The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-06 00:00:00

Mr. HUME disapproved of legislative interference in dif-
ferences between religious stets. However, the present ease
was imperative, and he should support the bill as a means of
ending differences which were inflicting serious injury on the
pe lee of Seethed.
Mr. ANDERSON would support the bill, and give his
decided opposition to the amendment.
Sir 0. GREY said that the house having assented to the
principle of the bill, the only question left for decision was
whether the law should Is, of a temporary or permanent
Character. Ile looked upon this as an exceptional case, re-
quiring exceptional legislation. He was unwilling that such
legislation should be permanent or general, and therefore
bad made up his mind to sopriort the amendment of his
boo. friend the member for it • allure hshire. Many con-
gregations of the free church had obtained sites by the ulna-
tery act of the landed proprietors; but thirty remained as
yet unprovided to. ; and he felt it to be necessary that par-
liament should s'ep in to remedy their grievance. At the
same time he by no means intended to sanction the general
prineild • th it wherever a congregation of 100 persons above
twenty one years of are chose to secede from an estabiisbed
mode of worship, parliament should be called on to compel
proprietors of land to afford them sites for their churches.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY holding views similar to those of
the right hon. baronet who bad spoken last, should support
toe amendment.
Mr. F. Al AU LE regretted to say that he had come to a
conclusion different from that of the right hon. member who
had just sat down. It he had prepared the bill exclusively
with a view to the relief of the free church, he should at
once and jur ly have been reproached with bringing in a rec.
tarian measure. The Application for sites was so guarded by
the bill that there wiss no danger of each. being applied for
by parks suck as those alluded to by the hon. member for
Renfrewshire. He, therefore, still retained his opinion in
favour of the measure. He wished to say, in justice to the
established church, that they had so e body laid aside all hos-
tility to the free church in this matter, their opposition being
confined he lblieved to one petition.
Mr. [MART objected to the motion of his hon. friend,
lied contended that it the house interfered at all, it should
do so by a full, comprehensive, and final measure.
bleM ACO R EGO It hoped the bill would be pawed as it was,
at least that there should be no amendment which interfered
with its principle. If the bill were made general, the land-
lords would be ready everywhere to grant sites, and we
should bear no mere of this dispute about sites for churches.
He should vote against the amendment.
The LORD ADVOCATE supported the amendment,
and contended that as this was a measure of except:out
legislation, it should be confined to those cases for which it
was intsoluced.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD considered that the introduction of
the proposed amendment would alter the whole character of
the bill by limiting its operation, not only to the free
church, but to a 'mall portion of the free church. That
amendment involved an invasion of the principles of re-
ligious liberty and equality, and he should on that ground
vote against it.
Mr. KEItSHAW said, if the amendment was carried, he
should teel compelled to vote against the bill altogether.
When it was remembered that the dissenters of Scotland
comprised almost two-thirds of the population, he could not
consent to any rmasure which should confine the liberty to
demand sites to a small number only.
Mr. DUNCAN thought the application of a lees number
than 100 (or • site should be attended to. He was favour-
able to extending the right to all religious denominations,
and rhould therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. ANSTEY observed that the only clam of non-con-
formists who had demanded their interference was the free
church, and in ri ference to that church it appeared that in
twelve out of every thirteen cues the landlords
bad granted sites ; but why should they, in providing (or the
exceptional case, do so by a hid which would interfere with
all the property in Scotland ? He looked upon the measure
as establishing a most dangerous pr. rodent, and it passed,
before long there would be a demand for a much wider es•
tension of its principle, so as to include Socinians, and all
other sects. (Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. ELLIOT said his object was to remove • grievance
from • portico' a. set of pelple, without reference
to whether they belonged to the free church or not.
The committee then divided—
Fur the retention of the words in the clause 58
For the amendment
Some verbal amendments having been made in the clause,
it was carried.

Clauses '2 to 14 inclusive were agreed to.
Oa clause 1-i,
Mr. W. J. FOX said he ha.l felt some hesitation in sup-
porting this bill, as being an invasion of the rights of private
property"; at least if they were to interfere with those rights
to relieve any dissenting body of a grievance, he appre-
hended they must do so on dissenting principles. He there.
fore moved the following amendment:—Clause 15, line 5, to
omit "purpose than the purpose for which the game
shall have been acquired," and substitute "than religious
B
pur Mr.poses.
O UVERIE and Sir G. GREY opposed the amend-
m nt, which was withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to.
Mr. ELLIOT then moved the insertion of the following
clause, " And be it enacted that this act shall continuo and
be in force fir the space of two years from and alter the
passing thereof," declariug that he would take the sense of
the committee upon it.
The committee accordingly divided—
For the clause
Against it
The pteamhle of the bill was then agreed to, the house re-
sumed, and the third reading was fit-c 1 for Wednesday. next.
The report to be brought up to-morrow (this day).
PARLIAMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate
on the subject of the repeal of the union, breaght forward by
Mr. J. O'CoNeate., being read,
Sir B. HALL said that although the question was one to
which he did not attach much importance he must beg the
attention of the house to it fora lew moments. It had been
introduced so long ago as the 11th of April, since
when both the mover and seconder had shunted
themselves frem that house; and he thought it
was high time they should come to some decision as to
whether the order should remain -lathe paper. (Hear, hear.)
When gentlemen who set themselves forward an the leaders
of a great body of the Irish people declared this measure to
be a panacea for all the evils affecting that country, and yet
postponed the consiueration of it from time to time, and
never presented themselves to take charge of it, he thought
the house would be fully justified in determining that the
order ought to he discharged. (Hear, hear.) But that he
might not give those gentlemen an opportunity of saying that
such a course was adopted on the sugrstion of an English
member during their absence, he now gave notice that on
that day three weeks he should move that the order be dis-
charged. It was only throwing contempt and ridicule on
the subject and the proceedings of that house to allow it to
remain. those leaders of the Irish people were scam
towed to complain that they, the representatives of Ire-
land, had no influence in that house ; but it was impossible
for men so conducting themselves to have influence in it. It
was a miserable exhibition to find a measure declared to be
of such importance so neglected by the very men who
brought it forward, as well as by these who professed to be
supporters of it. From this charge, however, he must ex-
empt the hen, member for Dublin.
Mr. REYNOLDS freely admitted that there-was much
truth in the remarks of the hon. baronet. He must, how-
ever, plead " not guilty " for other Irish repeal members as
well as himself, who were now engaged attending the amines
in Ireland. He and many others had condemned the hon.
member for Limerick for bringing forward the question upon
a Wednesday when there would not be sufficient time to dis-
cuss it, and when that bon. member's speech alone occupied
four out of six hours. He (Mr. Reynolds) moved the ad-
journment of the debate, and was responsible for the subse-
quent postponements. It was now half.past four o'clock,
and the house must rise at six. Surely no one
could expect him to bring it en then, particularly
as there were only three repeal members present. (Cheers
from the conservatives.) He fully understood; that good-
natured cheer, but he had already accounted for the absence
of repeal members by stating that they were discharging
other important duties in Ireland. He believed that those
members, like himself, were incapable of shrinking from the
discussion of the question, and it there was any intention to
back out of the dismission he was not aware of it. He
=seed that the debate be further adjourned to that day
three weeks . _ _

Mr. SCULLY seconded the motion. He regarded are
peal of the union as the only measure that could effectually
benefit Ireland, and he was moat anxious it should be fairly
discussed in that house.

Mr. KEOGH did not wish to interfere in what appeared
to him to be a very pretty quarrel, as it already stood,
amongst the Irish repeal members. But he could not join
the hon. baronet in exculpating the hon. member for Dublin
from all blame in the course which had been pursued in re-
ference to this question, for that boo. member had informed
his repeal auditory in Dublin that there was to be found
upon the repeal benches in the House of Commons a greater
amount of political rascality and protligacy—(laughter)—
then in like proportion had ever di.graced the sacred
benches of Concilii.tion Hall. Who could wonder then that
the Irish repeal members were not present ? Neither did
he exculpate the hon. member for Limerick, that bland de-
(Cries of " Order.") He apologised to the house
if he need a term inconsistent with its rules. He would
say that bland popular orator, who declared in that house
that he had always encouraged the., of Ireland to
place confidence in the British 1 • tura, and who de-
nounced his supporters the first • on going back to
Dublin. He gale them all notice that on the 31st of May,
come what might, and even if he should be engsged defend-
ing his seat, he would bring on the question el repeal, but
he did not do so, he only kept it hanging, like the sword of
Damocles, over the British parliament. (Laughter.)
The hon. gentleman seemed to be of opinion that the surest
way of electing a repeal of the union—that measure which,
in his opinion, could alone give prosperity to Ireland—was
by never bringing it en. (Laughter.) If, thought he, by
any chance we can get the House of Commons to agree to
perpetual postponements, than the question is lmmedlatel
tarried. (Lud laughter.) But for the introduction sad
eat of this question he was net disposed to blame
fheirepeeaTmembers alone. He included those gentlemen on
the Treasury benches who had long lent themselves to the
agitation of it, and front whom the repeal members received
at the last general election so ranchencouragement and con-
solation. The plan then was to have a returned If
possible, but where that could not be, the whole power
and influence of the government were employed to
achieve the BUCOOIS of those very men who had kept
Ireland in hot water for so many years by their agitation of
a measure which, if carried, would undoubtedly lead to a
dismemberment of the empire. (Hear, hear.) Well might
his right hon. friend the member for Dsusgarvan smile, for
in 1834 he said " Against drinking let drunkards rail—let
Crockford'e Club against gamin` but let not a whig
government complain (Cheers and laughter.)
The question of repeal bad, he regretted to my, been used by
some for their own purposes ; for they had forfeited their