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

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-
jesty'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 Hou,e 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; hut 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 supp in, 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 of 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, as 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 fur legislating on
the subjeet 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 Seotland— 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 Howe. His Majesty occupied
the seat 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 1 arish minister. He had a great respect for
Dr. M‘Leod personally ; but he made himself exeeedinily 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.
It 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 could 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

Government should be extended, although he himself was s
still a member of the old Church. —( A laugh.)
The effect of the measure would be to divide the people of
Scotland, and to create dissensions amongst them, upon that
very theme, the national religion, upon which they had been so
much united. He supported the amendment.—( Hear. )
Sir JAMBS GRAHAM was surprised that the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down could say that the Bill was
brought in with objects which had not been avowed. The
Hon. Gentleman ought at least to give his grounds for
that statement.--( Hear, hear.) The principle of the measure
was not Erastian—it was a principle which. had been always
upheld in the best times of the Scotch Church. It had
been said that a great secession had lately taken place, and
as the debate proceeded the number of the seceders seemed
to have gradually increased. The Right Hon. Member for
Perth had stated them at 800,000. The Hon. Member for
Renfrew had increased them to a million, and had added that
only a small amount was left in Scotland attached to the Esta-
blished Church. To that statement he demurred.. Although
150 churches had been vacated, they had experienced no diffi-
culty in providing suitable ministers—( Opposition cheers)—he
meant ministers who had been received by their flocks without
objection, and who were every way qualified fur their office.
It was only just to the Establishment that every facility should
be given for its extension in large districts, by the subdivisors
of parishes. In the Highland districts, forty parishes had
been erected by the munificence of Parliament, in which the
ministers were not able to exercise their full rights. The
present Bill wouuld restore them their rights. With regard
to the right given to heriters to burden their lands for the
endowment of churches, that right could only be exercised by
the authority of a court of law, which could entertain no
application for such a purpose except from a majority of the
heriters. Had the Honourable Members for Perth
and Renfrew continued Members of the Establishment,
from which they had seceded, not on a point of doctrine, but of
discipline only, they would have supported a measure like the
present, and why should they now oppose a measure for the
extension of that Church in the doctrines of which they be-
lieved ? This brought to his mind another inconsistency on
the part of the Right Hen. Member for Perth. It was scarcely
a fortnight since that Right Hon. Gentleman brought forward
a motion fur the abolition of subscription of tests in the Scottish
Universities, and yet last night he was found in the course of
the debate advoca- ing the continuance of tests.—( Chem s from
the Ministerial side of the House, and calls of" Order, order,"
" Chair, chair," from Mr. F. Mettle.) He saw how sore the
point was with the Right Hon Gentleman who appealed to
the Chair, because he (Sir J. Graham) had alluded to a for-
mer debate. He would. bow at once in submission to the
Chair, but he must be permitted to observe, in passing, that it
was with sorrow he observed how sadly and how speedily the
bitterness of religious dissent had operated on the mind of
the Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers.) His Right Hun.
Friend at the head of the Government had given a
pledge that every facility should be given to the Established
Church of Scotland for the extension of its doctrines. This
Bill was the redemption of that pledge. It was upon the prin-
ciple of that Bill that they were now called upon to decide. The
details might be considered in Committee, but, until the House
had decided to the contrary, he never could believe that they
would reject the principle of such a measure.—( Cheers. )
Mr. P. M. STEWART explained. He had stated that the
Free Church amounted to nearly a million. He denied that he
had designated the Established Church as a remnant ; what he
had said was, that the Free Church was the Church of the ma-
jority, and the Established Church the Church of the law and
the minority.
Sir J. GRAHAM had to apologise to the Hon. Member
for Renfrew. It was the Hon. Member for St. Andrews who
designated the Established Church as a remnant.
[At the conclusion of Sir J. Graham's explanation the King
of Saxony quitted the House.]
Mr. FORBES supported the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. SMOLLETT,
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ..
For the amendment
Majority ... --54
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being read,
Mr. E. ELLICE opposed the clause, on the grounds that it
interfered with private right.
The LORD ADVOCATE of Scotland supported the clause.
Mr. HUME said this clause contained a very important al-
teration in the present law, and he did not think the Right
Hon. Gentleman had adduced any just reasons for making
such a change. He had no objections to the endowment of
churches, but he was decidedly opposed to members of other
persuasions being obliged to pay for the sustainment of doc-
trines from which they differed. The House should not take
the Right Hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit as to the necessity for
so important an alteration.

Sir. GEORGE CLERK said, the first duty Of the Legis-
lature was to provide religious inatruc:ion for the rapidly in-
creasing population, and use present Bill was insufficient for
that purpose.
Mi. FOX MAULE i.pposed the clause. He had cer-
tainly prepared a similar Bril to the present one in 1835,
but it differed in thin respect, that he proposed that the pa-
rishes should be divided according to the majority of num-
bers ; whereas the Bill of the Government proposed to make
the division according to the majority of interest. Under
these circumstances, he must oppose the clause. The Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, bad
charged him (Mr. F. Maule) with inconsistency. Now, he
thou ait the last person to make such a charge ought to be
the Right Hon. Baronet himself.—( Hear, hear.) The man
who wrote " Corn and Currency" and who now sat as the
supporter of the agricultural interest, ought to be very cau-
tious in charging another with inconsistency.—( Hear, hear.)
In a celebrated caricature publication of the day, the Right
Hon. Baronet was represented as receiving a deputation from
the distressed thimble-riggers.—(Laughter.) One of these
thimble-riggers was made to ask the Right Hon. Baronet if
he had any objection to allow the game of round-about? and
the Right Hon. Gentleman replied, " Oh, no, for I have pa-
tronised round-about all my life."—(Great laughter, in which
Sir James Graham joined.) The Right Hon. r.aronet
should be careful how he made a charge of inconsistency
against another.—( Hear )
Mr. FORBES supported the clause. This Bill was intended
to supply the spiritual wants of the poor, and as such he sup-
ported it.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that however ,he and the
Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite might differ with respect to
many points, at all events they were agreed as to the principle
of the clause, which, in point of fact, was founded on the doc-
trine laid down by Ur. Chalmers himself. The Right Hon.
Gentleman was ready in the year 1835 to go a great deal
further than the present Bill proposed to do. The' whole
question really resolved itself into this—either conformity with,
or dissent from the Established Church of Scotland.
Mr. FOX M MILE denied that they were then discussing
the principle of the Bill.
Mr. COLQUHOUN defended the clause.
Mr. HUME was quite willing to support any measure for
providing religious accommodation for the people; but he was
convinced that their physical wants were the great causes of the
crimes. Let the Legislature turn its attention to the removal
of these, and there would be little occasion for interference in
other matters.

Mr. COLQUHOUN would not deny that an improvement
of their physical condition would tend to improve their morals,
but he did not think that was an argument against religious
improvement.
Mr. P. M. STEWART considered the Bill perfectly use-
less, and wondered how it got into the House.—( A laugh. )
After a desultory conversation, strangers were ordered to
withdraw. The Committee then divided, when the numbers
were—

For the clause
Against it

52
20

Majority -32
Clause 4 was agreed to, after a short discussion.
Clause 5 was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments.
Clause 6 was agreed to, with a few verbal amendments.
Clause 7 was agreed to.
On clause 8 being proposed, which enables persons who
have life interests to give four acres for sites for glebes,
Mr. F. MAULE said he should object to the clause. He
thought it most objectionable that those who had only life in-
terests should have the power of burdening the property of
those who were to come after them, by leavini, four acres for
sites. He thought that an acre and a half would be quite
sufficient.
Mr. WALLACE would also oppose the clause.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee
divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause —36
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
'Alr. FOX MAULE said, that unless the Right Honour-
able Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, consented to extend
this clause to all churches, he should avail himself of all the
forms of the House in opposing it. This clause was similar
to the last, but it applied to endowments generally, and was
therefore far more extensive.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE said he objected to the whole Bill,
because it was conceived in the narrowest spirit with respect
to the present religious state of Scotland.
Mr. F. MAULE proposed an amendment, providing that
heirs entail should have a voice in making the endowments.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BOUVERIE said he should oppose the clause, unless
it were extended to all religious denominations.
The suggestion not being agreed to, strangers were ordered
to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause ... —4l
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. ELLICE, jun., said he should oppose the clause, be-
cause it was in fact an additional endowment of the Church
of Scotland.

After some conversation, the clause wai carried without a
division.

The remaining, clauses were then agreed to, and the House
resumed. The report was ordered to be received on Monday.
_ _

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Friday next.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
he House adjourned at a Quarter to Ten o'clock.

ROYAL INFIRMARY FOR CHlLDREN.—Yesterday the
anniversary festival of the Royal Infirmary in Waterloo-
bridge-road, established in 1816, for the purpose of affording
gratuitous medical aid to the poor of the metropolis, took
place at the London Tavern. Soon after six o'clock about 80
of the leading patrons and supporters of the institution sat
down to a plentiful dinner—the Right lion. the Earl of
Arundel and Surrey, M.P., in the chair; we also observed
Lord Lyttelton. Mr. E. Antrobus, M.P., Mr. H. Kemble,
M.P., Major Brereton, Mr. A. K. Barclay, &c., at the
head table. After the removal of the cloth, the customary
routine of loyal and appropriate toasts were given, and,
in the course of the evening, subscriptions and donations
amounting to 2851. were handed over to the treasurer,
Mr. A. K. Barclay. The annual subscription of 211. from
her Majesty, and 101. from the Queen Dowager, were like-
wise announced by the secretary, who made a gratifying
statement relative to the funds of the Society, which it ap-
peared had been sufficiently extended to enable the Com-
mittee to liquidate a heavy building debt, exceeding 2,0001.,
although the necessity of increased support was strongly
urged upon the meeting, the period having arrived for carry-
ing out the proposition of the founders of the charity, by
Opening the wards for in-patients, and by the delivery of
clinical lectures on the most important infantile disorders.
Mr. W. C. Deady, one of the medical staff, in acknowledging
the compliment paid that body, alluded to the circumstance
of medical aid being now affbrded, by means of this institu-
tion, to the sick parent of the suckling child, whereby organic
disease in the latter, in many instances, is obviated. He
trusted the importance of this new feature in their operations
would not be underrated, although it may have been the
cause of additional expenditure. Mr. Dendy also drew their
attention to the increased benefits now afforded the infant
patients by their removal from.the unwholesome atmosphere
which surrounded the wretched homes of the poor, and which
originated much of tile disease prevalent amongst them. The
Noble Chairman did not get through the duties of his office
till a late hour ; the ordinary intervals occurring in the pro-
ceedings of the evening having been agreeably extended by
the glee and solo singing of Messrs. li. Phillips, Hawkins,
T. Cooke, and Hatton, under the direction of Mr. Hawes,
whose arrangements gaye general satisfaction.