The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-02 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILL RESUMED.

Sir J. GRAHAM said an Hon. Friend of his had given
notice that he would object to a particular clause in this
Bill—that Hon. Member was not then in the House,
but if he were present and made the motion, he (Sir J. G.)
would support it. He would therefore move that this clause
should be omitted.

The SPEAKER suggested to the Right Hon. Baronet
that he should make his objection to the clause on the third
reading of the Bill, in which the Right Hon. Baronet
acquiesced, and withdrew his motion.
Mr. P. HOWARD had given the Hon. Member alluded to
by the Right Hon. Baronet due notice, and had taken every
opportunity to act fairly towards him ; he therefore thought
it hard that this clause should be allowed to hang over after
that Hon. Member had lost his opportunity. The Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by moving that the report be received.
Sir R. H. INGLIS would not occupy the House for any
time. The existing laws were against allowing travelling on
the Sabbath, and the exception was in its favour ; when a
party, therefore, came for new power, it was in the discretion
of the House either to grant or refuse them, as they thought
most accordant with the law of God and the law of man, in
the present instance. The Act under which this Company
carried on their concern, was an Act containing a clause pro-
hibiting travelling on the Sunday, but the Bill which the
Hon. Member proposed to lay on the table was to repeal this
clause, and to give unlimited power to the Company.
Mr. HOWARD—The Bill did not moot that question.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was aware of that, but the effect of re-•
pealing the clause would be to give such power. He called
upon the House to pause and consider whether it was, under
such circumstances, consistent with fair legislation that this
Bill should pass. He had given notice that he would move
the insertion of a clause, prohibiting travelling on the Sunday
—he would not then make his motion, but he would do so on
the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. POTTER understood that the Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
H. Inglis) was not opposed altogether to Sunday travelling,
but only during the hours of divine service.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was opposed altogether to travelling on
the Sabbath.
The Report was then received.
Mr. WALKER presented a petition from the Mayor and

Corporation of Londonderry, in favour of the Londonderry
Improvement Bill.
On the motion of an HoN. MEMlltit the Londonderry Im-
provement Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted. . _ _

Mr. BROTHERTON brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Preston and Wyre Railway Bill.
Mr. DIVETT brought up the report of the Committee
on the Ashburton Road Bill, and the Liverpool Building Bill.
Lord HENNIKER presented petitions from Suffolk, pray-
ing for an alteration in the law of debtor and creditor, and
complaining of agricultural distress.
-

. - -
SCOTCH CHURCH.
Sir C. FERGUSSON presented petitions from Forfar,
Kircudbright, and several other parts of Scotland, in favour
of extending Church accommodation in that country.
Similar petitions were presented by Captain Gordon, Mr.
C. Bruce, Mr. Sinclair, Sir Andrew Agnew, Sir Philip
Durham, and Sir Michael Shaw Stewart.

General SHARPE and Mr. DILLoN presented petitions
against any further grants.
When the question was put that these petitions be laid on
the table,

Mr. C. BRUCE begged to take that opportunity of refer-
ring to certain charges which were made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Falkirk (Mr. Gillon), before the recess, against Mr.
Buchan, one of the most estimable and respectable gentlemen
connected with the Church of Scotland. That Rev. Gentleman
wrote to the Hon. Member to disabuse his mind of the misap-
prehension he laboured under, and respectfully called upon him
to retract the observations he (Mr. G.) had made in this
House, for the accuracy of which he had taken upon himself
to vouch. A correspondence ensued in the course of which
the Hon. Member praised the Rev. Gentleman for his zeal
and ability in diffusing the blessings of a sound religious
education, notwithstanding which admission, he repeated
his attacks on Wednesday week, in a speech which was only
repeated and occupied a closely printed column in the Courier.
He was then proceeding to vindicate the Rev. Mr. Buchan
from the charges made against him by the Hon. Member, when
Mr. CU RTE IS rose to order, as he considered it irregular,
and tending to provoke discussion, to refer to petitions pre-
sented at so remote a period from the present.
Mr. C. BRUCE would throw it out of consideration alto-
gether. It was first charged, that in the returns of the
General Assembly Committee, a church was omitted to be
mentioned, for the purpose of deceiving the public ; secondly,
that the accommodation for Dissenters was also omitted; and,
thirdly, that the most improper means were resorted to for pro-
curing signatures to the petitions in favour of a grant to the
Established Church of Scotland. On the part of the Rev.
Gentleman, he (Mr. B.) denied these charges, and in conclu-
sion hoped that the Hon. Gentleman would be more cautious
in making such unfounded charges for the future.
Mr. GIL LON defended himself from the imputations cast
upon him, and again repeated that the omissions he had men-
tioned were made, and that the most disgraceful measures were
employed to procure signatures to petitions in favour of the
Established Church of Scotland. On the part of the people
of Scotland, he protested against any grant of public money to
the Church of Scotland, as an act of the grossest and rankest
injustice.
Sir G. CLERK had several petitions to present to the
same effect, and would therefore beg leave to make a few ob-
servations. It was said the object, on the part of the Esta-
blished Church of Scotland, was to injure the Dissenters—he, in
the name of the Establishment, protested against that doctrine.
The efforts of the people of all denominations under the volun-
tary system fell short of what the country required—it was
the duty of the House to supply the deficiency, and to
provide religious instruction for the poorest men in the
land.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Whether the sum required was
10,0001., or an infinitely larger sum, there was no way in
which the money of the public could be more beneficially em-
ployed, or one more consistent with the principles of due eco-
nomy.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the House could not
in justice refuse this very moderate demand of the people of
Scotland.

Mr. O'DWYER was far from saying that if there was a
unanimous call on the part of the people of Scotland for a
grant of public money that it should not receive the considera-
tion of the House. But the public opinion of the people of
Scotland was very much divided upon this subject. Many of
those who were so loud in their exclamations against a grant
to the Roman Catholics, why were they not here to oppose this
grant to the Presbyterians of Scotland, who were as much op-
posed to their notions as the Roman Catholics ? If the
great members of the Presbyterians were anxious to build ne..v
churches, they could find means to do so without coming to
the public Treasury.—(" They do.") In Ireland, a country in-
finitely poorer, the Catholics supported the Protestant religion,
and at the same time their own ministers. He had not any coo-
scientious scruple to prevent him from voting for this grant it'
it were proved to be necessary. A yearly grant of 8,0001. was
made to the College of Maynooth, and if that House should
think fit to refuse this grant, he believed that the refusal
would produce nothing like national dissatisfaction.—( Hear,
hear.) If any Hon. Member should move that this grant
should be refused, there would be many persons found on
that side of the House who would more readily support such
a motion than one for giving a new grant to the people of
Scotland.

Mr. II A LLIB URTON had presented a petition signed by
1,000 persons of the Establishment, against this grant ; and
he had another petition from a Dissenting congregation,
which would have been signed by many of the Establishment,
it the Dissenters would have consented to their so doing. It
was not therefore fair in Hon. Members to state that persons
of the Establishment did not petition against the further en-
dowment to the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Serjeant JACKSON conceived thatthere was a much
greater difference between the Roman Catholic and the Esta-
blished religion, than between the latter and the Presbyterian
religion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was proceeding.to
comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Drogheda
(Mr. O'Dwyer), when
The SPEAKER said that it would he a serious interruption
to the business of the House if there was to be a lengthened
discussion upon the presentation of every petition.
Mr. Seregant JACK SON begged to dissent from the ob-
servations of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite. If
the tax for the support of the Church were taken off, it was
certain that the tenant would have so much less rent to pay to
the landed proprietor.
Mr. WALL ACE presented a petition from Cupar, in Fife-
shire, against any further grant to the Church of Scotland.
With reference to this subject, he would say that there were
14 parishes about the town of Cupar, in all of which there was
more Church accommodation than required. He believed it was
a fact that there were large sums in the hands of proprietors
of Church property, which had not yet been applied to the
purposes for which it was levied.
Mr. WILK S thought the Dissenters would oppose any
grant which would only be in substance a new church-rate levy.
Petitions were presented by the Attorney-General and the
Lord Advocate from various places in Scotland for and against
any grant to the Church of Scotland.