The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-08 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lord De Freyne's Estate Bill was lead a third time and
passed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

The hous© went into committee on this bill, resuming at
clause 5.

Mr. SELWYN said that he was happy to say that the
differences in reference to the bill wore reduced to a very
simple point. He defended himself from a charge made
against him by the hon. member for Dundalk (Sir G.
Bowyer) of having dealt unfairly in regard to his oppo-
sition to the bill, by stating that the measure was brought
on at a time when it could not be fully discussed. He
contended that the law had been strained by this
bill in favour of Roman Catholics, and in the first
place it was required by those who opposed the
bill, that Roman Catholic charities should be placed on the
same footing as any other charities. Having referred to
the law prohibiting bequests of money for saying masses
for deceased persons, or other superstitious purposes, he
said by this clause that law was evaded. For instance, he
would take the case of a bequest of £50,000 to a specific
charity, for which only £lO,OOO would be sufficient,
the trustees would be empowered to apply the
£lO,OOO remaining to those superstitious purposes
which had been introduced by the &sting law. He sug-
gested for the sake of the charity itself, and with a view to
avoid it being subjected to expense, that an application in
such a case should be made to the charity commissioners
to deal with the remaining fund, as was provided for with
respect to Protestant charities. His third objection was,
that under the provisions of this bill this measure would be
injurious to the public interests as regarded bequests, as
England should be free from any foreign influence.
He maintained that it would be most dangerous to the
public interest if in this matter any foreign jurisdiction or
interference would be permitted, and if the clauses were
not altered in the points to which he alluded he must op-
pose the present clause.
After a few words from Sir G. C. LEWIS, the clause
was negatived without a division, with the understanding
that it would be brought up with the report in an amended
form. The remaining clauses were agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, to substitute for
clause 1, the following :—No gift or disposition made or to
be made for any legal charitable purpose connected with the
Roman Catholic; religion shall be, either as to the whole or
any part, unlawful or void by reason of any purpose, re-
quest, or direction, which may be deemed in Taw supersti-
tions or unlawful, being made part of or united with such
gift or disposition, but the whole of the property comprised
in such gift or disposition shall be applied exclusively for
such legal charitable purpose.
Sir G. BOWYER moved the following addition—" Pro-
vided, that no such last mentioned trust, condition, or re-
quest shall in any other respect be rendered valid or legal,
or invalid or illegal, or be otherwise affected by this Act."
He took that opportunity of stating with respect to clause
5 that the object of the bill was not to make any difference
between the law as relates to Roman Catholic charities
and Protestant charities. By this measure Roman Ca-
tholics would be obliged to observe the provisions of what
was called Lord Hardwicke's Act, in the same way as Pro-
testants were compelled to do. Roman Catholic charities
were subject to disabilities from which Protestant charities
were exempt, and as soon as these were removed, as it was
proposed to do by the bill, and Roman Catholics placed in
the same position with reference to those charities as Pro-
testants, that was all that would ba required.
In reply to Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. MALINS,
Sir G. BOWYER said that the result, of this clause
would be quite different to what the hon. members opposite
apprehended. Iu the case of a Roman Catholic testator leav-
ing £lO,OOO for a school or the maintenance of a church, and
£20,000 for masses for his soul, the latter would be invalid
under this clause. No such case as that to which he al-
luded occurred, because bequests were not made simply
for the saying of masses for the soul of the donor,
but were given for the maintenance of a church or
a school or some other similar object, and merely a request
was made by the testator that prayers for his soul should
be said. This clause had the full concurrence of the
Roman Catholic body, and if rejected considerable difficul-
ties would be experienced.

Mr. HENLEY contended that, as he read, the clause
made legal bequests for superstitious uses.
After some further discussion,
Sir G. LEWIS said that the bill had been discussed
hitherto at late hours, and the house being impatient, it
was not received with the best humour. He considered
that clause 2 of the bill introduced last year, which gave
powers to the Charity commissioners and the Court of
Chancery to deal with Roman Catholic charities, should
be adopted, and he would move its substitution for that of
the present resolution.
The resolution of the Attorney-General was negatived,
and the amendment of Sir G. Lewis was agreed to.

The preamble was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACT (1557) AMEND-

MENT BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
On the Ist clause,

Mr. ADDERLEY objected that the scope of the
bill was to take the control of those schools out of
tho educational department and vest it in the
Home-office. He objected also that it was proposed
to class pauper children who were in those schools with
those confined in reformatories.
Sir G. LEWIS said that though the bill was introduced
at a late period of the year, it contained only one clause,
and relating to only one point, and when it was first
brought forward he had made an explanation of its object
which led to a debate. The bill originated in a proposition
from the Privy Council to the Home-office to transfer these
schools to the latter. These schools were of a penal charac-
ter, and similar to the reformatory schools which were
under the control of the Home-office, who were only de-
sirous of consulting what they considered the public
benefit.

Mr. RIDLEY contended that as those.schools were in,-