The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-17 00:00:00

which professional and practical knowledge was required.
• With respect to the principle of the Bill he might say
that he had always thought railway companies occupied
an intermediate place between public and private interests,
and therefore interference by the Legislature was
fully justified, inasmuch as it could not he contended that
these companies could be strictly considered as private
undertakings. The system of auditing the accounts of
railways at present prevailed, but he could not avoid
stating that the system was almost altogether inoperative.
He wished to speak of the management of railway com-
panies with the greatest respect, but many of them con-
sidered themselves chartered liberties, and had altogether
infringed the Act with reference to these matters. Both
directors and auditors were appointed by a majority of
the shareholders.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated it, and
here he might observe that he might be considered as
addressing a Railway Parliament, for many of the
(lon. Gentlemen present were interested in railways.—
(Hear, hear.) But the auditors were named by the
directors, and possessed generally little control
over the expenditure. Now, great and reckless
expenditure might be carried on by a railway
company with great injury to the public, and without
any means of stopping. Surely the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for
Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) could not
contend that the present system of auditing accounts was
valuable. But if the accounts were properly audited at
present, he could not understand why the Bill was op-
posed by those interested in the railway. He was quite
sh
oo
nu.l
Gentleman, on th e s e
t o
h o Bready to concede that those applying for an audit should
neverthe
li
grounds,t
interested support
ine second
railway
s readingpre
not f,
(I) i vicl e ,
hdei
lvd i d e a . )
that he
share in any railway,
deposit money to pay the expense,.and the present pro-
vision to that effect had been made in the Bill. He d
Mr. lIENLEY said, with respect to the allusion of the
and that perhaps he had
not given that en-
couragement to them which a wise policy would
have dictated; but his constituents did not feel
much interest in those undertakings. He wished to treat
all the Bills which emanated from the other House with
the greatest respect, but he could not help stating that
he thought he would have done much better if, instead
of pronouncing an eulogium upon the Noble Lord from
whom it had emanated, he had given some practical-
grounds for passing the measure before the House. 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-
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. lie
had no aversion to railways,
on the contrary, he
thought they had conferred greatfbenefit on the public ;
but really the present mode auditing railway accounts
was so objectionable that he could
port from this Bill. The machinery not withhold his sup-
of this Bill was to be
motion
put in by a certain number of shareholders in any
ld not be supposed that these
company, and surely it could
shareholders would not cause an inquiry to be insti-
tuted if it were calculated to injury their own interests.
Besides, the shareholders signing the requisition would
be required to give security, and their desire
he for an
could see no
in-
quiry was frivolous and vexatious, and
Bill.
him
reason why the House should refuse to pass this t
.
Mr. MUNTZ said this Bill appeared to to go
upon the principle of meddling with everybody's
affairs
and could
and accomplishing nothing.—(Hear, hear.)
11
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
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 favour
of this Bill, and stated that there were one or two
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. BOUVERIE 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 worzhip 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 cons( quence of the
refusal of landowners to grant sites for churches, and said,
in order to avoid those grievances, the Bill propased that
the Court of Session should have the power of granting
a 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 be given by the
Court of Session to the landowner whose property the
vestigation was to take place before a sheriff as to the
eadl
allegations
onecessary
p
cpoentittriaodneicrtsedaltlheeg
truth of the statements on both sides, and if the Court of
l:tri tioans,itae,fournmdailf ihne-
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
Bill. He
for the House agreeing to the principle of this B
thought, acting upon the principle of the cases to which
he referred, with respect to the taking of lands for rail-
ways
property, in order to show that there were precedents
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
aftthehogowea
hhwi
al
oomdt
compulsorily, there could be no objection to adopt
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 BO
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read ts second time; and on the
question that it be committed,
Mr. J. S. WOItTLEY 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
rut
c:sh
sbee
presentedu going
uponor
hi nen cgti
hp eil
teno could3i
aoti
its favour,
not. toleration.division
aavN gooruer
e,
supportertt
measure like the present to meet a particular case, bat
he objected to its provisions being made general as
l
that
ao
the
hete ha provisionsre yop,fe andit petitioners
oenßeh he
os wasvahad:
Mr. ELLIOT said he had been taken by surprise in
f
therefore anxious to take that opportunity of saying a
more anxious to see the Free Churches have sites allotted
Bill; while he was sure, from the tone of the petitions
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 road 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-
fusal of the landlords of Scotland to grant them sites,
and he could not help expressing his gratification that
in going so easily to a division on the second reading,
the House had given so decided an opinion in its favour.
Mr. B. COCHRANE was surprised to hear the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite say that the House had ex-
pressed a decided opinion in favour of this Bill. The
House had done no such thing, for many Hon. Members
who were opposed to the measure were taken by sur-
prise in the House going so suddenly to a division. The
Free Church of Scotland had been most arrogant
in its conduct. It had refused every offer of concession
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 was
surprised at the speeches that had been made
in favour of this Bill, for it was one of the mostdpreeptoesd
prepos-
trous and unjust measures that had ever been
by an arrogant body; and he must be allowed
toprotest
ta
House
against it in the strongest terms the rules of the
would allow.
Colonel THOMPSON wanted necessity
to know what
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 infancy,
difficulties from
had to struggle
against
to the prime of its manhood,
tempted to ask such a
power as this.—(Hear, bear.)
What the Wesleyan
•