§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY moved for leave to bring in two Bills; the first to amend the laws relating to Roman Catholic charities, and the second for the further repeal of penal enactments against Roman Catholics on account of their religion. The first of these Bills related principally to Roman Catholic charity trusts. Down to a very recent period, the law of supersti- 212 tious uses and the laws resulting from it declared it to be illegal to make any endowment for the promotion of the Roman Catholic religion. The enactments by which relief was given subsequently, took away some of the stigmas under which Roman Catholics laboured; but with respect to their charities, there was considerable doubt as to the retrospective effect of those relief Acts, in consequence of a decision of the present Lord Chancellor of England, that charities—by which he meant chapels, schools, and colleges of every description, endowed for the support of the Roman Catholic religion—if founded when the law of superstitious uses was in force, were at this day liable to forfeiture. He proposed by this Bill to enable Roman Catholics, for the first time, to seek in the courts temporal the due administration of their charitable trusts. At this moment they were entirely at the mercy of their trustees; the trustees might be guilty of any amount of maladministration, without the Roman Catholics, for whose benefit the trust was created, daring to seek relief, because the issue of an application with that object might be a declaration that the charity was ab initio illegal, and continued illegal. This was felt to be an injury by Roman Catholics; and though they had long been sensible of it, they had neglected to apply for relief. But now that the Lord Chancellor had signified his intention to bring in a Bill for the better administration of charitable trusts, and for the discovery of all trusts, secret and public, Roman Catholic and Protestant, the Roman Catholics (in whose name he had the honour to appear) had naturally taken the alarm, and in their name he proposed this Bill, which would have all the effects proposed by the Lord Chancellor with regard to Protestant charities, and get rid of the great injustice from which Roman Catholics had so long suffered. If the Lord Chancellor's Bill were to pass at this moment, the immediate result would be the forfeiture of forty-nine out of every hundred of the Roman Catholic charities in England and Wales. He was satisfied this was not the intention of the noble and learned Lord, though the noble and learned Lord's Bill would have this effect. The Roman Catholics had no desire to screen their charities from the fullest investigation; and they were quite willing to leave to the courts temporal the administration of their trusts. In short, he only proposed to extend the provisions of Sir Samuel 213 Romilly's Act. The second Bill was the same as that introduced by Mr. Watson in the last Session; its main provisions must, therefore, be known to hon. Members, and he should not detain the House by explaining them. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the charities of Roman Catholics.
§ SIR G. GREYwould not interpose any obstacle to the introduction of the Bill; but he apprehended the hon. and learned Member would find more difficulty than he anticipated in its progress. A Bill of a similar character had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Mr. Romilly), and withdrawn on finding it was so much opposed to the wishes and feelings of the persons it was intended to benefit. In consenting, therefore, to the introduction of the Bill, he did not pledge himself to do more than give to it a fair consideration. As to the Bill for the removal of disabilities, he had no objection to the introduction.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISapprehended that some of the laws which the hon. and learned Member proposed to repeal, were the laws of mortmain. In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in a Bill which he limited expressly to the case of Roman Catholics, proposed to repeal the laws of mortmain in their favour. Her Majesty's Government would do well to instruct the law officers of the Crown to watch this Bill, to see whether, in point of fact, it did not greatly hazard the constitutional axioms relating to the supremacy of the Crown. He would take the opportunity of stating, that whereas hon. Members of that House talked of the claims and grievances of the Roman Catholics, and that the very title of the Bill of last year was copied from one used eighteen years ago, namely, "A Bill for the Removal of Roman Catholic Disabilities," the Church of Rome was upon the aggressive in England, and he believed in every other country in Europe. And he asked Her Majesty's Government to be prepared, when this Bill was brought in, to answer this question, which he would then put, "By what authority has the Church of Rome been permitted to create independent dioceses in provinces within Her Majesty's dominions?" And he begged to ask whether there had been any instance in which the Church of Rome had been allowed to exercise that authority in the dominions of any Ro- 214 man Catholic prince known within the boundaries of Europe? He believed that although the instance he had referred to had taken place beyond the boundaries of Europe, still by the same principle the appointing of Roman Catholic bishoprics would extend even to England and to France. He wished the Government to state whether the consent of Her Majesty or Her predecessors had ever been given to the creation of independent bishoprics within the dominions of Her Majesty in any part of the world? He begged to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, entertaining all his original objections to the measure introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Mr. Romilly), and having still stronger objections to the measure of Mr. Watson, he should consider it his duty to continue to oppose those and similar Bills as much as he had ever done upon previous occasions.
§ MR. HUMEsaid, the House should be on its guard against the observations of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, who had introduced subjects perfectly separate and distinct from the question before the House. The Bill, as he understood it, was intended to place Roman Catholic charitable property on the same footing as Protestant charitable property; and he did think that the time was come when the House ought to place their Roman Catholic brethren upon the same footing in that respect with the Protestants. That he understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was the intention of the Bill; and so far from expecting opposition to it, he trusted it would receive the support of individuals of great weight in that House who had upon former occasions stated their opinion that all discriminating and oppressive laws with regard to Roman Catholics should be removed, and that they should be placed on an equality with Protestants. He was most happy for these reasons to support the Bill, in order to render justice to the Roman Catholics of this country.
The EARL of ARUNDEL AND SURREYwished the hon. and learned Member for Youghal not to suppose that by his silence he was prepared to support the Bill. After he had seen it he would determine what course to take.—Leave given.