The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 17.
RAILWAY ACCOUNTS AUDIT BILL
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. HENLEY then proceeded to say—This Bill
would only serve the purposes of a body of dis-
satisfied shareholders who might be anxious to have
access to the internal affairs of a company for the pur-
poses of undue speculation. It had been urged in sup-
port of this Bill that the railway funds of this country
ought to be considered in the light of public property ;
but how, let him ask, would the Bill benefit the public?
Railway shareholders did not complain of the present
mode of auditing the accounts, and he certainly could
see no public grounds which could justify the passing
of the BilL—(Hear, hear.) It would have the
effect of upsetting a large amount of private legislation,
upon the faith of which parties had been induced to in-
vest their capital in railway undertakings, and he felt
if the Bill were passed it would inflict great injustice on
the public.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, that this was a railway Parlia-
ment, and he was afraid that the number of railway di- I
rectors and others connected with these undertakings in
it was so large that there was but little prospect of jus-
tice being done as between the public and railways. He
had no aversion to railways, on the contrary, he
thought they had conferred great benefit on the public ;
but really the present mode of auditing railway accounts
was so objectionable that he could not withhold his sup-
port from this Bill. The machinery of this Bill was to be
put in motion by a certain number of shareholders in any
company, and surely it could not be supposed that these
shareholders would not cause as inquiry to be insti-
tuted if it were calculated to injuro their own interests.
Besides, the shareholders signing the requisition would
be required to give security. for costs if their application
for an inquiry should be frivolous and vexatious, and he
could see no reason why the House should refuse to pass
this Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said this Bill appeared to him to go
upon the principle of meddling with everybody's affairs
and accomplishing nothing.—(Hear, hear.) He could
not understand the principle of a minority being allowed
to coerce the majority. But if the principle of the Bill
were good, why was it to be confined to railways ? Why
was it not extended to other joint-stock companies, such
as banks, canals, &c. ? Thank God, he did not hold a
single railway share, but as one of the public he most
decidedly objected to the meddling principle of the Bill,
and should certainly oppose it on every stage.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 3B
Against
Majority against.. —62
The Bill was consequently lost.
PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES BILL

(SCOTLAND).
Mr. BOUVERIE presented several petitions in favourtwo
of this Bill, and stated that there were one or
petitions without the signatures, they not having been
sent up-
Similar petitions were also presented by Mr. Stuart
Wortley, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Fox Maule, and Mr. Hastie.
Mr. 13013VERIE moved the second reading of the
Bill, and he did so with some little reluctance, because,
if it did not involve a new principle, it involved
the revival of an old one. The Bill had been
brought in for the purpose of enabling religious
congregations in Scotland to obtain sites for their places
of worship, and it had arisen out of an investigation on
the subject by a Parliamentary Committee, who came to
a resolution that it had been proved before them that
many congregations in Scotland were in the habit of
attending places of worship which were unfit for the ad-
ministration of the sacred ordinances of the Christian
religion, and were calculated to injure the health of the
ministers and the people. The Hon. Gentleman then
proceeded to state in detail the grievances to which the
people of Scotland were subjected in consequence of the
refusal of landowners to grant sites for churches, and said,
in order to avoid those grievances, the Bill proposed that
the Court of Session should have the power of granting
site to a congregation on an application being made to
it, and on sufficient grounds being shown for the inter-
ference of the Court. Notice was to bo given by the
Court of Session to the landowner whose property the
petitioners alleged was necessary for a site, and if he
contradicted the allegations in the petition, a formal in-
vestigation was to take place before a sheriff as to the
truth of the statements on both sides, and if the Court of
Session were satisfied that the petition had been sus-
tained, the sheriff was to go and select a spot
for the site of the church, notwithstanding any opposition.
The Hon. Gentleman then referred to a number of in-
stances in which Government had interfered with private
property, in order to show that there were precedents
for the House agreeing to the principle of this Bill. He
thought, acting upon the principle of the cases to which
he referred, with respect to the taking of lands for rail-
ways compulsorily, there could be no objection to adopt
the course pointed out by this Bill with respect to tak-
ing lands for the sites of Free Churches in Scotland. He
had shown the necessity for the sites for churches, and
he had no doubt that the House would at once accede
to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. EWART seconded the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a second time; and on the
question that it be committed,
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY took occasion to call the atten-
tion of the House to its provisions, and to express his
opinion of the necessity of the Government adopting a
measure like the present to meet a particular case, bat
he objected to its provisions being made general as
against the principles of toleration.
Mr. ELLIOT said he had been taken by surprise in
the House going to a division so early, and he was
therefore anxious to take that opportunity of saying a
few words upon the Bill. No supporter of the Bill was
more anxious to see the Free Churches have sites allotted
to them, but he could not agree to the provisions of the
Bill; while he was sure, from the tone of the petitions
he had presented in its favour, that the petitioners had
misunderstood its provisions. By this Bill any 100 per-
sons might claim sites in every part of Scotland, no matter
for what sect in religion they might be required; and he
was confident that had the parties who had petitioned
in favour of the Bill been aware of the provisions, they
never would have given their consent to it.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said the Bill would grossly
interfere with the rights of private property, and he
was surprised to see no member of the Government in his
place before it was read a second time. He should be
glad to hear the views of Ministers upon the Bill ; for if
the House passed it, how could they refuse the same
concession to the Dissenters of England or the Roman
Catholics of Ireland ?—(Hear, hear.) He differed with
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bute that this Bill
ought to be confined to one class of Dissenters in Scot-
land ; and as the Bill itself formed one of the most direct
instances ever introduced in that House for interfering
with the rights of private property, he objected to the
whole measure.
Sir G. GREY apologised for not being present when
the second reading was moved, but it rose purely from an
accident. No Hon. Member having risen to oppose the
second reading, he felt that this discussion was somewhat
irregular, and he should rather have left his own expo-
sition of the 'views of the Government upon this Bill till
the next stage, had not so direct a demand been made
upon him by the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed
the House. He certainly thought the Free Church had
long been suffering under a great grievance by the re-
fusa of the landlords of Scotland to grant them sites,
and he could not help expressing gratification that
in going so easily to a division osecond reading,
the House had given so decided ann the
itnoiohn in its favour.
Mr. B. COCHRANE was surprisedu
o.aurse.thheandight
Hon. Gentleman opposite say that the House
ex-
pressed a decided opinion in favour
Tr Bill. The
House had done no such thing, for many Members
by sun-
prise were opposed to the measure were taken.
prise in the House going so suddenly to a division.
Free Church of Scotland had been most IQn.
The
a
in its conduct. It had refused every offer a con:ent
that was made to it by Lord Aberdeen, and now it came
to the House to demand the right of insisting upon
having sites in particular spots, whether the proprietor
of the land consented to it or not. He anus
surprised at the speeches that bad been made
in favour of this Bill, for it was one of the most prepos-
terous and unjust measures that had ever been dictated
by an arrogant body; and he must be allowed to protest
against it in the strongest terms the rules of the House
would allow.
Colonel THOMPSON wanted to know what necessity
there was for this extraordinary proceeding on the part
of the Free Church of Scotland? It had been his for-
tune to be brought up in a religious society. which
had to struggle against difficulties from its infancy,
to the prime of its manhood, and yet had never at-
tempted to ask such a power as this.—(Hear, hear.)
What the Wesleyan Methodists did when they could not
secure sites for their meeting-houses was to devote their
private dwellings to that purpose.—(Hear, hear.) It
was related of some particular man that he tried all
kinds of means to keep his horse alive, and
yet he could not do so till some one asked
whether he had tried corn.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
11,c_m, they had heard a good deal about the
__r e Church congregations suffering from the cold,
snow, sleet, and rain; but how was it that no one had
over them to hold their meetings in their own
a sadthst—(Hear, hear.) Scotland must be reduced to
mercial tua,d indeed, if in this advanced period of com-
get sites for their
prosperity its people could not
but he
doubtedeir churches either for love or money;
where money ettd always whether this could be so in a country
been considered so powerful.
Be thought that th Bill had been rightly described
when it was said of i 7 t,hat it would institute a system
Of "religions tyrarnit',
new principle in religious It would establish an entirely
matters. He should like,
therefore, to have time to
gero:isult his Dissenting friends
with respect to it. He re
his vote against the Bill. ted to be obliged to give
Mr. OSWALD explained the grounds on which he had
voted against the Bill in its last stage, He admitted that
gaferievance, an impe-
those who could not get sites hadd
lof;saunppOrttilit.e BAiltl waneyreramtoodhie-
rial grievance to compllati
ned, he should not un e y
extended to
should move in Committee that the Bill be
Great Britain and Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWAN rose to support the Bill,
lie did not
think the House sympathised with the aspersions
upon the character and motives of Dr. Chalmers byetahset
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Cochrane), for hearas a name
revered throughout the world.—(llear, )it
e m-
imed the House that if the object of those who
supported the Bill could have been brought about by an,
other means, the Bill would not have been introduced
and if it could be accomplished before the
third reading,. he should be prepared to 'vote
against the further 'progress of the Bill.
It would be five years to-morrow since the move-
neat of she rrela Church began, and tiough those who