obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the better securing the Charitable Donations and Bequests of his Majesty's subjects in England and Wales professing the Roman Catholic religion. The hon. Member observed, that he had brought in a similar bill last year. He did not intend to press it beyond a first reading till all the Ministers should be in the House; but he wished to have its principle understood. In Ireland, the charitable establishments of Protestants and Catholics were upon a similar footing as regarded the security of bequests made for their support. The case was different in England; there was, indeed, no Statute at present in force to prevent the erection of Roman Catholic schools, or the establishment of Roman Catholic charities in this country. Lord Eldon had decided that point; but at the same time he declared, that the existence of Roman Catholics in England being contrary to the spirit of the law, there could be no protection for Catholic charities. The noble Lord was undoubtedly right in his interpretation of the law as it then stood; but since that period the Relief Bill had been passed, and it effected an important alteration in the spirit of the law, by conferring legislative rights upon the Roman Catholics, and declaring that they were entitled to all other civil privileges, upon taking certain oaths. Thus, with respect to Catholic charities, what was merely toleration before became now a right. His wish was, that a law should be passed declaratory of this right, and which should place the Roman Catholics of England and Wales upon the same footing in this respect as Protestant Dissenters.

moved for a return of the amount of Church-rates levied, and of mortuary and burial fees received, &c, by the various Churchwardens in England and Wales, and how expended, in the year 1830. The hon. Member expressed his surprise that such returns were not annually made to Parliament as they were of great importance. It was not generally known what immense sums were raised in the name of the Church of England. Some returns though inaccurate had formerly been made to the other House, and by them it appeared that very nearly a million a year was collected under the name of Church-rates. He hoped that there would be no objection to the motion.

would not oppose it, but he hoped that notice had been given of the hon. Member's intention.

said, that the returns in question could not be made out without immense labour on the part of those from whom they were required; that great expense would be incurred in procuring them, and that commensurate advantage would not be derived from them. He therefore recommended that the Motion should be withdrawn or he should oppose it.

also opposed the Motion as being of no utility.

did not think that the labour would be so great, for accounts of such receipts and expenditure must be kept by the Churchwardens in the various parishes in the country; and if they were not kept, they ought to be kept.

said, that there would be excessive difficulty, delay, and expense in procuring such returns. He believed too that no care could make them accurate. No less than 14,000 letters must be written. He had, otherwise, no objection to the Motion.

supported the Motion, on the ground that it would be a warning to all Churchwardens and public officers to keep their accounts in a state for public inspection.

opposed the Motion, on account of the inconvenience and expense attendant upon the making out of such returns. It would make the House the auditor of all the parish accounts in the kingdom which was quite unnecessary as those accounts were already audited by those who were more interested in curtailing the expenditure. The returns would, he believed, be quite useless after causing an immense expense to procure them.

said, that one of the great grievances of which the people had to complain was, that in many instances their parochial affairs were managed by select self-elected vestries, and he therefore should support this Motion. Such returns would check the extortion of parish parliaments,

did not understand that there was any unwillingness on the part of the Government to afford every information on this subject, but the present motion was resisted on the grounds of inconvenience and expense. He (Sir R. Peel) should have no objection if the hon. Member who had spoken last would move for the production of those parochial accounts in which he was personally interested—to wit, those of the town of Preston,—to give his assent to such a motion. He recommended the hon. Member who had moved for these returns to withdraw his motion for the present, and to endeavour by local inquiry to ascertain what might be the result of such returns, and whether they could be furnished at a moderate expense commensurate with the advantage to be derived from them. Such an inquiry should be made before they proceeded to incur an expense of at least 1,000l. or 2,000l.

concurred in the observations of his right hon. friend, and opposed the Motion.

said, that such information had been already obtained with regard to the parishes in Ireland, with little difficulty or expense, and he did not see why it might not be also obtained with respect to the English parishes. In the present state of the country no species of inquiry should be refused which would enable people to ascertain the amount and extent of their burthens.

did not think that, without a suggestion of general abuse, they should go into a general inquiry. The returns which had been procured from Ireland had been obtained at very great expense, and they had been found almost totally useless for the objects which he (Mr. S. Rice) and others had in view when they were called for.

said, he should withdraw his motion for the present. At the same time he was of opinion that the returns of such an expenditure as 700,000l. or 800,000l. a-year, which was the amount of the Church-rates, should be laid before Parliament and the country; and he was determined to take another opportunity again to bring forward this subject.

moved, that the House should, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday next. He named that day for the adjournment, as a ballot for an election committee was fixed for it. Of course no debateable business would be fixed for that day, and the bills which he (Mr. S. Rice) had fixed for it would occasion no discussion.

took that opportunity to state, that a petition from the agent for the Queenborough petition had been put into his hands, praying that the ballot for the committee on that petition should be postponed from Tuesday next until after the recess. Probably there would be no objection on the part of the House to comply with the prayer of the petition.

gave notice, that it was his intention, soon after the recess, to move for leave to bring in bills for the alteration of the laws of property and succession; for a change of the law as it respected dower, for the purpose of enabling parents to become the heirs of their children; for the abolition of fines and recoveries, with a view to the substitution of other assurances in their stead; and also for a change in the law of Limitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that he did not apprehend that the bills in question would meet with much opposition, as they had been framed in compliance with the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the law.