Commons Sitting of 1 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal; Mines Registration.
2o. Arms (Ireland); Debtors and Creditors; Transfer of Property.
Reported.—Art Unions.
3o. and passed:—Savings' Banks; South Sea Company; Fisheries (Ireland); Merchant Seamen.
Private.—1o. Duke of Hamilton and Brandon's Estate.
2o. Lord Cranstoun's Estate.
Reported.—Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Gervis's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate; Hough's Divorce.
3o. and passed:—Wilson's Estate; Ladbroke's Estate; Passingham's Estate; Werrington, etc. Curacies; Bowyer's Estate; Tralee Navigation and Harbour; Devayne's Estate; Bishop of London's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Welby, against Dissenters Chapels Bill; and from St. Anne's, Limehouse, for better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. P. M. Stewart, from Burry, and Glasgow (2), for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages (Ireland).—By Mr. Mangles, from Stewart Marjoribanks, Esq., and Colonel Elphinstone, for Production of Petition respecting South Australia.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from J. Young, and others, against Art Unions Bill—By Captain Pechell, from Lieut. Green, for consideration of Petition.—By Colonel Gore Langton, from Bath, against Insolvent Debtors Bill; and by Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Queen's Prison, in favour of same.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from Medical Officers of Horse and Foot Guards, against the new Charter of College of Surgeons.—By Sir H. Campbell, from Lauder, Dunse, Churnside, and Jed-burgh, for Ameliorating Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).

SAVINGS' BANKS.
On the Question that the Savings Banks Bill, which had been read a third time, do pass,
Mr. Humeproposed two Clauses, to the following effect:—
"That whenever the sum standing in the name of any depositor shall amount to one hundred and fifty pounds, principal and interest included, that henceforth no interest shall be payable on such deposit."

1653
"Clause (after 20th November 1844, Trustees not to receive, from any present or future depositor, any sum or sums, exceeding twenty pounds in any one year.)"
The hon. Member said, that his object was to confine the provisions of the Savings Bank Act to those small depositors for whose benefit it was originally intended. Large depositors placed their money in those hanks as a profitable investment of capital, and would withdraw it at once if they saw any more profitable way of employing it. He looked upon this Bill as defective in many respects, but still he considered it as an improvement upon the former state of the law, and hoped for further improvement next Session.
Clauses brought up and read a first time.
On the Question that the Clauses be read a second time,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconsidered the Clauses altogether inexpedient, and defended the policy of allowing deposits of sums larger than 20 l., and up to 30 l. This rule was found of great advantage to sailors, who received their pay in a lump of more than 20 l., and if they had not such means of deposit as the Savings-Banks afforded, they would run the chance of being plundered of it by some of the worst characters to whose society they were exposed. He objected to the second Clause, on the ground that the Act contemplated the extension of its provisions to a higher class of depositors than those who now sent in small sums.
Mr. Aglionbyconcurred in the view taken of the Clauses by the hon. Member for Montrose, and contended that the original Savings Banks were intended to benefit mechanics and others of the humbler classes by encouraging the deposit of small sums.
Mr. Divettconsidered that the persons whose deposits amounted to 150 l. were exactly those kind of industrious depositors whom the Bill was intended to serve. It would be hard to deprive them of interest.
Clauses negatived. Bill passed.

MARRIAGES, (IRELAND.)
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of House going into Committee on the Marriages Ireland Bill,
Colonel Rarvdoncomplained of the late period of the Session at which this Bill was brought in, and said, that no gratitude was due to the Government for the manner of its introduction. At the same
1654
time, on the part of the Presbyterians of Ireland, he expressed his approbation of the Bill, which would remedy an existing defect in the law.
Sir J. Grahamadmitted and regretted the delay which intervened between the first introduction of the measure elsewhere and its being brought into that House; but that delay was unavoidable in consequence of the communications which it was necessary to hold with the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland. As to the Government not having the gratitude of the Presbyterians for this Bill, he presumed that the same thing might be said of any Government with respect to any measure. Government did not want the gratitude of the Presbyterians or any other class of the community. It was its duty to attend to the reasonable wants and wishes of all classes of the community without reference to their gratitude, and in the present Bill every thing had been done which could satisfy their wishes on this important subject.
Mr. Bouveriethought the Bill rather late, but still he considered it important, and likely to be beneficial. He should like to see it connected with some general system of registration in Ireland.
Lord J. Russellthought, that full time should be given to the House of Commons to consider with due attention the enactments of such an important measure, and he did not see why the Bill should not have been introduced at a much earlier period of the Session, nor why the House should at length be driven to the alternative of either rejecting important and useful measures, in which class he would admit this Bill must be included, or of passing them without having time to deliberate on their details. This remark would apply also to other important measures which had come before the House towards the close of its Sessional labours. Such a practice, if continued, would tend to render one branch of the Legislature, a mere register of the edicts of the other. In fact, it would be tantamount to allowing the Ministers of the Crown to embody their wishes on particular questions in Bills to which the House of Commons would be compelled to give its formal sanction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas surprised at the observations of the noble Lord, and the more so as coming from one who had conducted the public business in that House. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that when measures went up from that

1655
House to the Lords at a late period of the Se ion, the latter were merely registering the edicts of the House of Commons? Or, would he say the same thing with respect to measures coming late into the House of Commons from the Lords? There were many and important measures sent late up to the House of Lords, such, for instance, as the Poor Law Amendment Bill. Would the noble Lord apply his principle to that Bill, either that it must be abandoned or passed without due consideration? He would admit that the present Bill had come late into that House, in consequence of the long time occupied in its full consideration in the other House; but would the noble Lord, at the end of a Session, cavil at an important measure because it happened to be brought in unavoidably late?
Lord J. Russellexplained, that he had said by the practice of allowing the early part of the Session to pass away without the introduction of important measures, the Parliament was, at the end of the Session, driven to the alternative of either rejecting useful measures or of passing them without due consideration. To that opinion he still adhered.
Bill passed through a Committee: to be reported.

BISHOP OF LONDON'S ESTATE BILL.
On the Motion that the Bishop of London's Estate Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Wakleyobjected to passing the Bill when it had been before the House only five days. The title of the Bill gave no idea of the nature of its contents, and the public knew nothing whatever about it. Who could suppose for a moment that this Bill was one for regulating the property of Paddington? Even the persons on this property knew nothing about the Bill; at the Great Western Railway nothing was known of it. This Bill would give the Grand Junction Water Company the entire monopoly of the supply of water to all the houses which were to be built on the property. He asked the right hon. Baronet to allow the adjournment of the debate to Wednesday or Thursday next, so that inquiry might be made into the real nature of its provisions. Who would suppose, from the title, that it was a Bill for regulating water-works? Again, there were great complaints made as to the situation of the terminus of the Great Western Railway. At the time of its being built it was stated that it was intended to be only temporary,
1656
and that the water-works were meantime the obstacle to its being brought nearer to the Uxbridge Road. Now, what did the public know of the provisions of the Bill as affecting this matter? The Bill made provisions for reserving sites for an hospital and a church. It said that the Bishop of London and the trustees might grant a site for an hospital—they were authorised to do so—but they were required to grant a site for a church. He should be glad to see the grant of a site for an hospital made peremptory too. Finding that the provisions of this Bill were so multitudinous and complicated that it would take some days to comprehend them, and that nothing was known of the subject; finding that they were grounded upon an agreement made in May last, of the nature of which information was necessary, he thought that opportunity should be given to inquire into them, and ascertain what their effect would be upon the district if enacted into law. If the right hon. Baronet objected to postpone the third reading, it was his opinion that the House ought to reject it. He should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on Tuesday next.
Sir W. Claysaid, this was solely an Estate Bill; there was not a Clause or a syllable in it that could in the remotest way affect the public. It had gone through all the usual forms to which Private Bills are submitted, and had been carefully examined by a Committee of the House of Lords. Its only object was to give the owners of land in the vicinity of Paddington a valid title in selling their own property. With respect to its alleged bearing on public interests, his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury was under an entire misapprehension. It was not true that it would give an exclusive right of supply to any Water Company every Water Company had an equal right by law, nor did this Bill alter in the smallest degree the existing law. As to the advantage of removing the terminus of the Great Western Railway to a more convenient spot, this Bill would place no obstacle in the way of the purchase of land by the Company for that purpose. The fact was, he believed, that the Railway Company had had the means of obtaining that land for three or four years past, and that they had declined to purchase it. He appealed to the House whether it was a justifiable ground for postponing the Bill, that a third party should be allowed the opportunity of purchasing the ground at some future period. He could assure hon. Members

1657
that not a day had been lost in bringing forward this measure, and any one who knew the care with which Private Bills were investigated by Committees of the House of Lords, might be satisfied that it had been thoroughly examined. Neither the Church nor the Paddington trustees had the slightest interest in the property; as to granting a site for a Church, it was part of the agreement. It was most essential that the Bill should pass; if it did not, very great inconvenience would be experienced. He could assure the House distinctly, that the Bill meddled with no public right. Under the circumstances, looking to the great expense which had been incurred, and no valid objection being brought against it he threw himself on the House not to postpone the Bill.
Mr. Greene, as Chairman of the Committees, had carefully examined the Bill, and could see no objection to it. It was intended to regulate the property which was leased out in the last century by the then Bishop of London, at Paddington. Part of the ground was occupied by the reservoirs of the Water Company, and it was now wished to apply the space to the original purpose of building.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, though the Bill was called a private one, it applied to the property of the Church. He thought that they ought to have had this measure much sooner before the House. He must complain that no breviate had been delivered before the second reading, and he thought the Bill ought to be printed, and some days allowed that Members might be acquainted with the contents. It was because this property would be more valuable if built upon that the Bill was introduced; certainly a Church, and perhaps an hospital, was a sop to the public. It should be made imperative to build an hospital.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, he was on the Standing Orders Committee, and upon inquiring how far the Bishop of London was interested in the measure, was informed that he had only the interest of a peppercorn rent. The Bill, he understood, had no connection with the Church.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill read a third time and passed.

PENITENTIARY SYSTEM.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallwished to ask, seeing that the Penitentiary system, as practised in the Pentonville prison, had been so successful, whether it was the intention of the Government, during the recess, to consider the
1658
propriety of erecting a similar institution in Dublin?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that an arrangement had been made in Ireland, as well as in England, on this subject, to which he attached great importance. All persons sentenced to transportation were brought to a central prison before the sentence of transportation was carried into effect, so that an opportunity was afforded to the authorities of investigating the previous habits and characters of such persons, so as to enable them to decide to what settlement it would be most proper they should be sent. Arrangements of that nature had been completed in Dublin, and in this country the arrangement had been effected by abolishing the penitentiary character of the prison at Millbank, and converting it into a prison for persons under sentence of transportation. His confidence in the success of the experiment now carrying on at Pentonville was so great, that as far as he was individually concerned he would be glad to see it extended to Ireland; but it would be premature in him to state what might be the intentions of the Government on that subject. It would be the duty of himself and his Colleagues to watch the experiment, and if it turned out as he hoped, and was anxious it should, he thought it would be extended to Ireland.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day being read, for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Bill,
Sir James Grahamwas anxious to explain two or three Amendments which it was his intention to propose during the progress of the measure through Committee. Considering the vast amount of Roman Catholic charities which would come under the control of the Board to be constituted under this Bill—and considering also that five of the ten Commissioners to be nominated by the Crown would be Roman Catholics—it had been felt expedient that a gentleman of the Roman Catholic religion should be appointed to act us joint secretary for the Roman Catholic members of the Board. It might be erroneously presumed, considering the large powers given to this Commission, that judicial powers, independently of the Supreme Courts, were conferred upon them; and in order to remove all doubts on this subject, he intended to move that a proviso be added to one of the Clauses, enacting that nothing

1659
contained in the Bill should be construed to limit or affect the jurisdiction of any Court of Law or Equity with reference to these Bequests. But these alterations were of less importance than one he intended to propose in Clause 13. The House would recollect that when this Bill was last under discussion, he stated that there was an obvious legal imperfection in this Clause, as it came down from the other House. As the Clause now stood it failed to carry out the announced intention of the Government. The Government had declared it to be their wish to give facilities for voluntary endowments, not only for dignitaries of the Church of Rome, but for the parochial priesthood of that Church; and not only for those now in office, but also for those who might be their successors. The Clause, as it now stood, gave effect to the former part of this intention, with respect to the clergy now officiating; but it did not give effect to the intention of the proposers of the Bill, with regard to the successors of the present dignitaries and parochial clergy of the Church of Rome. It would, therefore, be necessary to alter the phraseology of that Clause. The Government, in framing this Bill, had been most anxious to avoid using any phraseology which could be offensive on the one hand, or which might fail to be explicit on the other. Some comments had been made the other night as to the omissions in this Bill of the titles "Archbishop" and "Bishop," with reference to the Roman Catholic Clergy. He believed, and he still thought that the words "persons in Holy Orders in the said Church of any higher rank or order than priests," did include, in a manner most unobjectionable, the higher dignitaries, Archbishops and Bishops. If, however, any feeling of dissatisfaction was entertained on this subject by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was bound to say that looking back to the Statutes of this country from an early period, there had been a recognition of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome; and the Church of England, with reference to many of her most solemn rites, admitted the authority of the Archbishops and Bishops of that Church. He had demurred, and he still demurred to the right of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome claiming titles as affixed to certain localities and districts in Ireland; but hoping to conciliate the feelings of those who were deeply interested in this measure—and having no other desire than, as far as was
1660
consistent with the maintenance of sound principles, to tender that which might be acceptable to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects—the Government were anxious to make such tender in the form and in the terms which might be most satisfactory. He would, therefore, propose the omission of these words in Clause 13, line 5:—
"In trust for any Priest in Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, or for building a residence for his use, so long as he shall have the pastoral superintendence of any district, or of any congregation of persons professing the; Roman Catholic religion, or in trust for any person of the said Church, of any higher rank or order."
And he would propose to insert, in their stead, the words:—
"Or for any Archbishop or Bishop, or other person in Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district, or having pastoral superintendence of any congregation of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion; and for those who shall, from time to time, so officiate, or succeed to the said pastoral superintendence; or for building residences for such persons."
The Government had gone the utmost length in their power, consistently with the principles they must maintain, in order to meet the wishes of the Roman Catholic, and having made these concessions he must add that it would be their duty to resist any further alterations.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. G. Vernonexpressed his gratification, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was prepared to make the concessions he had now announced. In his opinion, the Protestant Church of this country could have no objection to recognize the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, so far as their spiritual functions were concerned.
Lord J. Russellsaid, when he read this Bill he considered that it was a very useful measure, intended to secure a very desirable object; though some words were introduced which he regretted, and there were some omissions which, in his opinion, rendered the Bill imperfect. At the same time he must say, that it did not appear to him that the words to which he alluded were introduced with any offensive intention. They seemed to him rather to be mistakes which had occurred in the drawing of the Bill; and he was glad that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose the alterations he had mentioned. With regard to the

1661
first alteration mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, he never conceived it could be the intention of the Bill that power should be given to secure an endowment to a single priest, so long as he held a particular charge, and that when he ceased to hold that charge it should not descend to his successors. The right hon. Baronet had, however, intimated his intention to propose the insertion of words which would secure such endowment to the successors of the person to whom it was originally granted. He could not understand why words should not be introduced into this Bill simply and plainly mentioning the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Rome, for they could not be ignorart that there were Archbishops and Bishops of that Church, who had always been acknowledged in their spiritual character. With respect to the question of giving Roman Catholic Bishops titles derived from their dioceses, he would not raise that point at the present moment, but there might, he conceived, be easily devised means of assigning them titular districts in Ireland which would neither interfere with nor offend other parties. He entirely coincided in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Baronet, that it would not have been wise to insert any such matter into the present Bill, which had been framed for certain purposes, and it was very wisely limited to those objects, namely, that of giving effect to Roman Catholic endowments, and for granting to the Archbishops, Bishops, and other persons connected with the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland a more perfect enjoyment of such property than they at present possessed. He trusted, after the observations that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and the spirit in which the proposed Amendments were offered to the House, that the measure would now be acquiesced in.
Mr. M. O'Ferrall, as one of those who had objected to the Bill in its original state, begged to tender his acknowledgments for the concessions that had been made by the Government, which he accepted most cheerfully, and which he valued more on account of the spirit in which they were offered than on account of the alterations in the Bill itself—though they possessed some importance. It was, he trusted, an unfounded fear that any captiousness would be shown towards the measure after the speech of the right hon. Baronet; but at the same time he hoped the House would believe that in a matter so deeply interesting to the religious feelings of a people as
1662
the Bill was, it was not only excusable, but also highly necessary, for those who represented that people to call the attention of the Government and the country to those portions of it by which their feelings were wounded.
The O'Connor Donhad felt it his duty to vote against the second reading of the Bill, though he did so with great reluctance, being convinced the Government had brought it forward solely with a view to promote the interests and consult the feelings and wishes of the people of Ireland. He now entirely approved of it, and he accepted the alterations that had been proposed in the same conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Baronet had offered them. There was still one objection, however, which he entertained, and which was insurmountable as far as it went, and that was, to the interference of laymen in matters which they were by the very first principles of the Roman Catholic Church prohibited from touching—namely, questions affecting the doctrine, discipline, and tenets of that Church. He most earnestly wished to hear it announced by the Government, that some members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland would be nominated by Her Majesty to act as Commissioners, and introduced as such amongst the laymen who were to be selected from amongst the Roman Catholic body, as by this means the only remaining source of jealousy and disaffection towards the Bill would be removed.
Mr. P. Howardhad heard the remarks of the right hon. Baronet in proposing the Amendments to the Bill with great satisfaction. The concession that had been made was valuable in point of feeling, but to render it so in point of practice the Government ought to nominate on the Commission one or more of the Roman Catholic Archbishops or Bishops, by which means efficiency would be given to the whole measure. Or, if he might suggest an alteration in the Bill, he would propose that the words "other dignitaries" be introduced in the Clause relating to that subject, by which means Archdeacons, Deans, &c, might become members of the Board of Commissioners.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it would be more in consonance with the feelings of the House and with the manner in which its acceptance of the proposed alterations in the Bill had already been signified, if it were to be left in the state in which those amendments would leave it, and if

1663
the Crown also were to be suffered to remain entirely unfettered as to the Commissioners who were to be appointed in the same manner. That was observed with respect to exclusively Protestant Commissions; and it, he conceived, might very reasonably be anticipated that if, in the operation of the Commission, it were found that the nomination of a Roman Catholic Church dignitary would tend to increase its efficiency or utility, the Crown would regard this necessity with favourable eyes, and not render it necessary for the Parliament to exhibit such distrust as to bind it down by itself to make such nomination. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to accept the alterations as the Government had proposed in the measure without exacting concessions that ought hardly to be demanded. All he could say at present on the subject was, that the same spirit of conciliation and desire to consult the feelings and welfare of those concerned which had already been manifested by the Government would influence the nomination of the Commissioners, and he trusted this assurance would be deemed satisfactory.
Mr. Shawsaid, that objections to the Bill after the proposed Amendments had been made, might, in his opinion, have been looked for from a very opposite quarter to that in which they appeared likely to arise; he, however, accepted the measure in the spirit in which it was offered, and should make no remarks hostile to that spirit, or calculated to discompose the feeling of harmony which had been exhibited on the other side of the House. He thought that there was an objection which still remained to the measure, and he made that observation with distinct reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet below him, as to the expediency and propriety of leaving the Crown unfettered in its power of appointing the Members of the Commission to act under the Bill. He objected on this ground to the second Clause of the Bill, by which five Roman Catholic and five Protestant Commissioners were to be preremptorily nominated as members. He considered that this enactment would fetter the operation of the Bill, and create difficulties by keeping up distinctions which, it was professed, ought to be abolished, and which might occasion some one person in the Commission to take a different religious view of questions coming under its consideration from that adopted
1664
by another. Practically also the compulsory nomination of five Roman Catholics might be found extremely inconvenient, if not impossible to carry into effect, for a case might arise in which the Government would not be able to find five Roman Catholic gentlemen who were qualified and willing to act on the Commission, and how, under such circumstances, would the enactment be complied with? It would be far more in accordance with the conciliatory spirit which had been manifested towards the measure if the Government were to be left entirely unfettered as well on one side as on the other, giving the Crown the power of nominating such Roman Catholics to act in the capacity of commissioners as might be found willing and able to perform those duties.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, were such as to do him credit. He would not break in upon the general feeling of harmony which prevailed on all sides with respect to this measure, but he lamented that he could not coincide in the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), seeing that Ireland was in such a state as to render it expedient for her to secure her Jury, if it were within her power to do so. With reference to the adoption of the titles of Archbishop and Bishop into the Act, it was a mistake to suppose there was no precedent for the acknowledgments of those dignities in the Roman Catholic Church in the Parliamentary Records. In recent estimates, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec was distinctly provided for under that title, and if it were objected that Canada was a Roman Catholic country, then he would point to Newfoundland, which was a Protestant settlement, the Roman Catholic Bishop of which place was likewise named, for a small sum to be sure, in the estimates; so that in two instances precedents for the Parliamentary acknowledgment of the title existed. The Roman Catholics of Ireland hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would grant them a majority of ecclesiastics as their representatives at the Board of Commissioners. He had intimated that some ecclesiastics of that creed should form part of the Commission, but the Roman Catholics would greatly prefer a majority of them there. They had it in the case of Maynooth, and why not the present case? There existed on this subject a very strong feeling both amongst Roman Catholic laymen and the

1665
hierarchy of that Church in Ireland. He had received a letter from a Roman Catholic Archbishop on the subject, where in the writer declared that the 6th Clause of the Bill was an infringement on the tenets of his Church, such as no Roman Catholic layman would venture upon. It might be regretted that such was the constitution of his Church, but the fact could not be altered. To any fiscal interference the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood could entertain no reasonable objection as far as laymen were concerned, but where doctrinal matters and questions affecting the discipline of their Church were to come under such supervision, the objections which they had to such proceedings were insuperable on both sides.
Mr. D. Brownehad been informed by his own diocesan, that the Bill did interfere with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. As a member of that Church, he could not do otherwise than believe this statement, and consequently he must oppose the 6th Clause, whereby a power was granted to certain persons to declare who were the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and Priests of the Irish Roman Catholic Church, a power to which no person but one had hitherto ever laid claim, and which that person would never consent to see exercised by any one but himself. He hoped, therefore, the Government would not force a measure upon Ireland which the people there not only disavowed as a boon, but positively regarded in the light of an injury.
Mr. Wyse, for one, was of opinion that it was impossible for any civilized country to leave its charities and its charitable institutions without any control. It was, therefore, wise and a provident proceeding of the Government to adopt and to enforce some general form of proceeding under which the charities of the nation were administered. But there was likewise a species of charity distinct from, and totally unconnected with, that class to which he had referred, and which fell under the denomination of religious endowments, which consequently could not fall within the cognizance of the General Board of Charities established by the Government. He had no objection to the first portion of the Bill, but at the same time he carefully guarded himself against expressing any approval of parties individually put upon the Committee. He thought it would be advisable to make exceptions in favour of
1666
religious orders which were established solely for the promotion of Christian charity, and that they should have endowments.
House in Committee.
On the 6th Clause,
Mr. Sheilmoved as an Amendment, that of the five Commissioners being Roman Catholics, to whom questions of doctrine or discipline concerning that Church shall be referred, three shall be Archbishops or Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. He thought this an important principle, and he wished to obtain for it a legislative sanction.
Sir R. Peelwas against fettering the discretion of the Crown. He assured the Committee that the subject should receive from Her Majesty's Government the fullest and the fairest consideration, but he thought that the decision and the selection on the subject should be left in the hands of the Crown, as a matter of grace and favour.
Mr. D. Brownewas determined to take the sense of the House on it.
Mr. M. O'Ferrallsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had plainly intimated that three Bishops should be appointed, and he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that whether they decided against the Government or not could be to them a matter of no importance; for if they had no confidence in the advisers of the Crown the insertion of such an Amendment could afford them no protection, seeing that Ministers might, if they should feel so disposed, appoint three Prelates the least acceptable to the great body of the Irish people.
The Committee divided on the Question that the words proposed be inserted:—Ayes 14; Noes 36. Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, Captain

Somers, J. P.

Blake, M.

Williams, W.

Browne, hon. W.

Wyse, T.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Esmonde, Sir T.

TELLERS

Howard, P. H.

Sheil, rt hon. R. L.

McGeachy, F. A.

Dillon, R.

List of the NOES.

Beresford, Major

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Courtenay, Lord

Borthwick, P.

Cripps, W.

Bowles, Adm.

Duncan, C.

Brotherton, J.

Eliot, Lord

Clerk, Sir G.

Escott, B.

1667

Forman, T. S.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Polhill, F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Pringle, A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rawdon, Col.

Greenhall, P.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.C.

Hinde, J. H.

Spooner, R.

Hope, hon. C.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Humphery, Ald.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Jermyn, Earl

Wawn, J. T.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lincoln, Earl of

TELLERS

Meynell, Capt.

Young, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Clauses to Clause 13 were agreed to, with verbal alterations.
In the 13th Clause,
"Persons or bodies may by Deed vest lands, &c. in the Commissioners, in trust for building any Chapel or place for religious worship, of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, or in trust for any Archbishop, Bishop, or other person in Holy Orders, in the Church of Rome, &c and such estate, interest, or property, in such lands, &c. shall vest in and be holden by the said Commissioners, subject to the trusts of such Deed, without any writ or license other than this Act."
Colonel Rawdonmoved to insert the following words:—
"Provided always, that if any question shall arise as to who is the Roman Catholic priest, or other Roman Catholic clergyman entitled to the benefit of any such Grantor Bequest as aforesaid, the same shall be determined by a certificate or other evidence from the Roman Catholic Bishop who is the ecclesiastical superior of the person who may be so entitled."
The Committee divided on the question that these words be inserted:—Ayes 19; Noes 38: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Blake, M.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Brotherton, J.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Browne, R. D.

Somers, J. P.

Browne, hon. W.

Stewart, P. M.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Wawn, J. T.

Duncan, G.

TELLERS.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Rawdon, Col.

Howard, P. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Broadley, H.

Beresford, Major

Clayton, R. R.

Boldero, H. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Borthwick, P.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Ad.

Cripps, W.

Brisco, M.

Eliot, Lord

1668

Escott, B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Farnham, E. B.

Knight, H. G.

Forman, T. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Polhill, F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Rumbold, C. E.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B.C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Greenall, P.

Spooner, R.

Henley, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hinde, J. H.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Young, J.

Jones, Capt.

Pringle, A.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 14,
"No Donation, Devise, or Bequest for pious or charitable uses, shall be valid to create or convey any estate in lands, tenements, or hereditaments, unless the Deed, Will, or Instrument be executed three calendar months at least before the death of the person executing the same."
Mr. D. Brownemoved, that it be omitted.
Lord Eliotsaid, the effect of the Clause would be, to place the Roman Catholics upon a better footing than any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. It did not affect personal property, and was only a relaxation of the Statute of Mortmain.
Mr. Sheilopposed the Clause. It seemed to be very absurd that a man could leave 10,000 l. to a Roman Catholic priest a few minutes before he died, but could not leave five acres of land. There was no real distinction between leaving money and leaving land in trust.
Mr. T. B. C. Smith(Attorney General for Ireland) defended the Clause. The distinction referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been recognized in this country for a lengthened period.
The Committee divided on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 48; Noes 9: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Duncan, G.

Beresford, Major

Eliot, Lord

Blackburne, J. I.

Farnham, E. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Fellowes, E.

Borthwick, P.

Forman, T. S.

Bowles, Adm.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Brisco, M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Broadley, H.

Gladstone, rt, hn. W.E.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Clayton, R. R.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hale, R. B.

Cripps, W.

Henley, J. W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Herbert, hon. S.

1669

Hinde, J. H.

Round, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Howard, P. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hutt, W.

Spooner, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Stewart, P. M.

Jones, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Thesiger, Sir F.

Knight, H. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

TELLERS

Polhill, F.

Young, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Bellew, R. M.

Somers, J. P.

Browne, hon. W.

Wyse, T.

Esmonde, Sir T.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Browne, D.

Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 19th also agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.