage of the rents and profits to be distributed in alms to the poor of the said town, for the relief of poor decayed housekeepers, and other proper objects. It appeared that this charity had been generally distributed to the middling sort of people, and to many *who paid parish

the

taxes; that it had always been considered as a sort of donation, [*495 and distinguished from the parish pay. The committee resolved, that persons receiving Sir W. Harpur's charity are not thereby disqualified within the meaning of the determination of the 12th April, 1690" see the Bedford Case, 2 Dougl. E. C. 122, 123. Mr. Rogers (p. 105) instances the cases of Hawes's Charity and St. John's Hospital, where the votes were held good. In the former, "the money was expended in bread, given away chiefly to wives and children: it was argued that it would be unjust to deprive a man of his franchise because his wife or his child had, perhaps unknown to him, received some bread from this charity." In the latter, "the brethren, as they were called, were parties to all leases made of their land: they each (a) The King v. The Inhabitants of Halesworth, 3 B. & Ad. 717 (E. C. L. R. vol. 23).

received 9d. per week from the revenues of their land." He also mentions Welborn's Charity,-"Robert Welborn left a close to the ministers and overseers of the poor of St. John's parish, in Bedford, to be distributed to the poor on New Year's Day. The practice appeared to be to distribute it in sums of three or four shillings to each person: and the votes were held bad. In the Sudbury Case, Phillips 149, Mar tin Cole left an annuity to trustees to buy materials for shirts and shifts to be made up and delivered to the ministers, church wardens, and overseers of the poor, to be by them given to twenty-five poor men and twenty-five poor women of Sudbury. Nathaniel King left an annuity in like manner to purchase 100 loaves, one to be given to each person who had received a shirt or shift under Cole's bequest. In Sudbury, the overseers have nothing to do with parish pay, the paupers there being under the government of a workhouse corporation established by law antecedent to the act of Elizabeth. The usage was in favour of the vote being received. In the Downton Case, 1 Luders *496] *493, William Stockman gave lands to feoffees, to distribute the rents among such poor craftsmen and labourers as should be sur charged by children, as should seem best to the feoffees, and "not to go' or be employed to the increase of the church box of the said parish." By the fourth item, it was directed that this provision should not be accounted any abatement of the collection for the church box, or any other relief of the poor usually provided for the poor of the parish. The trustees who managed the charity gave it to those who received parish relief, but to those only in need of temporary assistance. In the Gloucestershire Case, Orme 121, W. V., within twelve months before the election, received part of a sum given by will to the poor of the parish of Thornbury "who are not on the parish books, and receive no monthly pay." None of the four last-mentioned charities was held to disqualify. So, in the Colchester Case, 1 Peck 508, Joseph Cox appointed the sum of 100l. to be laid out in freehold land, and had given the yearly profits thereof to the poor of the parish, to be distributed, at the discretion of the parish officers, on Christmas Day annually. The parish officers accordingly did distribute the same in suins from 1s. 6d. to 5s. respectively, according to the size of the families of the applicants. The votes were held good. These several authorities clearly show that these persons are not recipients of alms within the 36th section of the Reform Act.

Hayes, Serjt., in reply. The same reason which prevents these persons from acquiring an estate, disqualifies them as recipients of alms. [KEATING, J.-What do you say to the Colchester Case, 1 Peck 508? "Isaac Hazell had met with an accident, and, upon the application of a principal inhabitant, was attended by the *497] apothecary for the poor of the parish gratis: and his *vote was held good."] Other decisions in the same case are inconsistent with that, unless it be distinguishable on the ground that the attendance was not at the party's own request. "Jeremiah Hearsom was attended while sick by the parish apothecary, by order of the parish officers, upon the request of the voter." Again, "the wife of Thomas Iron was attended during her confinement by the parish apothe cary, at the request of the voter, and by order of the parish officers:" and in both these cases the votes were held bad: Rogers 252. [BYLES,