The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-11 00:00:00

•
ments df a war existed. The Hon. Gentl• la has said
that no declarittion of war was made by Gr. Britain by
proclamation ; but should it be contended )hat Great
Britain was to wait till a proclamation of war .efore Sheis
to defend herself from the aggression of an enem • ?\
Hon. Gentleman proceeded to read several don V.s/iu M.:l 7
dar
support of his arguments, but so rapidly and indis 1- ed
not to be clearly understood in the reporter's gallery.) The
Hon. Gentleman said that the opinion of a great lavryer was
taken on the subject and that that opinion was in favour of
the claimants. Now he should remember that when. the
opinion of Sir W. Follet was taken it was a period
when he was not in that House, and when he had not air
opportunity of hearing the question argued on all its merits
—it was taken when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
not a member of the Government, when he had nothing like
an official capacity to guide him in giving an opinion upon
the true bearings of the whole subject. In fact, it was an
opinion given in answer to a case laid before him as a pro-
fessional man, and it was well known how the cases
for such opinions were prepared, and it was also
known that on the manner in which they were
prepared depended the opinion of the counsel. Was that
opinion expressed after Sir William Follet had heard the
speeches on the matter in that House? Was it given after
hearing the speech of the Hon. Member for Worcester? On
the contrary, it was given without knowing the grounds
upon which the case rested, and simply upon equity, and not
law. The Hon. Gentleman has said that after cutting down
this claim very considerably, we now refused to poy it.
This is not the fact, for the justice of the claim is not made out.
But the Hon. Member has adverted to a document quote.i
by the Hon. Member for Hull, and he admitted,' not only'
on former occasions, but on the present, that if that document
was not got over it was fatal to his case. He, however, said
he considered that that document was cured by the notice of
the second of September. Now, Sir, I put it to the House,
and I put it to the Gentleman himself, has he not been under a
mistake in the view he has taken of that notice
from the documents which I have quoted, which plainly
prove that war existed on the 9th, two days after the
tnerhaor
esiteefnicudrlotnyhu statefurther
of things which he alleged existed? Does not
this then prove the Hon. Gentlemen in error, and on his
own showing, I put it to the House, has he made out his
taorruoetu
only
n trouble
that
onee
will
l)
alirirto tuwslof.
gbhoya ,;ntthhoseai
rnn;rte ps legal
iht
iotwi
arguments,
mhaantednhtsle, fenailshuoedruelldy
weary
Ijeaeawryvilel
tohTtheheercaseloib
or published documents, which are before the public, and there
Right Hon. Friend the ChancehosTaelj
which depends on written
Chancellor
e3oarrt. observations
eErwxitt
Exchequer
se
gwsuahei
rdi
iht
ash laey
Com-
plained that new arguments been introduced into this
question. Now the Hon. Gentleman was not quite rig ht
of
that assertion. What my Right Hon. Friend
com-
plained of was, that new arguments were introduced in
the Hon. Member's reply, which it was impossible to re-
ply to, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) only
desired that the House would review a hasty and erroneous
decision to which they were induced to come by specious
arguments.
Mr. HAWES—There has been no decision yet.
Mr. CARDWELL—Yes ; that decision, which now calls
upon us to go into Committee, which de-
cision, I say, was palpably influenced by new
arguments introduced and brought forward by the
Hon. Gentleman for the first time in his reply. Ii the cases
where compensation was given and refused by the Treasury
the decision turned upon the same point—whether there
was or was not a state of war existing between Great itri-
tain and Denmark. The Treasury, if a state of war did not
exist, would have refused to have made the payments which
had then been made if there was not some claim, founded upon
justice, for the demand—and they would have equally been
ready to meet other claims also founded in justice. The pre-
cise question at issue was, whether there was, or was not a war ;
and, in 1810, when the decision was given that there was
one, although it was then adverse to the Treasury, they
abided by it, and have done so to the precut moment. The
Honourable Gentleman called upon them to reverse
a decision on grounds upon which Sir James Macintosh
had never ventured to rely—(Hear, hear)—grounds from
which he was most anxious to disconnect his case, and on
grounds which are now for the first time brought under the
notice of Parliament. The Hon. Gentleman says that the
question has been always kept alive. But the question was
first brought under discussion in 1839—the war existed in
1807—nearly thirty years after the time of the occurrence,
not to mention that the grounds on which the House are
required to come forward to give their decision have been
carefully kept back. I, therefore, Sir, believing that the pre-
cedent will be dangerous, beg leave to second the proposi-
tion of my Right Hon. Friend that the House resolve itself
into a Committee on this question this day six months.
Colonel SIBTHORP—f wish to call the attention of the
House to those Members who did vote upon the question in
1841, and who are not present now. I find that, on the
occasion of the division in that year (1841), the ayes were
127, and the noes 96 ; and I find on that occasion the names
of the following gentlemen, who are not present now
The Solicitor-General (Fitzroy Kelly), Sir Frederick Trench,
the Attorney-General, Sir Charles Douglas, and Lord Eliot,
who is now Lord St. Germans.—(Laughter.) Where are
all the Hon. Gentlemen gone?—(Hear, hear.) Will no one
tell me ?—(Laughter.) But I would say on this occasion
that you have spent sums of money in ornamenting Tra-
falgar-square and other public places, but that it
would be much better for you to be just
before you become generous. I do look upon
this whole transaction as a mean one on the part of the Go-
vernment. Your merchants, who are paying an income-tax
of five millions a year, have a right that their pro-
perty should be protected. Let us pay our debts, and
when we have a surplus let us give away. This will
be the proper mode of proceeding with our business.
I have nothing whatever to do with these claims; I am no
way interested in them, but I think tlisem founded on justice,
and as such ought to be discharged.
The House thpn divided, when there appeared—
For the motion .. 58
Against it B5
11i,• —27

.....ajority against going into Committee... - -
The House consequently by this division reversed its
former decision. _ _

3 PLACES OF WORSHIP (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. FOX MAULE then move the second reading of the
Places of Worship and Sites (Scotland) Bill. The Right
Hon. Gentleman after going at considerable length into the
disruptions that had taken place in the Church of Scotland,
stated that the present measure had been rendered necessary
by the course that had been pursued by many of the
landed proprietors in Scotland refusing to grant sites in that
country for the erection of churches by the members of the
Free Church in Scotland. Among those who had refuseci to
grant sites were Lord Macdonald, who had large property'
in the Isle of Skye. Sir James Riddell, Lord Murray, Lord
Seafield, Mr. Campbell, of Lochnell, Lord Ailsa,
Lord Cawdor, Lord Forbes, the Duke of Buccleuch,
and the Duke of Richmond—all these persons had in
his opinion acted with great intolerance, and inflicted
hardships upon the people of Scotland that were unworthy of
them. He contended that the honour of Scotland was en-
gaged in the refusal by these noble personages of sites for places
of worship for the members of the Free Scotch Church.
It was necessary that some remedy should he applied to the
evil, and the only remedy he could devise wars
that which he had laid down in this Bill.
The free church of Scotland, in addition to all that it had
done since its establishment, was about to erect a noble col-
lege in the city of Edinburgh, for which institution
216 individuals had subscribed the magnificent sum
of 21,0001. This Bill to build gave the same powers
as were granted in Lord Rollsbury's Act, passed
a few years ago, for the purchase of certain
sites. All disputes this Bill would leave to the decision of
the Sheriff of the county in which the site sought for might
happen to lie. He admitted that this Bill was an inter-
ference with the rights of property, but he conceived that
the circumstances in which the free church people were
placed by the owners of land justified such a measure,
and lie conceived that if Parliament refused to adopt this
measure they would not be acting justly towards a portion
of the people of Great Britain. The duties of private pro-
perty had been grossly abused by the landed gentry to
whom he had alluded. He would ask the Hooe which
of the two alternatives they preferred? Whether it wag
not more desirable that the House should pass a BiLl•
which, at the discretion of a certain judicial officer,
responsible to the Government, should convey half an acre,
an acre, or at the most two acres of a certain individual's
land,which was to be applied for the erection of churches ; or
was it better to adopt the other alternative of engendering,
by refusing to adopt this Bill, a spirit of discontent in
a large portion of the people of Great Britain—a spirit
of hostility to the Government and the landlords:
under whom they lived? He called upon them to endeavour
to put a stop to the present persecution towards the people of
Scotland, for some day or other it must end by some Fti--rg
or other. He called upon them by eanctionili&
Itvhhisichßill
mustto partnevicetnt
in
ignorance
time
a greatbarbar
ashort im
portion of the people of Scotland. Let them prevent
religious toleration, which was the boast of this empire, front
being nothing but a farce, and so secure the affection and,
respect, not only of the class to which he belonged, but of
every right-minded man in the world. The lion. Gentleman
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could avow with great truth that
he approached the discussion of the subject a second time
with heartfelt pain. He thought that the conduct of thil
Members who seceded from the Episcopal Church of Scots
land was pure and disinterested.—(Hear.) He was also
prepared to admit many other grounds maintained by the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But it was
said that this sympathy on his part was only sympathy in
words on the part of the Government, but the Earl of Aber-
den was the very first landlord to grant a site for the
erection of a free church. Instances of refusal had bead
adduced, but they were not many or important, for
the Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that several of
the landlords who had been instanced as opposed to
the granting of sites, refused to give sites with
the hope that the disruption might be healed.
He would not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman through all
the moral and
the cases he had entered into. The Right Hon. Gentleman
here referred to the case of a Noble Colleague of his, and had
admitted that he had in every way promoted
religious education of the people, and
neh offeredd every
facilities to the buildingof places of worship. a also re-
ferred to the name of others, among whom was Dr. Chalmers.
In passing, he would observe that he could never hear the
name of Dr. Chalmers mentioned without bearing testimony
to that enlightened and christianlike zeal witliwhich he had
always promoted any measure calculated to be beneficial to
society in general. There were two causes which had ope-
rated very much to cause the present ill-feeling. Those who
had originally seceded from the Church had inveighed
against it in no measured terms. Such terms being heard
by those who still remained with the Church and
revered it, naturally caused against those
who maligned an Establishment which they respected.
Another reason was, that a spirit of bitterness and anger had
been generated in consequence of the ministers of the church
having given way to their feelings, and denounced the pro-
prietors to their own tenantry. That such a course
had been taken was much to be regretted, and it was
the true cause of the angry and acrimonious feelings
which had lately shown themselves. The Right
of the
rah i s properoft tehl
evteypttahhreiesrhNe wo
cbehlreue
rDetwelveh inapda rsgi
csr hoa
tnelsta
n, e
d anddhad
site.at, Osd
Hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Duke of
elevenßich-
nThe°n d outomOo ont
built 600 churches, and 40 more were in progress es and a
million of money was in the hands of those
entitled to
take care of the funds of the Society. If they extended
the principle to Scotland, they should also extend it to Ire-
land. It was the duty of a Legislature to have a church
under the sanction of the Legislature, within a
reasonable limit of the centre of a district, in which
the people can worship. lie could not see any
benefit which would arise from such a measure.
His conscientious belief was, that it would create an immense
deal of mischief; and, not seeing any
necessity for it, he
could not support it. There was no precedent whatever for
legislation on such a subject, and the Established Church it-
self had not such a power ; if it had, it was so strictly guarded
and so little used that it was a mere nullity. Believing, then,
what he had stated, he would move that the Bill be read that
day six months.
' Sir ROBERT INGLIS considered that religious freedom
and religious toleration should be extended to all, without
any distinction. As far as he could see, looking at
the question in all its bearings, they would find that
it Ras only in a very small proportion of cases the griaytkuco