The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-26 00:00:00

IRISH POOR

Lord CLEVE NTS wished to put a question to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury, al to whether he could inform the House
of the amount of the salary and allowances which Mr. Frank
Robarts liestokcci was to receive out of the funds subscribed
for the relief of the poor of Connaught and Munster in the
year 1822 ?

Mr. YOUNG said that the salary was to be 200/. a year, and
I/. a day when travelling. These allowances were to be paid
out of the funds of the Reproductive Loan Society, and n.,t out
of the fund, •übseribt,d for the relief of the Irish pior in 1822.
IRISH CHARITABLE BEQUESTS BILL.

Mr. SLUM said he had a question to ask, the purport of
which had previously been asked by another Hon. Member in
that House. He wanted to know if her Majesty's Government
intended to make any alteration next session of Parliament in
the Charitable Bequests Bill ?
Sir J. GRA II AM answered that there was an intention on
the part of her Majesty's Government to effect an alteration.
There were three points in which it was proposed to make
alterations. The first Feint was respecting the doctrine and
discipline of the Boman Catholic Church. As the law stood,
in any dispute arising respecting the title of bequests left to
Roman Catholic priests, it was referred to the Commissioners
under the Bill. Now this was contrary to the canons of the
Church. According to the canons of the Church, all such
matters were to be referred to the diocesan. This point was
one he proposed to alter. The second point had reference to
monastic institutions. The Bill of last session was not intended
to affect, directly or indirectly, those institutions, but as there
had been some doubts entertained on this head, it was intended
to remove those doubts in the amendments he intended to
propose by a declaratory clause. There was one ether point
as to which it rail intended to vary the Act of last session. By
that Act the law of rnortrnain was extended to Ireland, where
it operated with more weight than it ever did in this country,
so that it was impossible for a party to leave any quantity of
land, however small, for the site of a chapel, glebe house, or
hospital. The Government proposed to relax this provision so
as to allow land not exceeding five acres, for instance, to be
left for such purpose. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
would think this answer quite explicit.—( Hear, bear. )
MR. ROLLS.

Captain FITZ 11A URICE asked a question, why it was Mr.
Rolls had been prevented from having any friends attend-
ing on him in his examination, and why it was the short-hind
writer had been excluded ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
aware that the short-hand writer had been excluded, but he
would inquire, and see that proper arrangements were made
for taking the minutes of the evidence. As the examinalion
was private, he did not see that any friends of Mr. Shoils had
a claim to he admitted.

THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
On the motion for the House to go into a Committee of
Supply,
Mr. P. M. STEWART rose to call the attention of the
House to the petition of Patrick Macfarlan, Moderator of
the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland
(presented 24th June), complaining of the refusal
of sites to congregations of that church. The Honour-
able Gentleman then read the petition, which stated that
about two years ago one-third of the inhabitants of Scotland
separated Iran the Established Church, and organised them-
selves into the religions community termed the " Free Church
of Scotland." Upwards of 470 ministers seceded at that time,
and the number had since been increased to 620. The subscrip-
tions to a general fund for the erection of churches and the
endowment of schools amounted to 726,0001., and of that sum
320,0001. had been already expended in the building of
churches. The Hon. Gentleman then read several communi-
cations from various parts of Scotland, describing the hardship
and suffering of the people of the Free Church compelled to
worship in tents by the road-side, exposed to the incle-
naenay of the weather. He was sure that he was
doing no more than justice to the landed proprietors
of those districts when he said that they could not know
what was being done on their estates. The House had an in-
stance of the effects to be produced by such a system of perse-
cution in the very parish in which the building was situated?
There never was greater immorality, even in this great metro-
polis, prevailedin
ptheavreisrhyespreocfinsct. precincts oAfiatrhgearHeocussea.nd Thest.
population of the united
returned
Dissenters,
itJohnotahlns was
le.iEbsutta b15136i
ohc
eOO d 0 ,
Church,o tfifawn, hyi hani d,
professed 9 060 owo.
oe
religion.—(
eae
gion.
Hear, hear.)
But, even of this small number, there were 5,000 persons with-
out any means of religious worship or instruction. The cause
of that destitution was the insertion of a clause in all the
leases prohibiting, the building of any school-house or chapel
for Dissenters. But there was no clause to prevent the em-
ployment of the houses on the collegiate estate for immoral
purposes.—(Hear, hear.) There were 130 houses of that
character upon this estate of the Church. The Hon. Member
then
read extracts from a correspondence between the Earl
D'Aubeney and Dr. Chalmers, in which the Noble Lord said
that a foreigner entering Scotland would be struck by a state
of things unknown to the most despotic State in Europe.
He then continued by saying being obliged to
hheavheatdrensopasdesuebdt
stohaltont result of attention nn the
th,s disoefustsican ho Hwoouusled
13 ; e
tbuto
induce the House to afford some effectual relief to those poor
creatures other than that which death supplied.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had heard the Hon.' Memberwith
great attention, and he could assure him that
he deeply and
sincerely deplored the events to which he had drawn
attention.
Bat he feared that the subject was one which, Nyhji• it
ad

been operated on by public opinion, was one also upon which
it would scarcely be possible to legislate. It should be remem-
bered that the Episcopalian form of religion prevailed in Scot-
land ; but even that fact should be no reason why the meanest
peasant in the country should not have the same protection
from the law as the largest landed proprietor. Ile admitted
that the people whose complaint the Hon. Member had stated,
had a just and irresistible claim for toleration in their
form of worship, and that they should have suitable places af-
forded them as sites on which to build their places of
public worship.—(Hear.) But while he would be anxious
to sc.(' this object carried out, on the other hand
he would hope that one temple of worship should notbe placed
in a position that might be regarded as one of offensive rivalry
with other churches. He could state instances where a
Noble Friend of his, and other Noble Lords, had been very
liberal in granting sites on their estates for those places of
worship; he hoped their examples would be followed by many
others. But while he again should express his regret that it
was not possible to legislate on this subject, yet he did hope
that this discussion would, as the Hon. Member opposite had
said, operate beneficially, and that so useful an example would
be_ most extensively followed in Scotland.

Mr. HAWES said he deeply regretted that he should differ
from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and express his fear that
the hopes he entertained would never be realised ; for it had
been seen that while sites were liberally granted for
the erection of places for Roman Catholic worship—those for
the Dissenters were denied. He had also received petitions on
this subject, and their prayer fully established the fact that
there were many instances in that country also of the forget-
fulness by the landlords of the maxim that property had its
duties as well as its rights. The Honourable Member con-
cluded by saying he cordially concurred in the motion of his
Honourable Friend.

Mr. CARDWELL defended the conduct of the landlords
who had been alluded to, and contended that their acts had
not been dictated by feelings of religious intolerance.
Mr. HUME felt assured that the Government would do all
it could to put an end to religious intolerance of this descrip-
tion in Scotland.

Mr. SHEIL was sorry to see Scotland assuming a position
which betrayed a state of things similar to that existing in his
own country. The Seceders were rapidly increasing in Scotland,
and surely it was the duty of the Government to prevent that.
If the Government deemed it incumbent to grant a regium
donum to Ireland, surely it %amid be an anomalous state of
things to refuse it to Scotland, or to grant it when it would be
too late.—( Hear, hear.) He knew it would be presumptuous
of him to say anything upon this subject ; but from all he had
heard and read in reference to it, he did think that though the
Hon. Baronet had said that legislation would be impossible as a
remedy, because a man could not be forced to give a part of his
estate, yet it would be very easy for the Government to provide
a fund for the purpose.
Mr. PRINGLE was of opinion that many of those disputes
existing in Scotland between landlord and tenant had been the
result of bad advice. There never would have been any mis-
understanding but for untimely and injudicious interference.
He would caution the House against giving too much credit
to ex parte statements which were often gross exaggerations.
He trusted that by forbearance and kindness harmony would
yet be restored to the Church of Scotland.
Mr. HINDLE Y said he very much rejoiced at the separation
which had occurred in the Church of Scotland. It had excited
a wholesome spirit of religious zeal, and was attended with the
best effects. The sum of 776,0001. had been collected by the
Free Church of Scotland, of which 320,0001. had been em-
ployed in the erection of churches. He thought it right to
divest religion as much as possible of mere pecuniary consider-
ations, and objected to making the clergy the mere tenants
of the State, so that the great look-out was, not the
promotion of the interests of religion, but to obtain
a good benefice. He regretted the conduct of many noblemen
and landed proprietors towards the members of the Free
Church. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had defended the
Duke of Buccleuch, but he thought the conduct of that noble-
man was not dictated in the true spirit of Christianity, and
that he might have acted more nobly than by refusing a site
for a Free Church chapel, because some of the supporters of it
had abused him. When that Noble Duke saw that many of
his own tenants were anxious to obtain a place of worship, he
should have shown them that he was for freedom of conscience,
and evinced a desire to see them worship their Creator accord-
ing to their religious belief, by selling the land to them. When
the Earl of Cawdor was applied to for a site, he refused any
other than one on some waste lands, and provided that the
chapel should be built of wood, to be removed upon three
months' notice. Surely such conduct as this was rather calcu-
lated to exasperate than restore harmony in Scotland.
After a few words from Mr P. BoaruvricK and Mr. P.
M. STEWART the subject dropped.
Mr. EWART then gave notice that he would postpone the
following motion until Monday next. 1. That a statement be
made, on the part of the Government, of the condition and
prospects of such educational establishments as are supported
wholly or partially by a vote of this House. 2. That it is ex-
pedient that the formation of public libraries, freely opened to
the public, be encouraged. 3. That it is expedient that schools
for the training of masters be more extensively promoted.
4. That it is expedient that appointments to the subordinate
offices of Government be made (as far as possible) by ex-
amination of the merits of the candidates for such offices.