The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-11 00:00:00

FREE CHURCHES.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented a peti-
tion from the General Assembly of the Free Church of
Scotland, complaining of the refusal of proprietors of
land in Scotland to grant sites for the erection of
churches. The principle involved. in this petition the
Noble Marquis said, was most important. He always
thought that it was one of the rights and privileges of
the Constitution that those who might think fit to agree
with the tenets of the Established Church could exer-
cise their religious belief according to their consciences,
without persecution and with perfect freedom. If, how-
ever, Parliament suffered the proprietors of land to exer-
ercise the rights of property in direct violation of the
principles of the Constitution, he was quite certain it
would be considered that the Constitution existed only in
theory and not in practice. He therefore trusted their
Lordships would see the necessity for giving a formal
opinion on the subject, and put an end to the system of
persecution which had lately been allowed to pervade
the Free Church of Scotland.

The Earl of CAMDEN, as one of the parties re-
ferred to by the petition, wished to say a few words in
justification of the course he had thought it his duty to
pursue. Many unjustifiable attacks had been made upon
him by the body from whom the petition emanated, and
it was rather unfair that they should still follow them
up. He admitted having refused to grant sites in some
instances, but circumstances justified his doing so, and,
theref,:re, many of the statements which had been made
against him were in some respects unfair, and others
untrue. He hoped that he had shown that he was not so
much to blame as had been stated.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH complained of those who
had gone from place to place exciting the people by de-
nouncing the Established Church, and who forgot that
toleration which was due to those who differed with
them. He had been denounced as a godless man, as
wishing to trample down the consciences of those who
were dependent upon him. He found that in those
districts in which there were no Free Church, that the
inhabitants made no objection to walk several miles to
the Established Church of the district. He was perfectly
satisfied in his own conscience that he had acted right,
and with deliberation ; that he had not been actuated
by any feelings of ill•will ; and, to show that he had so
acted, he had in his employment persons who had be-
come members of the Free Church, and in whom he
placed entire confidence.

Lord CAMPBELL considered that those who had
seceded from the Church and had become members of the
Free Church had acted from conscientious motives—had
eschewed worldly advantages for what they believed the
true form of worship ; and such being the opinion of the
people, he thought it was to be regretted that those who
differed with them should prevent them from erecting
churches of their own ; such conduct could not but be
condemned. By landowners granting sites of land, at a
moderate rate, they would promote a better feeling be-
tween themselves and their tenants.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE defended the
members of the free church from the aspersions which
had been cast upon them ; they were in favour of tole•
rating all religions—of seeking no more for themselves
than they would willingly concede to others. When the
Noble Duke talked of there being no objection to walk
a distance to church, he forgot the aged and the ailing.
In this country, when the principle of toleration existed
to such an extent in theory, he thought they ought to be
carried out a little better in practice.
THE POOR-LAW UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from
a Church Missionary Society, praying their Lordships
to obtain a speedy adjustment of the affairs of New
Zealand, and sanction no proceedings unless such as
were based on the treaty of Waitangi. The natives
of that country should not—though migratory in
their habits—have their lands wrested from them.
To take advantage of their ignorance would, he con-
sidered, be attended with the most disastrous conse-
quences. He trusted that such arrangements would be
made, with the consent and the concurrence of the New
Zealand Company, as would fix the peace and prosperity
of the colony upon a permanent basis. Having made
those remarks, he would just state that the object he had
in view was to have an assurance from her Majesty's Go
vernment, that the alarms alluded to by the petitioners were
unfounded, and that they would put the same construction
upon the treaty with the natives as had been put upon it
by a Committee of the House of Commons. He sincerely
hoped that her Majesty's Government would recollect
that the maintenance of the prosperity of the country
would entirely rest upon their dealing with the natives
upon the principles of justice.
Lord STANLEY thought it would be inexpedient
for him to enter into all the questions connected with the
colonisation of New Zealand, and, therefore, he should
confine himself only to one or two points con-
nected with the subject. The whole differences of
the Government with respect to New Zealand,
from the anxious desire of the Government to
deal fairly with all parties between two conflictingagree-
merits which had been entered into by a former Govern-
ment with the New Zealand Company and the natives
of that colony. In point of fact, their difficulties had
arisen mainly from a feeling that however important it
might be to promote colonization, it was not to be en-
couraged at the expense of the national honour of the
country. In almost every instruction they had issued,
they had insisted throughout, on the part of the Govern-
ment, that it was a solemn obligation binding upon them
to observe, and secure the fulfilment of the treaty of
Waitangi. These instructions were given to Governor
Fitzroy, and the instructions which had lately been is-
sued to Captain Grey reiterated the determination of
Government, that while they were doing all in their
power to bring about an amicable settlement of the affairs
of New Zealand, they considered it was a paramount
duty imposed upon them to faithfully and scrupulously
fulfil the engagements which had been entered into with
the natives.

Lord MONTEAGLE said they were bound to inter-
pret the treaty strictly, but it would be as well if it
were definitely settled whether it was competent for the
settlers to enter upon unoccupied land without the con-
sent of the natives, or whether the natives had a right
of property over all the lands of New Zealand. In his
opinion, the evils of the island had arisen from the un-
authorised attempt of parties to colonise it ; and he
thought it was the duty of Government to discounte-
nance all such attempts. He did not agree with the
Noble Earl that there had been any want of good faith
on the part of the Noble Lord the Secretary of the Colo•
vies, with either the natives or the New Zealand Com-
pany ; but he thought it would be conferring a benefit
upon the country, if that Noble Lord would state clearly
and distinctly the construction which he and the Govern-
ment put upon the treaty of Waitangi.
The Earl of CHICHESTER wished to correct the
Noble Lord in one of his statements. Neither he n
the petitioners had imputed a want of faith to the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies.
Lord STANLEY was quite willing to answer the de-
mand which had been made upon him to state precisely
and distinctly the construction which he placed upon the
treaty of Waitangi. If an opportunity were allowed him
in that House, he could prove to demonstration that not
only by the present Government, but, by all former Go-
vernments, the same construction which was now placed
upon it, without any interruption from the time it was
made down to 1842. The discrepancy between the de-
claration of Lord John Russell and the treaty of
Waitangi was apparent but not real. He would tell
their Lordships how this happened. Lord John
Russell issued the declaration upon a false
representation made to him by the New Zealand Com-
pany, namely, that they had purchased the land from the
natives, and hence had arisen all the difficulties. His
own interpretation of the treaty was this—except by the
consent of the natives, the Crown had no right to convey
land to anybody, and having no right, he would be the
last man to advise the Crown to exercise the power of
making over to a third party that which it did not pos-
sess itself.—(Hear, hear.)

The subject then droped.
FOREIGN LOTTERIES BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY the Bill was read