The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-06 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION.

The Third Edition of The Sun of last Evening was published
in thus for delivery in town at 7.15 p.m.

After some further discussion,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN 11.

JURIES BILL.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—THIS DAY.
The Speaker took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.

CHINA.

Sir W. LAwsoN moved an address for copy or extracts
of correspondence with English missionary societies or
missionaries on inland residence in China.

The motion was agreed to.
MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.

Sir T. BAZLEY presented a petition from Manchester
Praying for the discharge of the order for the appoint-
ment of a select committee to inquire into these insti-
tutions.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Hadfield, Mr.
C. Forster, and other hon members.
SITES OF PLACES OF WORSHIP BILL.

Mr. 0. MORGAN, in moving the second reading of this
bill, referred to the attempts that had been made to legis-
late on the subject many years ago, but without success.
In 1848 a bill had been brought in, but it did not receive
the sanction of Parliament, and since that time
cases of hardship had occurred by the opera-
tion of the present law. That this bill was
not regarded as an interference with the rights of
private property, he instanced the attenuated state
of the House, and the entire absence of the hon.
members, who usually occupied the front Opposition
bench. The absence of hon. members might be attributed
to another cause, which now was looked upon as a national
event, and which took place that day.. Yet he thought
he was fully justified in coming to the conclusion
that this bill was not regarded with so much alarm as
some persons were inclined to think. The hon. gentleman
then proceeded to quote cases of extreme hardship that
had occurred through the want of a bill like that now be-
fore the House, and then taking, as he said, a case that
might occur, he selected the Marquis of Bute,
a nobleman of great wealth, who owned the greater part
of the town of Cardiff. Supposing, he said, the
immense wealth of that nobleman were to pass into the
hands of a bigoted Roman Catholic it was possible for the
person to say that the town of Cardiff should not have one
single place for Protestant worship or for a Protestant
school ; and he (Mr. Morgan) did not think that such a
state of things was right. The bill that he had the honour
to submit to the House had two principles, one of which
extended to places of worship, and the other to schools,
and he had been asked to cut out that portion of it which
related to places of worship, and confine its operations to
schools, but he could not assent to such a proposition.
Having denied that his bill interfered with the rights of
private property, or that it could be called a dissenting
bill, he proceeded to state its provisions. The process
to be pursued if the bill became law would
be to present a memorial to the Inclosure
Commissioners, a body created under a modern Act of
Parliament, and composed of lawyers competent to deal
with questions of property and tenure of land. The
memorial must state that no eligible or convenient site
could be obtained without that step, and it must be signed
by at least one hundred persons. The bill empowered
the Commissioners to institute a local inquiry
into the circumstances, and on ;being satisfied that
they were correctly stated, to put in force
the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, the
valuation of land to be taken to be made by a justice of
the peace. The bill as it stood gave every reasonable safe-
guard to private property, and if the House should be
induced to give it its sanction it would seldom, if ever,
require to be put in force. After the landowners had con-
sented to ha:ve their land cut up by railways, and their houses
made uninhabitable, they could not • conscientiously
raise any obstacle to the passing of the bill he had brought
under the consideration of the House. He could not give
a greater or more telling instance of the inequality of the
manner in which property was taken for railways than
by asking those who travelled either to Liverpool
or Manchester by railway to notice the coun-
try as they passed along, and they would find
that the palaces of the bishop, the deer park of the noble-
men, and the mansions of the wealthy, were all very in-
geniously avoided, whilst the cottages of the poor were
trampled down with remorsless indifference. He admitted
that the present demand for the bill was now little more
than a whisper, but in his county at least, if they rejected
the measure he felt certain it would deepen into a fierce
and fanatical cry.

Mr. G. GREGORY moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months, on the ground that the bill was
an interference with the rights of property, and that it
was altogether uncalled for.

Mr. H. RICHARDS regretted that any necessity should
exist for such a measure. He acknowledged that many
Conservative landlords, in the matter of sites for
chapels and schools were disposed to act not only in a
fair and just, but in a liberal and generous manner towards
their non-conformist neighbours. He believed, too, that
many of the difficulties complained of, arose not from
want of will on the part of the landowner, but from want
of legal powers. There was, however, a minority of
landowners, who acted in a different spirit. The
hon. gentleman talked about interference with the rights
of property, but he (Mr. Richards) asked whether
it was right that the population of a district should be left
in hopeless and eternal ignorance, in obedience to the
caprice of some narrow-minded bigot. Under the law as
it at present existed it might happen that an intolerant
landowner might come into the possession of a vast
extent of property, and might utterly proscribe every form
of religion but his own, a species of religious persecution,
which had been discarded by every state in Europe.
Mr. HARDY thought that no case had been made out
for a compulsory sytem. He thought that public opinion
would remove the objections complained of, and he did
not think that Parliament should legislate in such a
matter, because a few, and there were only a few, as the
last speaker confessed, refused sites for chapels.
Mr. BRUCE, on the part of the Government, assented to
the second reading. With regard to the most important
part of the bill, namely, the proposal to give compulsory
power to obtain sites for chapels, he thought a very
strong case should be made out before such a great change
should be made in the law. The gentleman who intro.
duced the bill seemed to rest his case upon the fact that
chapels being places of public utility, it was the duty of
the State to compel landowners to furnish sites. But
chapels were not the only places of public utility, and lig
mentioned hospitals as an instance.
Mr. S. HILL spoke against the measure because he did
not think sufficient evidence had been given to the House
to justify them in assenting to the second reading.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the compulsory principle of
the bill.
Mr. HINDE PALMER said that when he gave his sanction
to the bill he considered that the compulsory principle
was attended with sufficient safeguard against its impro•
per exercise. The Enclosure Commissioners would
doubless refuse to give their sanction to the exercise of
compulsory powers in any case which they might deem
substantially an annoyance to landowners. He was pre-
pared to give his adhesion to the principle of the bill
to the fullest extent. He considered that there
was ample necessity for the measure. The only thing was
to surround the compulsory clauses with proper safeguards
against their being enforced in a manner which would
annoy the landed proprietors.
Mr. LIDDELL thought before they were asked to assent
to such an unjustifiable principle they should be told
whether it were intended to press the compulsory clauses
in committee. He considered that the bill was an attack
upon the rights of property.

Sir JOHN FANNER protested against the representations
which had been made from time to time by the hon.
member for Merthyr as to the acts and conduct of certain
Welsh landowners.

Lord JOHN MANNERS having addressed the House very

briefly,

Mr. lIORSMAN denied that there were any such rights of
property as were contended for on the other side of the
House. There were no such things as the rights of pro-
perty, except such as were created by the law, and what
the law had created it might alter, restrict, and enlarge.
The great principle was the good of the community. He
thought the House had forgotten the peculiar and excep-
tional condition of Wales. It was worse than Ireland,
in that respect. The landlords were all of one Church,
and the population of another. Although they might as
churchmen, regret that so large a proportion of the people
of Wales were not of the established church, yet he felt
it was impossible to forget the obligations which all
Christians were und,er to the diF.T_enters, Hon, gentlemen

seemed to xasunderstand-the prindipic of the bill. 2ne
fact stood thus, that a body of dissenters would have to
go to a landowner, and tell him that they had failed to
obtain land elsewhere by agreement, and if the proprietor
to whom they applied, chose to say he would give them
another piece of land, there was an end to the compulsory
SUN OFFICE, 7 o'CLocK. I powers.

The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill road a
second timA, and the committee fixed for the 15th of June.

Viscount ENFIELD moved the second reading of this bill,
the object of which was to alter tho qualification of special
and common jurors and remunerating both, the format re-
ceiving one guinea, and the latter 10s., a day. The bill
was read a second time, and referred to a select committee.