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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES (SCOTLAND)

BILL.

On the question being put lor going into Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. OSIWALD said, those English Members who had
supported this Bill had established a precedent for
Scotch Members supporting any request of the Wes-
leyan Methodists to have a similar Bill to this passed
for their benefit, and he had therefore placed
a notice on the paper that it be an instruc-
tion to the Committee on the Places of Worship
Sites (Scotland) Bill, that they have power to extend the
provisions of the Bill to the other parts of the United
Kingdom, if they so think fit. But as on a former occa-
sion the opinion of the House, in reference to this mea-
sure, was expressed in a most decided manner, any fur
they resistance on his part to the progress of the Bill
might be viewed in the light of a factious opposition, he
should, therefore, not persevere in his motion.
After a few words from. Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the adverse views he
expressed on a former occasion_ to this Bill remained
unaltered, and in his opinion they were unalterable; he
would not however again trouble the House with a re-
petition of them, but would rather defer any further
opposition ho might be disposed to urge against the
Bill till they got into Committee.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. ELLIOT maintained that, notwithstanding what
had been urged against the Bill opposite, the grievances
under which the Free Church of Scotland was suffering
called loudly for a remedy. They were grievances
that he believed could never exist in Ireland or Eng-
land, for in Scotland many miles of the country
were the property of one man, whose tyrannical re-
fusal to grant a Freo Church congregation a site for
their church drove them to worship their God
in the open air. The Committee that had sat
upon this subject had reported that this mode of
worship was greatly detrimental to the lives of the
various members of the congregations; and as the winter
was approaching, when these congregations might again
be cruelly exposed to the inclemencies of the season, be
submitted that it was as much the duty of the House to
pass this Bill as it was to pass the Health of Towns
measure. The violent feelings which once subsisted
between the two Church parties in Scotland had now
passed away, and if the House were anxious to prevent a
recurrence of the scenes which lha...t feeling gave rise to,
they would consent to adopt the Bill with such amend-
ments as the Committee might introduce into it. The
grievances of the Free Church were confined to particu-
lar localities, and-it was proposed that the Bill should
only extend to those localities, and be applicable only
to this one religious sect. To accomplish this object
he proposed to move the following amendments :
In clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the word " by,"
to Ibave out the word " the members of any religious
congregation in that part of Great Britain called Scot-
land," and insert, " any congregation or congregations
of the Free Church of Scotland." Page 2, line 2, to
leave out from the word " and," at the beginning
of the second line, to the word " congregation,"
in the fourth line, and to insert as follows,
" or for either of these purposes, within the boundaries
of any parish in which the proprietor or proprietors of
the land has, prior to the first day of January of this
year refused, and after application made in writing after
the passing of this Act shall again refuse to grant a
suitable site or sites, or shall fail to reply to such
application for the space of one calendar month
from the date of delivery of such application,
either to himself, his chamberlain, factor, or other
agent, and provided always, that no suitable site can
otherwise be obtained, then." Page 2, line 16, after the
word "as" insert " after due consideration for the in-
- terests and convenience of the proprietor." Clause 2,
page 2, line 22, after the word "denomination," to-insert
- the words; " and either residing in the parish in which
such land is situated, or within ten miles of the proposed
site." Clause 3, page 3, line 3, after the word " appli-
cants," to insert the words, " having just cause for their
application."
Mr. CHRISTOPHER was very much inclined to take
the same view of the Bill as that of his Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Ripon, but if a Bill of this
sort must be passed, he thought it had much better
stand in the original form than be adopted with
the amendments which the Hon. Gentleman

opposite proposed. He could not see upon what prin-
ciple of equity or justice they could confine the oppsition
of the Bill to one sect or to one locality, for if he were
not mistaken the Roman Catholic body had as much
right to complain of individual deeds of oppression as
the Free Church, and therefore, without saying any-
thing in reference to the details of this Bill, he thought
if they passed the Bill it ought to be made general and
not partial, and he for one should support the clause as
it now stood.
Mr. TREL AWNY protested that the rights of pri-
vate property ought not to be so scrupulously maintained
that a landed proprietor should always have power to
refuse a religious congregation a site upon which to
build a place of public worship, but still he preferred
the clause as it now stood, and he should vote against
the amendment proposed by the Hon. Gentleman sitting
near him.

Mr. C. BRUCE entertained decided objections to the
principle df the Bill, but, if it were to pass, it ought to
be general, and not confined to one particular sect and
one particular locality. The Hon. Gentleman who wished
to amend the first clause had referred to the irritated
feelings that once existed between the two Church
parties, and called upon the Committee to adopt his
amendment bo prevent a recurrence of that feeling. He
(Mr. Bruce), however, doubted whether either the Bill
or the amendment would tend to allay the irritability
which characterised the feelings of both parties ; but if
either could have that effect, it was the Bill as it stood
in its original form, and he should certainly vote against
the amendment.
Mr. BOUVERIE insisted that the principle of this
Bill ought to be established without restriction to one
class in each city. A few years ago the Unita-
rians complained of a grievance under which they
were suffering, of being ejected from chapels which
they bad long held possession of, and they ap-
plied to Parliament for a legislative remedy.
Parliament granted the remedy but it did
not confine the measure authorising the remedy to the
Unitarians, hut made it applicable to all sects, and this
Bill in his opinion ought to follow that precedent.
Colonel MURE said the grievance complained of by
the Free Church was confined only to one in ten locali-
ties, and he for one should support the amendment
of the Honourable Member for Roxburghshire. He
disputed the principle that all sects had a right to take
the land of their neighbour to build a place of worship
upon. Many sects in Scotland partook very much of
fanaticism, and a landed proprietor ought not in all
cases to be compelled to surrender his land for the pur-
poses of a place of worship, without reference to his
conscientious feelings of religion.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE did not consent to
- support the Bill until he had satisfied himself that it
was the only means that :could be adopted to allay the
irritable feelings which prevailed amongst the great re-
ligious bodies of Scotland. He was one of the Com-
mittee that was appointed to inquire into the question,
and it appeared to him from what he heard in
that Committee, that the refusal of sites arose
from the strong feelings which animated both
sections of the Scotch Church, but ho differed
with the Honourable Gentleman who proposed the
amendment. that this feeling was confined to only one
locality. He admitted, with the Hon. Member for
Roxburghshire, that the operation of the Bill ought to
be confined to the Free Church of Scotland, and before
it should be extended to any other sect they should be
required to come before Parliament and make out a case,
as the Free Church had done ; but in resuming his seat
by would submit to the Hon. Member for Roxburgh-
shire whether his object would not be just as well at-
• tained by a simple limitation as by the adoption of his
amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DITNDAS said, when he supported the second
reading Ofthe Bill he did not wish it to be understood
that it was his opinion that its provisions ought to be
extended to all sects. All that he wanted was to see
justice done to the Free Church, and it was upon that
ground that he gave his support to the Bill.
Mr. HUME could not agree with those who advocated
a partial operation of this Bill. It ought to be extended
to every sect, anti not leave it for each sect to come
Prward to make out a case before they could enjoy the
ivileges of its provisions. With regard to the parti-
cular case of the Free Church, he thought the Bill was
nothing HIM an act of justice to that body. If a railway
wanted ante, the House would readily interfere to
compel a landholder to grant it, and he could not see
upon what principle the House coulti refuse to extend
the same privilege to a religious body.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANDERSON said he should support the Bill as
it originally stood.
Sir G. GREY said, nothing but an indelible neces-
sity could justify their passing such a measure as this,
• and he was not prepared to sanction the principle that
whaee even no grievance existed a landed proprietor ought
to be compelled to grant sites for places of worship.
•He should therefore support the amendment so far as
it went to limit the operation of the Bill to the Free
Church only.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY agreed with the opinion
of the Right lion. Basonet that the operation of the
Bill ought to be restricted, and as the amendment re-
cognised that principle he felt bound to give it his sup-
port. The Hon. and Learned Member for Kilmarnock
was mistaken in supposing that the Act passed in refer-
ence to the Unitarians contained general provisions ap-
plicable to all sects, and he trusted the Committee
would not allow themselves to be led away by the sup-
position that that Act formed a precedent which ought
to guide them on the present occasion.
• Mr. FOX MAULE still retained his opinion that
what was right—what was just in reference to the Free
Church, was equally right and equally just in the case
a every other sect, and on these grounds he should
support the Bill as it originally stood.
Mr. EWART opposed the amendment, because he
believed that the Bill ought to be general.
Mr. MACGREGOR assured the House, that if they
passed the Bill in its original form, the landholders of
Scotland would readily fall into its views; but if they
crippled the measure, by adopting the amendment, there
would be no end of agitation on the subject.
The LORD ADVOCATE insisted that this Bill was
an exception to the ordinary system of legislation, and,
therefore, it ought strictly to be limited to the case it was
proposed to meet.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said the amendment
Would entirely change the character of the Bill, and if it
were agreed to, he should feel himself bound to oppose
every other stage of the Bill.
MP. KERSBA w and Mr. DUNCAN supported the Bill as
it origninally stood.
Mt. C. ANSTEY supported the amendment.