The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-08 00:00:00

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Petitions against this Bill were presented by Mr. Shaw from
Ireland ; Mr. Barnard, Deptford; Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Boyd,
places in Ireland; Mr. W. 0. Stanley, Anglesey ; Mr. Tre.
lawney, from Tavistock ; Sir C. Douglas, the Earl of Hills-
borough, from Down; and by Mr. Stafford O'Brien.
Mr. BUTLER presented petitions in favour of the Bill
from the city and county of Kilkenny, and in doing so said he
was now obliged to act as Member for both the city and county
of Kilkenny, on account of the incarceration of Mr. John
O'Connell.
Mr. SHARM..4.N CRAWFORD presented petitions in fa-
vour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, from the Roman Catholic
inhabitants of Kilcoun, Duncormack, and Killog, county
Wexford; Donoughcloney and Newtownards, county Down ;
Ball3•money, county Antrim ; Raphoe, county Donegal ;
Dunshaughlin, county Meath; and Bough, county London-
derry ; and from the inhabitants of various religious denomina-
tions residing in Cromlin, county Antrim, and Saintfield and
Ballymullen, county Down ; also a petition from the
Blackwater congregation of Rochdale to the same effect.
also eight petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill from
different bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in Rochdale, signed
by upwards of 500 names.

RAILWAYS.
The Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool Railway Bill;
the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway
Bill; and the Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway Bill,
were severally read a third time and passed.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. TRELAWNEY gave notice that, on an early day, he
would propose to the House a measure for relieving her Ma-
jetty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion from civil disabilities.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would move the substitution
of a possession of sixty years, instead of twenty-five years, in the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the Howe resolve itself into a Committee
of the whole House on the Scotch Parishes Bill,
Mr. DUNCAN M'NEILL said that he thought it right
to state what was the object of the Government in
proposing this Bill. The Bill did not introduce any
new principle into the law of Scotland. It had for its
object to facilitate the division of parishes in Scotland.
By the law, as it now existed, the patronage of a new parish
belonged to the patron of the old one; but where other par-
ties bore the burden of erecting the new parish church,
it seemed but reasonable that some other provision
should be made, saving, of course, the rights of the heritors.
As the law at present stood, there was not any power of attach-
ing districts to churches, which had been erected in parishes,
without the consent of the heritors. Parties willing to erect
churches, and to provide endowments for their support, and for
the support of the ministers, had at present no
power to erect them into distinct parishes. There was no
power anywhere existing for that purpose. The Church
of Scotland at one time believed it had that power, and had
exercised it, but when the matter was brought before the
courts cf law, it was decided, on an appeal to the House of
Peers, that the Church had no such power. The pre-
sent Bill gave a power, in such cases, to attach
a district to the church, and to erect it into a separate parish,
without the consent of the heritors, who, is they were not
called upon to contribute, had certainly no right to interfere
capriciously to deprive persons of that religious instruc-
tion for which they were themselves willing to pay.
Some of the petitions against the Bill proceeded upon the erro-
neous impression that the Bill was intended to give power to
certain individuals who had contributed towards the erection of
churches, and who still continued in communion with the Church
of Scotland, to take possession of these churches, notwithstand-
ing the opposition of persons who had likewise con-
tributed towards their erection, but who were not mem-
bers of the Church. The Bill contained no such provisions.
The Bill did not seek to make any demands on the public
funds. Its object, as he said before, was to give facilities for
the division of parishes ; and such being its object, he did not
think there could be any objection to going into Committee
upon it.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought that some necessity should at
least be shown for bringing in this Bill, or for legislating on
the subject at all. He had spoken of disjoining parishes :
the first clause of the Bill trenched somewhat on the
right of property. He admitted there were some points
which created alarm in Scotland, and which were made
clear by the Learned Lord Advocate. There was no ob-
jection to what was proposed with regard to giving the
status of ministers to those who directed the forty
churches in the Highlands of Scotland. There
was no objection to giving the status of parish ministers to the
ministers of great towns. His main objection to the Bill was
that it was unnecessary, and therefore he should propose that
the Bill be committed that day six months.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. P. M. STEWART said that this was a far more im-
portant Bill than its title seemed to indicate. It was one of the
most extraordinary and unaccountable attempts at legislation
that ever was made in that House. It was, in fact, a Bill for
Church extension, and a Bill for this purpose was introduced at
a time when a great secession had taken place from the
Established Church of Scotland. How would English Mem-
bers like to have such a Bill proposed, if a secession
took place in England ? But more emphatically he put the
question to Irish Members on both sides of the House, who
had experience of what it was to possess churches without con-
gregations. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to object to
several of the details of the measure. He thought there was a
salutary tendency in the law to prevent persons indulging in
their charitable propensities at the expense of their successors.
'I here was no precedent for a Bill of this description. Why
should they offer these facilities for the extension of a Church
which was already much too large for the wants of those be-
longing to it, while they offered no such facilities to the real
Church of Scotland—the Free Church ? They gave permis-
sion to take lands for railroads—they were now giving per-
mission to take lands for the purpose of extending the Esta-
blished Church. How would they treat an application on the
part of the Free Church to take lands—
VISIT OF THE KING OF SAXONY.
[At this period of the Hon. Member's speech his Majesty the
King of Saxony entered the House. His Majesty occupied
the scat of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and appeared to pay great
attention to the proceedings. Soon after the King of Saxony
entered the House, Sir Robert Peel went up to his Majesty,
and entered into conversation with him. No interruption, how-
ever, took place in the proceedings of the House, and the de-
bate proceeded as though his Majesty had not been present.]
He believed the object of the Bill was to restore Dr. M'Leod
to the status of a parish minister. He had a great respect for
Dr. M'Leod personally ; but he made himself exceedingly con-
spicuous when the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) visited
Glasgow some years back, and the general belief was that
the main object of this Bill was to restore this gentleman to
the position of a parish minister.
Mr. HUME was sorry that this Bill had been introduced.
ft was quite unnecessary, as five hundred new chapels had
been erected in Scotland within the last eighteen months.
It was also contrary to all sound principle, and he
thought the object of its introduction was to call off
attention from more important questions.—(Laughter.) He
should give it all the opposition in his power.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., said he would oppose the Bill as
nothing less than a confiscation of property.—(Hear.)
He had heard nothing to show a necessity for this Bill. There
were many churches in Scotland which had no congregations,
and it was perfectly unjustifiable to bring in this measure for
the support of the deserted Church.
Mr. WALLACE cou'd not be persuaded that the object of
the measure was not to bring the people of Scotland to think
less of their new Free Church than they did. There was already
plenty of space, and to spare, in the churches of the Establish-
ment, and it was to the new Church the patronage of the