COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 2 July 1857)

§ LORD ST. LEONARDS
said, that, after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, the Roman Catholic charities had been put upon the same footing as those of other Dissenters. He should be sorry to see the Act of George II., which applied to all charities, of whatever denomination, altered. The relief given to one class of Dissenters ought to be given to all. The Roman Catholics ought not to be allowed to occupy a higher ground than other Dissenters. The Bill, in fact, asked their Lordships to reverse a decision of Lord Cottenham on the construction of the Statute of Charitable Uses in reference to property left to Roman Catholic charities. The Bill provided that if any property had been left to any Roman Catholic charity, which had been unquestioned for twenty-five years, it should be no longer open to question. Property which had been long in possession of Dissenters had been taken away under the old law. That was thought a great hardship, and in 1844 an Act was passed which confirmed the title to property which had been held by one body undisturbed for a certain number of years. The contest was between Trinitarians, who sought to recover endowments which had for a long time been enjoyed by Unitarians. But the question here was wholly different. Not a contest between two classes claiming the same subject, but a question of the abstract validity of gifts of property for certain religious and charitable purposes. It might be advisable 764 to regulate Roman Catholic charities, but this was not the right mode of doing it. Where there was evidence of good faith, it was right to relieve trustees from responsibility, but this Bill gave legal validity to all their actions; that is to say, it gave legal validity to all applications of property to superstitious uses which had existed for the last quarter of a century. Besides, a Bill had already been sent up from the other House, for the purpose of benefiting Dissenters of all classes, by enlarging the provisions of the Act of George II. This would be applicable to Roman Catholics as well as Protestant Dissenters. It provided for the very same objects to which this Bill was addressed. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that the other Bill should be referred to the same Committee, not as approving of the latter Bill in any way, but simply that the Committee should see what was proposed to be done in regard to the relief of Dissenters generally from the provisions of the Act of George II.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the Bill was by no means of a complicated character, and could be quite as well disposed of by the House as by a Select Committee. If the Bill were sent to a Select Committee, it would be necessary to refer the other Bill to the same Committee, and he could see no reason for any such, reference. The object of the Bill was simple, and the whole of it was contained in four clauses. With regard to Roman Catholic charities, these were charities which had necessarily been conducted secretly and illegally. It could not be otherwise. The first clause removed certain doubts that had arisen, and the second gave time for putting these charities into a legal shape, which under the statute of George II. must be done within six months from the commencement of the trust. There were many charities of which all were illegal when they were created, but of which now some were legal and others illegal. For instance, a man might leave some money for schools and some for masses—part of this was legal and part illegal, and it was the object of the third clause to enable the courts to decide how much of this was legal and how much illegal. The last clause provided that when a Roman Catholic charity had been administered in a manner which was legal for other Dissenters, it should be legal also for Roman Catholics. They 765 should not rip up old contests as to the terms of superstitious or not superstitious as applied to certain actions. There was the whole of the Bill, and it would be useless to refer such a Bill to a Select Committee. As to the other Bill to which the noble Lord referred, the two Bills might be united, but he thought that the Bill should be left in his hand.

§ LORD CAMOYS
said, that as a Roman Catholic he believed it would be satisfactory to his co-religionists if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee.

§ THE DUKE OF NORFOLK
, also, thought that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It was kindly meant, but not acceptable in its present form. He had a number of Amendments to propose, and he believed other noble Lords intended to propose alterations. These could be much better considered up-stairs than in the whole House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that as such seemed to be the opinion of the Roman Catholic Peers he would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.