The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-30 00:00:00

objection , and substituted the word " priest." The two
were very s:milar in their character, and yet her
Wrong by
Majesty's Government were accused of doing grievous
introducing this Bill, and offering an insult to
Ireland. He could only say, that if Honourable Gen-
tlemen would indulge in such imputations as
the,c against the Government, the sooner they
abandoned all hopes of redressing any griev-
Itcce the better, for it would be better for the Go-
vernment to lease the law as it stood, than subject
themselves to imputations of this kind. The Act of
1834 imposed a limitation with respect to the amount of
Property to he granted. It provided that no sum ex-
ceeding 2001., and no land greater in extent than forty
acres, should be voluntarily granted for the purpose of
endowment. But it was said that they now imposed new
restrictions, and it was contended that every person
ought to be allowed to make, upon his death-bed, be-
quests for Roman Catholic purposes. That was the
state of the law as it at prevent stood. In England any
grant, to be legal, must be made one year before the tes-
tator's death. He would be sorry to see that law altered.
T„hey now proposed that in Ireland grants for religious
trb,olle iriey poses should be made three months prior to
death of the testator. If they doubted the
iof that, they could alter it in Committee.
1.; was entirely a question of public policy.
44e believed that the Bill, which was seen by Dr. Mur-
ray, contained the same provisions, and no objection
was urged to it then, no objection was urged to the rule
that three months must elapse before the death of the
Party bequeathing land, in order to make the bequest
valid. But it was said that some rule of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church made it impossible to commit the consi-
derationof matters affecting the spiritualities of the
Church to any lay tribunal, that it was absolutely neces-
sary to reserve the consideration of spiritual matters to
tribunals exclusively ecclesiastical. But this Bill did not
relate to spiritual matters requiring the cognisance of an
exclusively ecclesiastical tribunal. The matters, in re-
spect of which the tribunal was to meet and adjudge,
might be decided without the violation of any principle
).Ithe Catholic faith. But his first answer to the objec-
tion was, that there was nothing in the Bill which im-
rasseivel lay
doln. the Crown any obligation to constitute an ex-
portunity tribunal. The Crown would have an op-
of appointing Churchmen to it. His other
answer was, that this Bill was in contemplation in 1834,
that it then underwent consideration by the Ro-
lean Catholic Prelates, whose assent was given
o it, though it did devolve on a tribunal
colu,„„
(They scd
exclusively of laymen, the considera-
tion of the very same questions involved in this Bill.
Right Hon. Baronet read an extract from the Bill,
regulating the Visiting Board of the College of May-
tooth.) He trusted he had now given an explanation
miacient to satisfy the House at least of the intention of
her
Majesty's Government with respect to this measure,
which,
as his Right Hon. Friend had said, and truly said,
acs broughtby in not for the purpose of conciliating public
favour
any undue or unwise ccncession, but for the
purpose of doing that which was just, and doing it in a
conciliator and and friendly spirit. The object of the Bill
r°
ts to do justice ; and the motive of the Bill was to be
w}lnd in a friendly and conciliatory spirit. It rested
thith the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite to determine how far
h‘eY would, acting from the impulse of their own feel-
(„1:, and following the dictates of their own judgment,
stole ePPosition to the passing of this Rill. It was pos-
that such au opposition, strenuously directed
pit• n!,t the measure. might at that period of the session
ter "a". At any rate, whether that opposition prevailed
dissucceeded, he hoped, during the recess, the popular
hei%nctent in Ireland would not be inflamed by charging
1(1)1 real complaints,
with unwillingness to listen
and with a want of a desire to do
t which it considered to be justice.—(Hear, hear.)
did hope at any rate that, in the course
• the next session the Government would not
tauntedbe with the imputation that it had permitted at-
htion to the business of England and Scotland to oc-
tl:PY it exclusively, and that it had neglected Ireland ;
i„at neglect being used as an additional argument for a
ot the union.—(Hear, hear He did trust that
she_ Ron. Gentlemen opposite who asked them what they
stutild do to prevent their being influenced by this cla-
mour fur repeal, would, in their explanations to their
constituents have the goodness to explain fairly that the
wlltaure the Government had produced was a measure
c,,leh permitted voluntary endowments to the Roman
t.4tholic Church—which permitted voluntary subscrip-
;ns to be applied to the building of Roman Catholic
after to interfere with such bequests, and which proposed
Fto constitute a commission of regulation, composed of
roman Catholics and Protestants in equal numbers,
;,,vlog that the principle of the measure was one of
41111414 Y. And his belief was, that if they would permit
e measure to pass it would be hailed by the uninflu-
enced and reasonable part of the people of Ireland as a
measure of very great advantage, and indicative of the
spirit in which her Majesty's Government was disposed
to legislate with regard to that country.—(Hear.)
baMr SHEIL hoped that, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
d not had the opportunityof consulting those who were
e
best able to give him advice on this important mea-
sure, he would permit them to make such comments upon
"es their duty required them to offer. He had waited
with anxiety for the conclusion of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet's speech, to hear what reason he would suggest
?r not having consulted a single Roman Catholic eccle-
siastic upon this measure.—(Hear, hear.) But he had
listened in vain. To this point the Right Hon. Gentle-
Inuati had not thought it judicious or necessary to refer.
-le had heard with much surprise the autho-
risi of the Honourable Member for Waterford
`—r H. Winston Barron) quoted by the Noble
Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, as the ground for ap-
rlinting the Judge of the Prerogative Court as one of
e Commission. He (Mr. Shell) did not wish to throw
ay reflection on the Hon. Member for Waterford—he
had a right to give an opinion, and hegave it. He had
paid great attention to the subject,
lawyer. He did not bear in mind, thatt buth
the
je
ud wasgo notof the a
Prerogative Court must edceessarily be a Protestant.
The Bill
tllwe
tframedants that,nt h
vas
Protestants facto, for many years to
It was quite true,s thaatveth
board. teheoffitricaejsoriotyf on this
Baron and that of th
filled by Roman Catholics. ,Master of the Rolls might be
it was true that it cs. They had been so held, and
likely to occur might so occur again—whether it was
Hon. during the administration of the Right
Gentleman, he could not see far enough into the
future to foretel. But they asked this—how would the Bill
aoperatemajority on the board to Protestants for a considerable
number (21. years. Why was it so ? It was admitted
t the
Right Hon Baronet, the Secretary of State, that
three
:fourths of the property to be managed by this
,board, that three-fourths of the property held under
tzliaritable bequests in Ireland, was Catholic property.
Now
that fact, as stated by the Government itself, bein
beyondg dispute, was it not natural that they should
of them, why they so gratuitously
and unnecessarily placed a majority of Protestants
fpon that board ? What reason had they
c•
_ it, except that principle which seemed to pervade
very institution in Ireland—the spirit of Protestaat
Rendancy. He did not say that' it was so, but the
LTight Hon. Gentleman must feel that the objection was
one that would be naturally entertained. Why should
efe,majority of the board be Protestants when the bulk
Cotholic?
the property to be administered by the board was
ti 4 to
t Let them not suppose that he had any objec-
h: he Judge of the Prerogative Court. He knew
leTetest i
_,,En well, and he was a man of the highest talent and
ntegrity. He would tell them an instance
et it, In 1828, when he acted as assessor of the county
Clare, it was by his decision that Mr. O'Connell
bdeclared returned. He did not object to the man,
wh_ he did object to putting men upon the board from
tts:itn the profession of Protestantism was required as
IT'condition of their holding their offices. The night
Zu•in Baronet had not given a reason for not consulting
Thisgle Roman. Catholic Prelate with regard to the Bill.
to hew" an ecclesiastical measure, relating to property
trin applied to ecclesiastical uses. It touched the doc-
Hiseil)nd constitution of the Roman Catholic Church.
the e ight Hon. Friend was mistaken in his view as to
uee. extent to which questions would arise under it con-
grl with the views of that Church. In the face of the
that 4120 Government had stamped its own conviction
of , °se questions would arise; then why, in the name
ze,,c_°ll3nion consistency, did they not consult a single Ro-
th'en Catholic Prelate ? He was willing to believe that
ne,): acted from the purest motives, and he did not im-
;,0"240 them any sinister intent in that omission, but it
tau Place them in a great embarassment. He would
eould'era frankly that he did not think any Protestant
such ~ehtcr into the feelings of a Roman Catholic on
keti:i question as this. He could not appreciate their
tite,Yes---he could not understand their feelings, or, if
at 4would, their prejudices and jealousies. He would
to le tell them that he would not trust a Protestant
eiphViate on a matter in which the doctrine and dis-
. t 2 of the Roman Catholic Church was concerned;
beettu"seat.‘he had any suspicion of their integrity, but
akin; .laey could not enter into the feelings and pas-
Imed
_which must be borne in mind by those who le is-
had e_uupon such a topic. If the Right Hon. Baronet
havon,sulted any Roman Catholic Prelate he would
oppeos.noided all this. Let them not suppose that ho was
tt
_g them in the spirit of faction. He had received
tin,_'; from a )learn Catholic Archbishop, dis-
whir had never
for his learning and his moderation, and
fightnever been an impediment in the way of the
Honourable Gentleman, and he felt it his duty
cher3press his conviction that the Roman Catholic
over esl could not acquiesce in a Bill by which authority
the GT: church was given to laymen. Why could not
1800 eminent take the same course as was adopted in
the c,"Y, Mr. Pitt, with respect to the visiting board of
• relate Coy
of it r
osaynooth, by which all matters which
thoied,t.o. the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Ca.
the blontlrcp were to be regulated by such members of
vacan,,__l,,ty
death Ronsa.n Catholics In the case of
their the survivors had the power of electing
at
on_ successors. By adopting this course they would
flee rid themselves of the difficulty which would arise
viding to the election of the board. The same
Ward grkeas seen by a greater man than Mr. Pitt,—Ed-
/ttt° publiwe
l%ittholic who appeared thoroughly to understand the
__row,
an feeling, and the difficulty of giving the
Y power over the doctrine and discipline of the
the,
Code passage
(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
Peilal`;.,aol,ea passage from Mr. Burke's pamphlet on the
were ? as directed against Roman Catholics, in
twi. not about to appoint pastors, perhaps, but they
eltrich hielostatoeiclietha.t the members of one religious sect would
of another sect to appoint their pastors.)
trohrYther_
His
were about to appoint those who would con-
qn.e‘ti,7_4l•
0,.
doctrines
Hon. Friend did not see how the
ath 111'17 of the
he could
the Church could arise under
Ie could show him that question could
froilleo„depie statethe case of the Roman Catholic College
Cashel by Dr. Everhard, the Roman Catholic
4rehbi• f„ bhop of the district. Supposing one of the pro-
iiottloftlethsti.s college embraced Jansenist doctrine, would
Tuiliz'ali_cienoltenwbieshtwetuenhthaveacoltlheageeadnudeatthieonvisniftituhgebpoeaorpdle?
at swum' of tilt) laity. But it was said the

be
f
o he
cov
0 0 0O
the

question of whether the doctrine was Catholic, or whe-
ther it was even Christian, did not arise here. It was
said that they were over-sensitive. Well, then, let three ,
or four dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church be ap-
pointed ; let some Roman Catholic laymen of high rank
be appointed, and there would be an end of all objection.
—(Hear, hear.) There was another part of the subject,
namely, the disposition of a person's property three
months before his death. That was confined to land, for
a person in ariiculo mortis might leave personal property.
He did not think there would be any objection to the
Bill on this ground. He might be much mistaken in the
views he had taken on this question. He gave the Right
Hon. Gentleman credit for the most honourable motives
in introducing this Bill—(Hear, hear)—he said it was
conceived in a spirit of peace, and that it would be so
received. A great tnan had said, that he hated little wars.
He would say the same of little boons, when there was a
necessity for a general amnesty and complete oblivion.—
(Hear, hear.) The Government acted on such feelings
with regard to the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. On such
feelings they acted when the Right Hon. Gentleman
said that Maynooth required revision. There was a
boldness and a courage that was almost superior to
virtue. Let the same course be taken with regard to this
measure. Let it be made a comprehensive and perma-
nent measure, and it would be satisfactory.—(Hear.)
There was one portion of the Right Hon. Baronet's
speech for which he most sincerely thanked him—that
portion in which he intimated that the Sovereign would
visit her throne in the west. If she did so, he trusted
she would find there a devoted, a gallant, a loyal—still,
still a loyal—people, and that she would bear with her
there that "mercy which seasons justice."—(Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had done justice as to the views and intentions
with which the Government were actuated in proposing
this remeilial measure, for such it was, as compared with
the existing law, The objections made to the measure
were such as it would be competent for the Right Hon.
Gentleman to introduce in the Committee on the Bill,
and it would be quite consistent with the principle of it
if the Government assented to the amendments he sug-
gested. But the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken
with regard to the views which he attributed to the Go-
vernment in introducing the measure.---(Hear, hear.)
Her Majesty's Government were actuated by no
political or religious views, hut they saw that the
present law required amendment, and they resolved
to introduce a Bill which would place charitable bequests
of all denominations, Protestant and Roman Catholic,
on the same footing, under the superintendence of a
board, which would have the confidence of all, and which
would do justice to all. The question should be viewed
as a question of property, and not as one of religion,
',Mich he was sorry to see introduced into the discussion
at all. Would it be denied that lawyers should not be
on such a board ? An objection was taken that the
highest legal authority, who must necessarily be a Pro-
teetant, was to be a member of the board. That was a
thing from which they could not escape, for such was the
law, and he did not think that any person could doubt of
the justness of the decisions of the present Lord Chan-
cellor. With regard to the other two judges who were
to be on the board, they selected two of the judges not
for their religion or creed—viz., the Master of the Rolls
and Chief Baron, both of whom had lately been Roman
Catholics. They also selected the Judge of the Prero-
gative Court, whom the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Waterford had himself pointed out as a suitable person.
He must also be a Protestant, and the judge who now
presided in the Prerogative Court was a' person
on whose decision the utmost confidence could be placed,
and who on one occasion had given, as counsel,
an opinion against his political friends and his
co-religionists. Ho did not see how they could
appoint Roman Catholic judges ex vi termini. The
Right Hon. Gentleman complained that they had not
consulted any of the Roman Catholic Prelates. Why,
they had not consulted any of the Protestant Prelates,
and for this reason, that they did not consider this ques-
tion a religious question, but a question of property.
They merely looked to the existing law, and they found
that it gave just suspicions to the Roman Catholics, but
they had some grounds for knowing what were the opi-
nions of some of the most honourable and most
amiable of those Prelates, and they had rea-
son to suppose that a board would not ex-
cite the suspicions of the Roman Catholics; which did
not contain Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. The present
board was composed not only of one denomination, but
it was partly an ecclesiastical board of one denomination.
It was composed of the Lord Chancellor, the Judge of
the Prerogative Court, the Judges, the Provost of
Trinity College, the Dean of St. Patrick, and the Vicar-
General of Dublin. Five of those constituted a quorum,
but of those five an Archbishop or Bishop should
be one, and power was given to them to ap-
ply charitable donations or bequests, according
to the intentions of the donor; and in case it was expe-
dient or unlawful to apply the same according to the in-
tentions of the donor then to apply them to such pur-
poses as they considered nearest to the wishes of the
donor.—(Hear, hear.) The present Act was a great
grievance and it was felt as such ; and now when they came
for the first time with a remedy, complaints were made
as to the measure which they brought forward. What
was the opinion of Mr. O'Connell, given before the Com-
mittee which sat in 1829, on this subject? He stated,
in answer to a question which had been put to him, that
the Roman Catholics had no confidence in the board,
and that they entertained apprehensions as to
what the ultimate application of the charitable
bequests made by Roman Catholics would be, and
as long as the Commission remained in its present
state that apprehension would continue. He was then
asked what would be the object of a Commission com-
posed partly of Catholics and partly of Protestants ? He
answered that that would mitigate a great deal ; and he
would go further and say this, that if the Commissioners
were composed of two or three Roman Catholics out of
nine or ten, one great objection would be removed.—
Such is the opinion of Mr. O'Connell in 1829; and in the
present Bill, five out of the ten Commissioners would of
necessity be Roman Catholics, and five would be Protest-
ants. There was no jealousy between the Protestants
and Presbyterians, or between the Protestants or Wes-
leyans, but the Church of Rome singly and alone re-
ceived five out of ten of the Commissioners from her own
Church ; and he thought it most indecent, unwise, to suggest
that a legal authority of whatever denomination would
not perform his functions justly and fairly, without re-
ference to the religion of the parties who came before
him. If they threw out a suspicion that Roman Catholic
iudges would not administer justice fairly, because they
might be of the same religion with one of the claimants
before them, it would be said that they insulted the
Roman Catholics. He lamented the necessity of stipu-
lating that a certain proportion of the board should be
of one religion ; but he thought it most unwise to dis-
pute whether there should be five against six, or six
against seven.—(Hear, hear.) But, if there were any
pretence for this, it was provided for by the Bill ; for,
where bequests I/ ere made for Roman Catholic purposes
they were to be placed exclusively in the hands of the
Roman Catholic members of the board. Yet they were
told that this Bill was an insult to the Roman Catholics.
The Government was desirous of holding the balance
equally, and of doing justice to all, but it was not EDINBURGH JURY COURT.
very encouraging, when they wished to put all on the BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
same footing, to be told that they were insulting and An action for breach of promise .of marriage was tried
injuring the party from whom they sought to remove on Wednesday before the Lord Justice-General and a
the unequal pressure of the existing law. It was next jury, in which Miss Margaret Croall was pursuer, and
objected that they placed in the hands of Roman Ca- Mr. Joseph Hutchinson was defender. The following was
tholic laymen questions affecting the doctrine and the issue in the case :
discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and that was e Issue in the cause in which Miss Margaret Croall,
contrary to the usage of that Church. The Right Hon. daughter of Mr. John Croall, coach proprietor in Edin-
Gentleman quoted the opinion of Edmund Burke, who burgh, is pursuer ; and Joseph Hutchinson, Esq., re-
said he did not think the members of one religious sect siding at Woodside, near Dalserf, in the County of ',a-
ware fit to appoint the pastors of another. How dAd the nark, is defender.
Right Hon. Gentleman apply that to the present Bill? " Whether the defender, in the month of April, 1843,
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Everhard had promised and agreed to marry the pursuer ; and whether
founded a college, and he had dwelt upon the circum- the defender has wrongfully failed to perform the said
stances of that case. The question was, should they promise and agreement, to the loss, injury, and damage
have au exclusively ecclesiastical authority to decide of the pursuer ?"—eDamages laid at 3,000/.
legal questions ? Suppose the Roman Catholics were Mr. INGLIS, with whom was Mr. Rutherfurd, opened
recognised, protected, and endowed in Ireland, and a the case for the pursuer. He stated that the pursuer
ease arose where one person seed another for a charit- was the daughter of Mr. Croall, the eminent coach con-
able or religious foundation as a Roman Catholic foun- tractor in Edinburgh, and that the defender, Mr. Hut-
dation. To whom did the Right Hon. Gentleman say chison, who was the only son of a gentleman possessed
they must refer a question involving not spiritual juris- 'of landed property, at Woodside, parish of Dalserf,
diction, but temporal payments, the payment of money, Lanarkshire, paid his addresses to her about the begin-
the receipt of a salary, the right to receive as a proles- ning of last year, and was accepted by the young. lady.
sor, in a particular body, a certain amount of It was difficult to say whether he had ever been sincere
stipend ? Did he saye they should refer to the in his addresses; if he were, it was impossible to ascer-
Church of Rome ? Why, that at once claimed taro from what cause he had been induced to break off
for the Church of Rome the recognition, the the match. The Learned Cousel then proceeded to
protection, and the authority of the law, provided it were read various letters addressed by the defendant to the
always upon its side, while for the maintenance of these pursuer, all breathing the warmest affection and attach •
rights it refused to bide by its decision.—(Hear, hear.) ment, but most of them adverting to the fact that
That was a very large and important question. He would his sisters were opposed to the match, and that they
like to know whether there was any religious persuasion were endeavouring to stir up his father against
in this or any other country which claimed that excite- it, in which he was apprehensive they would succeed.
sive right?—(Hear, hear.) He was speaking of tem- At the same time, he declared emphatically, and in re-
pored stipends and salaries, received qua professor of a peated letters, that no opposition on their part, or on
particular university, and not of the appointment of a that of his father, would have the slightest effect in
professor, if that professor should have been appointed, causing him to change his purpose. His letters also
Mr. SHEIL—By the Protestant majority. bore testimony to the fact that he kept a race-hore—
Lord STANLEY said there was no appointment by that he was in the Lanarkshire Yeomanry—and that
the Commission. It was intended to see that property he indulged in other amusements altogether incon-
was applied to the purposes, be they Protestant or be sistent with the defence which was now set up by the
they Roman Catholic, for which the founder intended defender, that he was so utterly poor, and dependent
for subsistence upon his friends. In June last year,
it.—(Hear, hear.) If the Roman Catholic professorship
of theology in Maynooth were recognised by the law, he paid a visit to Edinburgh, and spent ten days or a
the ultimate resort, in case of any dispute, must be to fortnight in Mr. Croall's house, where he was received
the Lord Chancellor. But if the Hon. Gentleman said by the family with the utmost cordiality. At that time
it was a matter of discipline in the Roman Catholic he went with Miss Croall and another lady to the shop
Church not to entrust these matters to laymen, he of a jeweller in town, with the intention of purchasing
begged to say there was nothing to prevent the appoint- for her a diamond ring, but when there, was induced to
ment of a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, or of any number change his purpose; and buy a gold watch, with which
of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. There was nothing to he presented her. After his return home, on the 29th
declare by law that these legal questions should be de- June, he wrote to the pursuer, intimating that he had
cided by an ecclesiastical tribunal, and he confessed he had a conversation with his father on the subject of his
should think it most unwise in the British Par- marriage, in which his father, while fully admitting the
liament to give that power to any Church, be it respectability of the pursuer's family, and the unble-
mished nature of her character, thought that his son
Protestant or be it Roman Catholic. In confining
exclusively Protestant charities to exclusively Protestant might have made a more advantageous match, and ob-
Commissioners, and exclusively Catholic charities to ex- jetted that the pursuer was beneath him in rank. This
elusively Catholic Commissioners, they were doing all in the defender denied. The conversation dropped, the
their power to place the different religious denominations writer added, by the father declaring that he was un-
on a footing of perfect and entire equality. They had alterably opposed to the match, while the son declared
sought to do away with the religious jealousies of either' firmly, on the other hand, that nothing but death should
party by confining to the care of each the religious cha- prevent him from carrying his intentions into effect.
rities which belonged to that particular denomination. A day or two afterwards he wrote again, in which he
repeated the substance of this conversation, and added,
Further than this by law he thought it would be unwise
to go. • They were ready in Committee to consider the-
that he had had a conversation with one of his sisters,
in which she stated that she would offer no further
(Hear, hear.) They had anxiously considered the ob-
objections to the details which any party might make.—
opposition to his marriage ; and he congratulates the
jeetions which were raised in 1829 by Mr. ' pursuer on this first indication of a bright change in
till the 20th of August, when a change in the style of their circumstances. Matters remained in this state
O'Connell, the great lay leader of the Ca- ;
tholics ; they had anxiously considered the pro- '
find in them what he (Mr. Inglis) must call a cunning
the defender's letter began to appear. The jury would
positions which in 1834 were assented to by Dr.
and gradually executed device to shake himself free from
his promises; and his object was to disgust Miss Croall with
Murray, one of the most estimable of the Roman Ca-
her
topropects of matrimonial life, and thus to induce
tholic prelates ; they had sought to shape their mese I
herlle
wrote give v
that
u p
he
the engagement.a
dunpleasant On
enwtsh eto2ottehliohf
her, that
sure so as, without giving ascendancy to either party,
to do justice to both, and to unite both in the common
his father was unalterably opposed to the marriage. He
work of charity; and he should deeply regret if the mea-
sure should be rejected on its second reading on the
had known this some weeks before, but he Was unwilling
principle introduced •, and if, even on the discussion of
which w" to te her. Why, said the Learned Counsel, he did tell
the details, it should be met either by Protestants or
Roman Catholics with a sectarian feeling,

the farthest of all from the motives by which her Ma-
jesty's Government had been actuated.
Mr. BELLEW explained.
Mr. WYSE said that no person who had considered
with any attention the principles on which the existing
board was founded, could fail to admit that it was to-
tally unfit to carry out this object. It was of the highest
importance that in the present position of Ireland they
should have the amplest security for the proper
carrying out of charitable intentions.—(Hear, hear.)
The board was intended to undermine the Ca-
tholic religion, and the question before the House
was, whethr the measure before the House provided a
sufficient remedy? He admitted, fully, that the ques-
tion of temporalities was a question of property, but
they often became mixed up with spiritual matters.
The State should not go beyond its legitimate sphere
and interfere with what was spiritual.—(Hear, hear.)
Bequests and donations to hospitals and institutions of a
similar nature, fairly came under the influence of a
mixed Commission, but there were other charities which,
being strictly of a spiritual character, should not be sub-
mitted to the same influence. There was no jealousy on
the part of the people of Ireland against a board for the
administration of general charities, but they were tealous
of interference with spiritual matters, and the question
was, whether this Bill provided for the removal
of jealousies of that nature. He wished to see
one ecclesiastic at least on the board.—(Hear.)
The question which the board would have to decide
would be the proper application of a fund left for re-
ligious purposes, and that question must be decided by
a reference to doctrines. The Noble Lord said that in
the case of a professorship there would be an appeal to
the Lord Chancellor. But the Lord Chancellor must
refer to the Commission for their opinion. Would it not
be much better to nominate a bishop on the board who,
in limine, could decide whether certain doctrines were or
were not in accordance with those of the Church ? His
principal objection to the Bill was, that its object being
to conciliate the people of Ireland, the Government did
not take the precaution to ascertain the opinion of the
Catholic prelates, and that the Government had not
shown sufficient regard for their poSition or character ;
and he thought it would be a wiser course to make the
Bill acceptable at once, than to leave it to be amended
at a future time. t
Mr. HUME believed the Bill had been brought for-
ward in the spirit of peace, and all that he wished was
that every measure connected with Ireland should be
brought forward in the same spirit. He gave the Go-
vernment the greatest credit for what they had done,
and he did not think that the objections that had been
taken to the measure would do any good for Ireland.
Colonel RAWDON thought there was great necessity
for the measure, and he should therefore give it his sup-
port. He believed it had been brought forward in a good
and kind spirit.
Mr. D. BROWNE deprecated a measure of such im-
portance being brought forward at so late a period of
the session. He believed the measure would not be
satisfactory to the people of Ireland ; and he thought
the Government ought to postpone the further consi-
deration of the measure to another session. If the Go-
vernment attempted to force the measure through the
House during the present session, they would greatly
outrage the feelings of the people of Ireland.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there
appeared—
For the second reading 7l
Against it
Majority . .
_

-66

.. -
On entering the gallery we found,
Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL protesting against the
provisions of the Bill. Why should not the clergy of a
higher order be termed bishops and archbishops ? the
question had been repeatedly asked, and had been yet
unanswered. Neither had there been any satisfactory
reason given why the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland had
not been consulted. He had moved an amendment that
instead of the words " clergy of the higher order," it
should be, " bishops and archbishops." On the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill the Government acknowledged that they had
consulted the Dissenting clergy, but they disdained to treat
the Catholic clergy in the same manner. The Govern-
ment gave notice of their intention to bring in this Bill
in February, and brought it forward in the month of
June, and introduced a clause by which a lay Commis-
sion would have power over the doctrines and discipline
of the Church of Rome. To this he in the strongest
manner objected. The only consolation Roman Catho-
lics would have was, that the Bill was not compulsory.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed on Thurs-
day next.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the order of the day for the
House going into Committee on the Marriages (Ireland)
Bill.

The Bill then went through Committee pro forma.
The Report on the Savings' Bank Bill was then
brought up.
The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill passed through Commit-
tee, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow
PRIVY COUNCIL BILL.

The report on this Bill was brought up.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE proposed that the following
clause should be added to the Bill :—" And be it en-
acted, that in all causes of appeal to her Majesty in
Council from Ecclesiastical Courts, and from Admiralty
or Vice-Admiralty Courts, which now are or may here-
after be depending, in which any person duly monished
or cited or requested to comply with any lawful order
or decree of her Majesty in Council, or of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council or their surrogates,
made before or after the passing of this Act, shall have
neglected or refused, or shall neglect or refuse, to pay
obedience to such lawful order or decree, or shall have
committed or shall commit any contempt of the process
under the seal of her Majesty in ecclesiastical and mari-
. _

time causes, it shall be lawful for the said Jndicial Com-
mittee or their surrogates to pronounce such person to
be contumacious and in contempt, and after he or she
shall have been so pronounced contumacious and in con-
tempt, to cause process of sequestration to issue under the
said seal of her Majesty against the real and personal es-
tate, goods, chattels, and effects, wheresoever lying, within
the dominions of her Majesty, of the person against or
upon whom such order or decree shall have been made,
in order to enforce obedience to the same, and payment
of the expenses attending such sequestration, and all
proceedings consequent thereon, and to make such fur-
ther order in respect of, or consequent on, such seques-
tration, and in respect to such real and personal estate,
goods, chattels, and effects sequestrated thereby, as may
be necessary, or for payment of moneys arising from the
same, to the person to whom the same may be due, or
into the registry of the High Court of Admiralty and
Appeals, for the benefit of those who may be ultimately
entitled thereto."—The clause was passed, and the report
agreed to.
Mr. HUTT moved the Lords' Amendments to the
Aliens Bill, which were agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUOE.
Mr. ST AFFORD O'BRIEN moved for leave to
bring in a Bill to regulate the sale of agricultural pro-
duce in Ireland.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Ten o'clock.