COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 June 1860)

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Bill was one entirely unobjectionable, being merely to bring Roman Catholic charities under the general law, and he therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) would not press his Motion.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, the Bill would give the Commissioners the same power over Roman Catholic as over Protestant charities. It was merely a Bill to remove certain defects of title. He contended it was of importance that the House should go into Committee on the Bill, inasmuch as the Act of Exemption of the last year would expire on the 4th of July.

§ Mr. ADDERLEY
said, he thought that the clause required some explanation.

§ MR. BOWYER
explained that the object of the clause was to place Roman Catholic charities on the same footing as the Protestant charities. As respects this and the remaining clauses they were prepared by a most experienced conveyancer, Mr. Stoner, The object of this clause was to prevent litigation regarding matters which occurred previous to the passing of the 491 statute 2 & 3 William IV., c. 4, which placed Roman Catholics on the same footing as Dissenters. As the law gave no protection to the churches and schools of Roman Catholics before that time, it was just that the law should not take cognizance of anything done in the administrations of such unrecognized charities. The law should not exercise jurisdiction where it gave no protection. Hon. Members over-estimated the effects which the Bill was intended to produce. The object of the Bill was merely to remedy defects in title, and it was simply a conveyancer's Bill. The Attorney General had carefully examined the clauses of the Bill, with which he was perfectly satisfied, and he (Mr. Bowyer) hoped the Government would proceed to pass the clauses of the Bill.

§ MR. DEEDES
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the very best reason why the Committee should further investigate this Bill, when he said there was no use in discussing it by persons not learned in the law, and he thought the debate ought to be adjourned.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
also objected to proceeding with the Bill. It had been said that inconvenience would arise if the Bill were not passed before the 4th of July. If so, why had not the Bill been proceeded with before?

§ MR. BOWYER
said, the Bill was introduced in the last Seesion, and re-introduced by him in the first fortnight of the present. If it had not made more progress the cause was to be found in a desire that the measure should be well considered, and the obstruction caused by the proceedings on the Reform Bill.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he wished to know whether, under this Bill, the Charitable Trust Commissioners would have the same control over Roman Catholic charities as they had over other charities. He had been informed by good lawyers that they would not.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Bill went as far in that direction as was consistent with the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Attorney General had looked at it with as jealous an eye as the last speaker himself. He (Sir George Lewis) conscientiously recommended the passing of the clause to the Committee.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, the Charity Commissioners would exercise the same control in both cases.

CAPTAIN STURT
said, he objected to proceeding with a Bill of a purely legal 492 nature without the presence of the Law Officers of the Crown.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
concurred, and proposed that the present stage should be passed, and further discussion reserved for the third reading.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he thought that would be the best course.