The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-20 00:00:00

appealed to all those who had the cause of religious educa-
tion and religious charities at heart to reject this bill.
Mr. MILLER supported the bill on the ground of com-
mon justice and sense. The objects of the bill were to pro-
claim the principle of religious liberty, and to prevent the
waste of the funds of those charities by persons litigating
questions like the present, well knowing that the cost
would be defrayed out of the funds of the charity.
He denied the correctness of the assertion of the hon. and
learned member (Mr. Selwyn) as to there being no doubt
as to the ineligibility of Dissenters to act as trustees to
these charities, and he cited the authority of Lord Camp-
bell, who denied that any such disqualification existed. He
confessed that he did not know what a Dissenter was, for
the law had not defined it. He could understand that, in
the days of persecution, a man who went to the stake be-
cause he would not conform was a Dissenter; but in the
present day when Dissenters, as they were called, were
made to pay church rates, were entitled to admission into
the parish church, and bulled in the parish churchyard, it
was difficult to know who was a Dissenter.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE:opposed the bill, which he con-
tended would lead to fresh litigation, and throw doubt
on endowments.
Mr. LOWE said that a difference of opinion existed be-
tween learned judges on the subject, for Lord Campbell
said that the appointment of Dissenters as trustees was
a matter of discretion, while Lord Chelmsford was clearly
of opinion that this exclusion was a clear and unbending
rule. Under these circumstances he thought it would
be most deirable to have the matter settled by a legislative
enactment, in order to prevent litigation that would waste
the funds of endowed charities and other trusts. Then
as to the question, was it expedient that a Dissenter
should be excluded from the management of
schools to which their children were admitted ? He was of
opinion that it was, and that it was only just that the
children should have representatives on the management of
the institutions to see that their rights were properly at-
tended to, and that *heir religious doctrines were not inter-
fered with. He contended that it was not worth while
continuing a system that benefited only attorneys, who got
up speculative suits, and deprived Dissenters of rights to
which, after the act of last session, he considered they were
fairly entitled. For these reasons he would support the
second reading of the bill.
Sir H. CAIRNS opposed the bill, and said that no judi-
cial authority had proceeded upon the doubt as to the eli-
gibility of Dissenters, which formed the basis of this bill.
He argued that when they admitted the principle that they
were to exclude Dissenters from trusteeship, when the
founder expressed in words his intention to that effect,
it was most absurd to contend for their admission, when he
expressed his intention by implication.
Mr. HENLEY protested against the dogma laid down
by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe), that, because by
the act of last session, they admitted children to the secular
benefits of these schools, they were necessarily bound
to admit Dissenters to the board of management.
Supposing that that principle was pushed to its
legitimate extent, and there were children in those
schools belonging to different denominations, each one of
these might claim to be represented on the board, which
would lead to a state of confusion that was impossible to
imagine.
Mr. DILL WYN replied, and the house divided—
For the second reading 164
Against it
Majority
The announcement was received with loud cheers.
The bill was then read a second time.
LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved for the appointment of a
standing committee of fifteen members to assist Mr.
Speaker in the direction of the library, and to whom shall
be referred all matters relating thereto :—Colonel Wilson
Pattea, Lord John Russell, Mr. Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, Sir James Graham, Mr. Walpole, the Lord Advo-
cate, Lord Naas, Lord Harry,Vane, Mr. Monckton. Milnes,
Sir Wm. Heathcote, Mr. Massey, Sir G. Lewis, Lord
Stanley, Mr. Stirling, and Mr. Whiteside, five to be the
quorum.

AFFIRMATIONS.

Sir J. TRELAWNEY moved for leave to bring in a bill
to allow affirmations or declarations to be made instead of
oaths, in certain cases, in Great Britain and Ireland.
He contended that when convicted felons were
allowed to give evidence, it was most unjust to
the testimony of a witness who from conscientious reasons
refused to take an oath.

Mr. DILLWYN seconded the motion, and leave was
given to introduce the bill.
CHURCH RAZES COMMUTATION.
Mr. ALCOCK obtained leave to bring in a bill for the
voluntary commutation of church-rates, and the bill was
read a first time.

EAST INDIA (RAILWAY COMPANIES).
On the motion of Mr. H. BAILLIE, a number of returns
on this subject were ordered.

The house then adjourned at a quarter pait five.