The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-11 00:00:00

net open to censure for the part they took during t he pro-
ceiedings.
The Lords' amendments to the - following Nlie va ere con-
sidered and agreed to, and the bills were ordered for third
reading to-morrow :—lmprisonment for Small Da r.bts, Law
Ascertainment Facilities, Westminster New ?kids e.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT CONTI:WA -NCE
BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this 'bill,
Mr. NEWDEGATE, after some general retitle 'ks, •said
that a petition had been presented to the hoix 43 from
a number of respectable Roman Catholics, praying'
that they might be protected by the.' hour .e from
the charities of their ancestors being diverted to I ,urposes
different to those for which they were originally in tended,
through the interference of Cardinal Wiseman' .6 nd his
bishops. He contended that this bill entirely set aside the
law of the land with reference to Roman Catholic charities, T
and that the residence of _Cardinal Wiseman in this 'cowl-
try, in his present character as legate of the Pope, s
constitutional. The conduct of that person and his bishops
was most arbitrary, and they desired to divert from( legal
jurisdiction a large number of her Majesty's subjects.. Ile
would instance a case in which, after a Roman Catholic
ptiest had succeeded in getting a chapel erected, ;lame
pseudo bishop like Dr. Brown might seize it, and two y ear s
must elapse before the priest could get any redress. Ho
would always resist any attempt like the present to depi ivo
Rot iim Catholics of that supervision to which othei chari-
ties
*ere subjected, and concluded by moving that the b ill
be committed that day three months..
Mr. SPOONER seconded the amendment.
Mr. HiZ4NESSY supported the bill.
Mr. BOWYER complained of the unwarranted intro-
duction of Cardinal Wiseman's name into the discussion,
and the abuse which had been heaped on him by the hor,„
member (Mr. Newdegate). He had promised to• bring
in a bill on the subject, but he was prevented from doing
so before by o:reumstances which he could not control.
However he was now prepared with a bill, which he hoped
would be read a first time this evening, and which he
trusted would prove satisfactory to hon. members. He de-
clined to follow the hon. member into his statements,
which were a series of blunders.
After some observations by Mr. V. SCULLY and Mt.
K NNAIRD,
Sir G. C. LEWIS defended the course which he had
pursued in reference to the present measure, and the with-
drawal of the bill he had introduced on the subject in con-
sequence of there not being time for the other house to give
it that, full consideration to which it was entitled. That
bill was drawn up in consequence of a petition presented to
the house by a number of Roman Catholics. The bill alluded
to by the hon. and learned member for Dundalk, which he said
was prepared, but which, of course, could not be considered
till next session, would, he trusted, be of a character to con.
ciliate all parties, and during the recess Government would
direct their attention to the subject.
Mr. SPOONER supported the amendment, and said
that, while he assured the house there was no intention on
his part of depriving the Roman Catholics of any of their
charitable property, he felt' bound to offer the present bill
his most strenuous opposition. The Continuance Bill had
been granted for two years, in order to afford Roman Catho-
lics an opportunity of settling the matter at issue between
themselves, but they had not shown any disposition to do
so, and for their sakes he was desirous to bring their trusts
under the beneficial operation of the act. He condemned
strongly the assumption of ecclesiastical titles by the Ro-
man Catholic clergy, and considerei the Attorney-General
was neglecting his duty in not prosecuting such assump-
tions. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN opposed the amendment,
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee
Against
Majority
The house then went into committee.
On clause 1,
Mr. NEWDEGATF. appealed to the Home Secretary to
alter the bill into an act for suspending the Superstitious
Usages Act

-23

Sir G. C. LEWIS declined to accede to the proposition.
He proposed some verbal alterations, and the clause as
amended was agreed to.
' The other clauses were also agreed to, and the house re-
sumed.

On the motion of Sir G. C. LEWIS, the bill was then
read a third time and passed.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. E. JAMES moved the following addition :—"After
Judge Ordinary alone,' insert Provided always that such
court does and shall hold a sitting for the disposal of the
business:of the said court for not less than three consecutive
days, at the least, once in every fortnight from the 2d of
November to the 10th of August in every year, except dur-
ing the periods allotted for the attendance of the judges
upon their circuits, or for the ordinary vacations.' " He
said that wider the existing act only certain judges
were eligible to sit yith the Judge Ordinary in the
Divorce Court, and the- consequence was an accumulation
of 180 matrimonialcanses. His object was to secure greater
expedition in the proceedings of the Court.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
amendment was withdrawn, and the original clause was
agreed to, as well as clause 3.

-The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that with the con-
sent of Government he proposed to omit clause 4.
In reply to ➢lr. D. GRIFFITH,
Mr. DEASY said that the act would not extend to Ire-
land, as both Protestant and Catholic in that country was
opposed to its introduction.
After some remarks by Mr. Bow-van, Mr. V. Scum.;
and Mr. DEASEY, the clause was omitted.
On Clause 5, giving the judges of the court power to sit
with closed doors,

Mr. E. JAMES moved the omission of the clause. He
said the power proposed to be conferred was not
possessed by any other judges in the country. -It
was true that in the Court of Chancery, where there was a
case involving delicate fatally details, it was suggested by
the judge that it should be heard in camera, but he had
the authority;of a learned friend, in extensive practice in the
Equity Courts, for asserting that the practice was
objectionable. Having adverted to the case of
the trial of Home Tooke, when Mr. Perry, the proprietor
of the Morning Chronicle, was taken into custody for con-
tempt of court in publishing from day to day the proceed-
ings in that memorable trial, after an insruction by the
judge to the effect that the evidence should not be
published until the close of the trial, and to the
conduct of the press, which, at the request of Lord Camp-
bell, abstained from making any comments during the trial
of Palmer, he contended that the effect of sitting with
closed doors would be attended with most injurious
effects. In the first place it would excite a purient
curiosity on the part of the public, and perhaps as
had taken place in other cases, garbled accounts
of the proceedings would be published, and for which no
one would be responsible. He called on the Attorney-
General not to press the clause, and he was sure the house
wsuld not sanction its adoption. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the clause, as
being calculated to repress morbid curiosity, and to act
beneficially in regard to suitors in the Divorce Court.
Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment, and strongly
denouned any secret tribunals in this country, which he
characterised as being suited only to the Chancery of
Austria or the Court of the Pope of Rome.
Mr. BRADY and Mr. H. B E lIKELEY supported the amend-
ment.