The Express.
London, England, 1848-08-05 00:00:00

violation of his protestant feelings that the state ea a, matter
of policy should make a grant or endowment to the Irish
Roman catholic clergy for the purpose of placing them in a
respectable position. But to a large portion of tho people of
England this was a question of religious feeling and prin-
ciple. lie admitted, as a question of policy, that that clergy
were now too much under the coctrol of their flock', end
that it was desirable they should be less so ; but he was not
therefore satisfied with the doctrine laid down by his
noble friend and the noble baron twits(Men) that it
was expedient to place them by arevb
act of the legislature on a footing of perfect independence as
regarded their flocks ; and, at the same time, to connect them
as • matter of policy or of police with the government. He
cordially concurred in the opinion expressed by both the
noble lords, that the source from which endowment could
not be taken was the funds of the Church.
protestant cch.
Lord BEAUMONT was glad to perceive that the error
which usually prevailed in discu.sions of this kind had been
avoided by the noble earl opposite, that was the confouodicg
the question of a provision for Roma catholic clergy with
the establi,hed church of Ireland, with whkk it had nothing
to do, Although the established church in Ireland was
looked upon as • great anomaly by the Roman catholic', it
was not considered as a religious grievance. No doubt the
sale course was to make the Roman catholic clergy inde-
pendent of their flicks, by giving them, not money, but
glebes and houses which would give them an interest in the
land sad the soil, and while it made them independent would
enable them to give their whole attention to the care of their
respective parishes. (Hear.)
The motion for reading the bill a second time was then
agreed to.
CHARITY TRUSTS REGULATION BILL.
On the order of the day for committing this bill being read,
Lord STANLEY complained of the late period of the
session at which this bill, which involved principles alto-
gether new and most obj ctionable, was brought forward.
'ln so far as the of ject of the bill was concerned, he bad no
objection to offer, but the power proposed to be given to the
county courts wax oo extensive, and that tee without any
sufficient restriction, that in his opinion the menet* before
the house was one which should not receive their lordships'
event without the moat mature deliberation. The bill pro-
vided that when any charity required revision, an applica-
tion might be made to the Court of Chancery
to give to the nearest county court jurisdiction
to whatever extent it might think fit. But who
were the parties to apply ? The bill raid the Attorney-
General, any meson claiming to be administrator, or any
person being an inhabitant of the parish. This was an
opportunity for any person, dissenter or otherwise, who
ought be actuated by feelings of hostility to the estblished
church, to commence factious proceedings, withoaut any
reference to the metal circumstances of the charity. Neither
was there in the bill any provision for resistance to or remon-
strance against such • course. (hear, hear.) Ile begged
leave to move as an amendment that the house go into com-
mittee on the hill on that day three months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR staid that the noble lord had
carefully guarded himself against uttering any objection to
the principle of the bill, protesting principally against the
time at which it had been introduced. Now that might be
a cause of complaint against the government ; but it could
not be a around for opposing the bill, it that bill contained
matter likely to be beneficial to the public. The noble lord
had confined himself to detail., carefully avoiding allusion to
the objects and principles of the bill. The house was aware
that there was an enormous number of small charities scat-
tered over the country, respecting which in case of abuse or
misapplication of the funds there was no remedy. The
great difficulty hail hilted.. been to find a jurisdiction sul
ticiently inexm naive to Which to refer such matters. Now the
county courts having been established for two years, end,
having given great satisfaction, he (•h.. Lord Chancellor)
had thought it • good opportunity for doing that which so
long had been required, nainely, giving a local jurisdiction
to width these small charities m ght be ieferred, at an ex-
pense commensuriec with their means. The noble lord bad
adverted to the expense of the county courts, but it should
be remembered that the present fees were merely experi-
mental, and that when the actual eeriee se of working the
courts had been ascertained with certainty the feed would
oe reduced much below their present amount. Any addi-
tional duty which might be thrown on the judges on sec unt
of the act would not involve any increase of salary, as an
repress stipulation bad been made with them on their ap-
oointment Oust t hey were to be open to certain additional duties
Without increase of income. The necessity tor the bill was
urgent. Ho had prepared some alterations in details
which would meet many of the objectioas which had been
raised ; but these could be more properly considered in com-
mittee. As to noble lords not having had time to peruse the
oilf, it had been printed since the I:ith July, and surely since
then they bad had sufficient opportunity.
Lord REDESDALE supported the amendment, on the
grounds that, in a measure of so much importance, sufficient
time had not been allowed for the consideratisti of its pro-
visions.
The Ili-hop of OXFORD also supported the amendment.
There might be a large number of charities requiring revi.
sion, but for that very reason hasty legislation should be
avoidtil respecting them. The question was essentially a
parochial one; the charities which the bill intended to touch
were formerly administered by the porwhial authorities
and why was the jurisdiction to be taken from them and
transferred to the county courts
The house divided,
For going into committee—Contents
Non-content.
The holm., then went into committee on the bill
The preamble wee oostpoced.
On clause 1,
The committee divided—Content+. for the clause . 19
Non-contents
The clause was then passed, as were clauses 2 to 5.
Oa clause 6, which empowers the Court of Chancery to
assign to the judge of the county court jurisdiction over
charities not otherwise subject to his j urisoiction'
Lord STANLEY objected to • clause which gave to the
judge of a county court, who might have no knowledge of
Chancery law, the administration of charities which mieht
amount to 30,0001
The LORD CHANCELLOR defended the clause.
Lord CAMPBELL said it would be always in the peace
of th: Court of Chancery t regulate or revoke the jurisdic-
tion of the inferior court in respect to the administration of
these charities.
After some further conversation,
The LORD CHANCELLOR promised to take the ob-
jection into cord& radon, and the clause was agreed to.
Su'esequent clauses to 21 inclusive were agreed to.
Clause 22 was postponed.
The remaining clauses were agreed to. The house re-
sumed, and the report, with amendments, was received.
The house adjourned at a quarter to 12.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIGAT, Aco. 4.
The Beers.= took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
SECOND READlNG.—Exchaage of Ecclesiastical Patronage be-
tween her Majesty and the Earl of Leicester Bill.
THIRD READlNGS.—Fullerron's testate, Jessop's relate, Lister
(or Malmo's) Estate, Miller's Estate; Dille.
PUBLIC RUMNESS.
SECOND READLNGS.—Turnpike Acts Dontinuance; Canada Go-
vernment; Rills.
CUMMITTEES.—Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Militia Ballots Sus-
pendia ; Corrupt Practices at Elections; Bills.
ItECORTs.— Insolvent Debtors' Daurt ; Sugar Duties; Bill,
THIRD READINGS.—Windsur thistle, Re., Improvement; Pay-
masters' Offices Cousolidation; Highway Bates; Partnere' Estate Su-
dety (Ireland) ; Bills.
POOR LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
The house having gone into committee on this bill, on
clause 1,
Mr. C. BULLER stated (in answer to a question) that
the object of the bill was to continue in ferce fur one year
the present temporary law relating to the removal of the
poor. The whole subject must come under the discussion of
parliament early next session, and therefore was the present
measure so limited.
Mr. BROCHERTON maid that, by the present law, the
poor in towns frequently supported the poor, while the rich
escaped almost altogether.
Mr. HUDSON complained of the undue assessment on
railways.
After some conversation,
Mr. C. BULLER sad he quite concurred in the objection
that in some towns there were pirislie, much underrated.
It was notorious that the labourers lived in one part of the
town and the wealthy in another, the support of the former
being thrown upon the poorer parishes. lie was in favour
of parochial chargeability as a basis, but towns formed an
obvious exception to that principle. He meant that bill
to be totally irrespective of what he might do with the
general question of chargeability. As for vagrancy, it was
his decided opinion that it should be treated as a crime.
(Hear, hear.)
Alderman SIDNEY observed that if very stringent mea-
sures were not adopted to suppress vagrancy, the peace even
of this metropolis would be endangered by the influx of
dangerous ard reckless characters.
Mr. HENLEY concurred in the necessity of some direct
measure on that subject.
Ekveral other hen. memh, ns haring likewise declared
vagrancy to be an overwhelming evil, and calling for direct
legislative interference,
idr. V. SMITH exprtssed his regret that the circular of
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Buller) had not been laid
on the table of the house before they were called on to pass
this bill, which threw on unions those vagrant charges which
formerly belonged to parishes.
Mr. C. BULLER (in reply to further remarks) said be
would endeavour to meet the wishes of honourable ,
gentlemen by so framing the clause in the report 1
ea to give some person the power of removal.
The house might make the fact of applying for relief
at the workhouse an act of vagrancy. But would those who
called for a measure on the subject tell him what was to be
done with those people for whom the gaol had no terrors,
and who, on being refused relief, would break the Windows
of the workhouse, in order to be sent to gaol ? It was said
that throwing the charge of vagrant relief on the union, and
taking it off toe parish, would have the effect of diminishing
the interest in the suppression of vagrancy. This might be
the case, but he believed that the best way of suppressing
vagrancy would be to tranefir that portion of the relieving
officer's duties to a police officer, whose business
it would be to inquire into the circumstances of
each case. This system had already been tried and
with signal success in soel.:1 places. (licag, hear.) He
(Mr. Buller) considered his plan as fits beginniug of an amend-
ment, and he hoped the house would not oppose this measure.
After some further conversation the clause, with some
verbal amendments, war agreed to, as were also the remain-
ing clauses r.f the bill.
Col. THOMPSON moved the insertion, after Haws 3, 41

the lollowinn clause:
And be It further enacted, that the guardians of any union or parish
may, with the order of the said commie-Mutes, and in confornitty
with ouch re;yulatione an they shit direct, moony or aroiat in pro•
miring the emteeration of any poor person chargeable, or who would,
rearted, he chargeable upon the common fund of such union, or in