Sitting of 17 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Joint Stock Companies. 2° Parliamentary Electors: Places of Worship Sites (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir Joshua Walmsley, from Members of the General Baptist Congregation, Dover Street (Leicester), for Discouragement of Idolatry in India.—By Mr. Christopher, from Winterton, and its Neighbourhood (Linco n), and by Mr. Loch, from Kirkwall (Orkney), for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Bouverie, from Members of Free St. Matthew's Congregation, Glasgow, and by other Hon. Members, from an immense number of Places, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Captain Fordyce, from Aberdeen, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Viscount Drumlanrig, from Members of the Free Church Congregation, and Others,
1140
in the Neighbourhood of Lockerbie (Dumfries), against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. Fergus, from the Town Council of St. Monance, in the County of Fife, against, and by Captain Fordyce, from Magistrates and Council of Aberdeen, in favour of, the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Fergus, from the Royal Burgh of Inverkeithing, against Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Sir John Hanmer, from the Borough of Flint, for Alteration of the Public Health Bill.—By Captain Pechell, from Brighton, in favour of the Remedies against the Hundred Bill.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL.
SIR D. L. EVANS moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, he said, referred to the ratepaying clauses in the Reform Act. Those ratepaying clauses were not in the original contemplation of the supporters of that Act; but in the course of the violent debates which ensued, a proposition was made that the payment of rates and taxes within a limited period should be a condition of the qualification of voters. A compromise to that effect was entered into, and the provision was introduced into the Act. The object of that provision was represented to be to insure the solvency of those who voted; but, on the contrary, in the course of the working of that Act, there had been found innumerable proofs that that condition had no effect whatever in that respect, for, either from the negligence of the householders themselves, or in some instances from intention on the part of the rate collectors, many persons in the most solvent circumstances had been disfranchised; and it had happened under the operation of those rate-paying clauses that both the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had at one time lost their votes. In Marylebone alone not less than 16,000 bonâ fide electors had upon one occasion been disfranchised by the operation of the clauses in question; and thousands of persons in other boroughs suffered the same grievance. In the aggregate it was calculated that 150,000 bonâ fide electors were generally excluded from the franchise by the effect of the ratepaying clauses. At the present moment, in consequence of the recent changes that had taken place on the Continent, there was now scarcely a country in Europe which did not enjoy a more extensive franchise than that which existed in this country; and a feeling was therefore entertained by many that a large extension of the franchise here was necessary and expedient. Those who held that opinion might perhaps be dissatisfied with the proposition of the minute character which he now submitted to the House; but if

1141
any change of a much more extensive nature should take place in this respect, he trusted it would not be founded on the entire demolition of the present system in respect to the franchise, but on its improvement; and consequently the proposition which he now made would then not militate against, but would rather be in furtherance of such change. He thought all such changes should be gradual and temperate; and he would ask hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side in what state would this country have been if their advice had been followed, and if all those propositions for amelioration and all those concessions to liberal opinions which had been made during the last twenty years had been unfortunately refused? What would have been the state of this country, and of Ireland, if the Test and Corporation Acts had been left in their original stringency—if Catholic emancipation had not been conceded—if the corn laws had not been repealed—and, above all, if the Reform Bill were not now the law of the land? The Bill, the second reading of which he now proposed, was of such a nature, as he trusted would satisfy the scruples of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It proposed an alteration in the Reform Act merely to this effect, that no person should be required, in order to entitle him to have his name inserted on the register for any borough, to have paid any poor-rates or assessed taxes, except such as should have accrued due previously to the 11th day of October in the preceding year, thus substituting the 11th of October in the preceding year for the 5th of April in the current year, as was now the law.
CAPTAIN HARRIS said, he should certainly record his decided opposition to the Bill. On a former occasion a similar Bill had been introduced, and he believed that a majority of the Members of the Government then opposed it. Great inconvenience was experienced in consequence of persons well able to pay their rates and taxes not doing so within a proper time, and he was unwilling to remove any such check as now existed against that abuse. He thought that what was passing in a different part of the world ought not to affect their legislation when founded on justice, and they ought to legislate for themselves irrespective of extraneous events.
SIR G. GREY said, that the hon. and gallant Member had alluded to a Bill of a similar character introduced on a former occasion; but it was his impression that
1142
the principle of that Bill met generally with concurrence from the Members of the Government, and he could state that he himself had supported it. In his individual capacity he should give his vote for the second reading of the present Bill, which did not affect the principle of the payment of rates and taxes in reference to the franchise, but only extended the time, and came within the spirit of the Reform Act. The Bill had nothing to do with the present state of affairs; and, as he had supported the former Bill, he should now vote for this, not in reference to circumstances existing at the present moment, but because he thought it would have a beneficial effect.
The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 25: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Baines, M. T.

Kildare, Marq. Of

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

M'Gregor, J.

Bernal, R.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Marshall, W.

Blackall, S. W.

Matheson, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bright, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Moffatt, G.

Carter, J. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Packe, C. W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Pilkington, J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Rawdon, Col.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Rice, E. R.

Dunne, F. P.

Scholefield, W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smith, J. B.

Ellice, E.

Smyth, J. G.

Fergus, J.

Spooner, R.

Fox, R. M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Frewen, C. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Thompson, Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tufnell, H.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Hayter, W. G.

Williams, J.

Headlam, T. E.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Heald, J.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Hudson, G.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Humphery, Ald.

Hall, Sir B.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Baldock, E. H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bankes, G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Buck, L. W.

Oswald, A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Patten, J. W.

Christy, S.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Cobbold, J. C.

Reid, Col.

Colvile, C. R.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Deedes, W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Villiers, Visct.

Duncuft, J.

Waddington, D.

Forbes, W.

TELLERS.

Grogan, E.

Christopher, R. A.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bill read a second time.

AUDIT OF RAILWAY ACCOUNTS BILL.
SIR F. T. BARING moved the Second Reading of the Audit of Railway Accounts Bill, of which he would briefly state the objects. It originated with the House of Lords, in consequence of the evils which appeared to the Members of that House to exist in the present system, and not from any desire on their parts to interfere unduly with the course of railway legislation. In many instances there had appeared to them, as no doubt there had appeared to many Members of that House in the progress of business before Railway Committees, many circumstances which required alteration and revision. In particular it seemed objectionable, that in cases where a large minority of shareholders were dissatisfied with the management of any particular railway, they should have no power to procure a satisfactory explanation of the accounts. The Bill of which he moved the second reading was a measure to enable the minority of the shareholders, when it reached a certain extent so as to constitute a considerable number of the persons interested, to have the accounts of any company fairly audited by an impartial person who should be appointed by the Government. It was not proposed, however, that Government should interfere to make such appointment, unless a requisition was addressed to them by a certain number of shareholders; and once the audit was made and the result exhibited, the Government possessed no further powers of interference. The Bill contained many details; but he would not enter upon their discussion, as what he had stated sufficiently embodied the principle of the Bill. That principle appeared to him to be just, and he, therefore, was at a loss to imagine why there should exist, as he had reason to believe there did exist in some quarters, a serious opposition to the Bill. There were many hon. Members who might think the measure exhibited an unnecessary stringency, and if they objected to it on principle, they would no doubt oppose the second reading; but at the same time any objections which related to details merely would best be urged in Committee. He did not see why any distinction should be drawn between the principles which applied to the auditing of railway accounts and to the accounts of other corporate bodies. Of one thing he felt certain, that if the opposition to this Bill succeeded, the House would, at no distant period, be obliged to pass a measure still more stringent, for it was impos
1144
sible to allow the present system to continue.
MR. BANKES could not be suspected of being actuated by any railway interest in giving his opposition to the measure, inasmuch as he had never connected himself by any tie with any railway in the country. At the same time he was bound to state that this measure could not receive his approbation; and unless his present opinion should be changed by the statements of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere), or by the representations of Gentlemen connected with railways and railway management, he should feel it his duty to persist in the Amendment he had to make on the Motion of the hon. Baronet, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He objected to the Bill, more especially because he conceived it to be only another piece of that piecemeal legislation with respect to railways, of which he had so often complained. The Bill was introduced merely for the purpose of giving the Railway Commissioners something to do. The existing regulations were quite sufficient for the objects this Bill had in view; and, if passed, it would introduce nothing but discord and confusion into railway companies. The principle of giving to the minority power over the majority, was new in legislation; and why the railway interest should be selected for the application of that principle, he was at a loss to understand. He trusted that the Railway Board would soon be placed on a different footing to that upon which it was placed at present, as he was of opinion that from that tribunal ought to emanate all measures relating to railway matters. He was of opinion also, that such a Bill as this ought not to originate in the other House of Parliament, as it was a measure which the House of Commons was better able to judge of than the House of Lords. Such a Bill as this ought to have been founded upon petitions praying for its enactment; but as far as he could learn, not a single petition had been presented to either House of Parliament in favour of such a measure. Under these circumstances he should persist in the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, unless he heard stronger arguments in favour of the Bill than had been urged.
MR. LABOUCHERE attached no great importance to the objection that this measure was not introduced by the Govern

1145
ment: independent Members of Parliament had an undoubted right to originate any measures which they might conceive the public interest called for. It was remarkable that this Bill, which it was understood was to be strongly opposed in that House, passed through the House of Lords without opposition. He had been informed by some Gentlemen connected with the railway interest that they were not aware of the nature of the measure whilst it was in the other House; but it was difficult to believe that the railway interest, generally so watchful as to anything likely to affect them, should on this occasion have been caught napping. The hon. Member thought that the Railway Board had little business to transact; but in that he was mistaken. The business performed by the Railway Commissioners was considerable in quantity, and great as regarded the gravity of its character. It was business which could not be performed in a satisfactory manner by men who were not of high and recognised station in the country. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had spoken disparagingly of the Railway Commissioners; but so long as it was the will of the Legislature to maintain a board of that description, so long was it the interest of the country that the character of that board should be upheld. If those who composed it were deficient in knowledge and capacity, at least the public had an interest in their integrity; of that nothing could deprive them. The real question for the consideration of the House was, whether there should or not be a more efficient audit than at present existed for railway accounts. He differed upon this question with most of the Gentlemen connected with railway companies. They considered railway companies to be strictly private companies, and partaking in no degree of a public character, any more than any other commercial undertaking. Now, he never could persuade himself that that was a correct view of the question. Railway companies were very anomalous bodies. It had always appeared to him, considering the enormous amount of capital they possessed, and the extensive powers that were given to them by the Legislature, which practically conferred upon them a monopoly over the means of communication throughout the country, that railway companies stood in a middle position between public and private establishments. He had always understood that it was this consideration which justified that interference of the Legisla
1146
ture with those companies which they were not prepared to apply to private companies. Upon general principles, no doubt, all commercial transactions were better managed by private enterprise than by the interference of the Government, which, for the most part, was not only useless but mischievous. But, although he agreed that private undertakings should not be interfered with, still, viewing railway companies as a species of public institution, he could not join with those who resisted the present measure on the ground that such companies were merely private concerns. Upon these grounds he thought there was nothing contrary to sound principle that Parliament should provide speedily for railway companies a means of audit which did not exist in the case of other companies. He wished to speak with all respect of the general management of the great railway companies of this country. He knew that some of the most eminent mercantile men had, to the great advantage of the country, taken part in the direction of those great undertakings. At the same time, if he were asked whether there had not been considerable abuses in the mode of conducting many of those companies; whether they had not considered shemselves as being almost chartered libertines; whether they had not often set at nought the provisions of the Acts of Parliament under which they derived all their authority, he should feel bound to say that he believed that that had been very much the case. He did not think any Gentleman would deny that the railway companies had in a great many instances disregarded altogether the provisions to which the Legislature had subjected their management. The present system of auditing railway accounts was most unsatisfactory. The auditor was appointed by a majority of the shareholders. What did that practically amount to? Why, that in point of fact the directors appointed the auditor, for the directors naturally and necessarily possessed the confidence of a great majority of the shareholders. Under such circumstances the idea that the auditor had any real check upon the management of the company was visionary and unfounded. He believed that there existed the greatest practical difficulty in any minority of shareholders of a large company inducing any great portion of their body to take part against a majority of the shareholders. Great abuses might go on for a long time without there being any practical means for

1147
a minority of shareholders obtaining any efficient redress. He therefore did not attach much importance to the system of audit which now existed. The principle of the present Bill was this—not that Government should be empowered at its own will and fancy to appoint an examiner and auditor, but that it should be competent for a proportion of the shareholders to express a desire that such an audit should be instituted; and, as a check against any abuse of this power on the part of the shareholders, it was required that they should deposit 200 l. to meet the expenses of the inquiry. But even upon a minority representing a desire that an auditor should be appointed, it would not be compulsory on the Commissioners of Railways to appoint an auditor, should they have reason to believe that the application was not bonâ fide. This was not a Government measure; but, connected as he was with the Railway Board, and approving as he did of the principle of the Bill, he should vote for its second reading, without, however, considering himself at all pledged to its details.
MR. HENLEY had in vain listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to get at what really were the reasons in favour of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had conceded the general principle, that public commercial companies ought to be left untouched and uninterfered with by the Government; but, said the right hon. Gentleman, railway companies were an exception; he had not, however, proved that assertion. There were other public companies with which the right hon. Gentleman might have compared the railway companies—the Bank of England, for instance. But would the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with that establishment by legislation in the same way as it was now proposed to deal with railway companies? The principle of the Bill, if there were any principle in it, was to produce a species of appeal. It did not impose an audit upon the company in the first instance. The Bill would not be put in motion at all unless it should be set going by the act of a certain portion of the shareholders. Upon what pretence could that be called an audit on public grounds? The principle of the Bill, if it had any principle at all, was not that the public should interfere, but that private shareholders should interfere. As to saying that there was not an efficient audit so far as the shareholders were concerned, he
1148
wanted to know where were the shareholders who complained? The right hon. Gentleman argued that railway companies were "chartered libertines;" but he did not find that the shareholders were dissatisfied parties. Some years ago a general Railway Bill was passed, after great discussion and consideration in Parliament. Almost every one of the railway companies had now come under the provisions of that Act, which provided, he believed, a most efficient audit for the private concerns of those companies. Unless a very strong and overwhelming case could be made out, to show that the public good would be promoted by the measure, he thought it a very questionable matter whether Parliament had a right to interfere with private Acts, upon the faith of which parties had advanced their money. Upon these grounds he should give his vote against the second reading of the Bill.
MR. AGLIONBY would cordially support the Bill, considering it most wholesome, as regarded the public, and beneficial as regarded the shareholders themselves. No set of men who dealt honestly could be injured by the measure. There was no attempt at unjustifiable interference on the part of the Legislature, for railway companies were not altogether of a private character. On account of their public character, they were permitted to take land on compulsion, and the State had therefore a right to interfere with them. It was said, that the shareholders had sufficient power already; but if that were so, the public had not, and their interest should not be lost sight of. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, that the minority of the shareholders, who would have the power of putting the machinery of the Bill in motion if they thought their affairs ill conducted, would be so foolish as to destroy their own property. The companies, if they meant to act honestly, could therefore have nothing to fear. There was nothing inquisitorial in the Bill, nor anything likely to lead to a bad result, and therefore it should have his support.
MR. MUNTZ said, the supporters of the Bill had completely failed in making out a case in its favour. They were going upon the old plan of dabbling in everything, and mending nothing. They were interfering in other people's business, and not minding their own. He, thanked God, had no interest in railways; but he did not understand the principle on which the minority was to coerce the majority. This was no

1149
public question—it was a private one, and legislative interference with private concerns must prove injurious to the State. The House might as well interfere with gas companies and canal companies, and appoint auditors for all private establishments.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 38; Noes 100: Majority 62.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Blackall, S. W.

Marshall, W.

Brotherton, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Power, Dr.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Power, N.

Clifford, H. M.

Rawdon, Col.

Craig, W. G.

Rice, E. R.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Sidney, Ald.

Dundas, Sir D.

Simeon, J.

Dunne, F. P.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Sullivan, M.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Fergus, J.

Tennent, R. J.

Foley, J. H. H.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Forster, M.

Thornely, T.

Fox, R. M.

Wawn, J.T.

Granger, T. C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Heywood, J.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt hon. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

List of the NOES.

Anderson, A.

Ellice

Arkwright, G.

Evans, W.

Bagshaw, J.

Ewart, W.

Bailey, J.

Forbes, W.

Baldock, E. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Barrington, Visct.

Gardner, R.

Bennet, P.

Glyn, G. C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Greene, T.

Beresford, W.

Grenfell, C. W.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Grogan. E.

Boldero, H. G.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hastie, A.

Bright, J.

Hawes, B.

Brown, W.

Hayter, W. G.

Buck, L. W.

Heald, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Heneage, E.

Bunbury, W. M.

Herries, rt. Hon. J. C.

Busfeild, W.

Hildyard, R. C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hope, Sir J.

Christy, S.

Hornby, J.

Clive, H. B.

Houldsworth, T.

Cobden, R.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Collins, W.

Hudson, G.

Cowan, C.

Humphery, Ald.

Dick, Q.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Divett, E.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lacy, H. C.

Duncan, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duncombe, hon. A.

Loch, J.

Duncuft, J.

Lowther, H.

Du Pre, C. G.

Lushington, C.

East, Sir J. B.

Lushington, C.

Edwards, H.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

1150

Muntz, G. F.

Smollett, A.

Mure, Col.

Spooner, R.

Newry & Morne, Visct.

Stafford, A.

Ord, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Thesiger, Sir F.

Oswald, A.

Thompson, Col.

Palmer, R.

Trelawny, J. S.

Patten, J. W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Pilkington, J.

Tynte, Col.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Powell, Col.

Villiers, Visct.

Reid, Col.

Waddington, D.

Renton, J. C.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Ricardo, O.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Scott, hon. F.

Seymer, H. K.

TELLERS.

Shirley, E. J.

Bankes, G.

Smith, J. B.

Henley, J. W.

Bill put off for six months.

PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. BOUVERIE, in rising to move the Second Reading of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill, said, that it was not without some reluctance that he did so. The Bill involved, if not a novel principle, at least a new application of an old one. But it was rendered necessary by certain persons, not many in number, but considerable in power, whose conduct injuriously affected the best interests of a number of our fellow-subjects, and was not, as he contended, consistent with those principles of toleration which were supposed to be embodied in our laws. He deplored the conduct of which he spoke, as much as any man in that House or out of it, because it was exhibited by persons, some of them of high character in their country—persons of that position that their example for good or for evil had necessarily great weight with the public. But he deplored still more the circumstances which that conduct had occasioned; and it was those circumstances that constituted his justification and reason for asking the House to assent to the second reading of this Bill. The Bill was entitled, "A Bill to enable Religious Congregations in Scotland to obtain Sites for Places of Worship;" and he proposed to state briefly to the House, first, the grievance which had given occasion for this Bill; and, next, the remedy by which he proposed to remove that grievance. Now, there could be no dispute or doubt as to the facts of the case. They did not admit of being disputed. They had been made the subject of investigation before a Committee of that House of which he was chairman. That Committee sat for a considerable time, and before

1151
it the principal facts of the case were thoroughly sifted and investigated. He would read to the House part of the unanimous report of that Committee, which would place before the House the general aspect of the facts brought before the Committee. The Committee stated that—
"They found that there was a number of Christian congregations in Scotland which had no places of worship within a reasonable distance of their homes, where they could unite in the public service of Almighty God, according to their conscientious convictions of religious duty, under convenient shelter from the severity of a northern climate."
And they went on to state that—
"It has been proved to your Committee that the members of these congregations are in the habit of meeting for public worship in places and under circumstances which are unfit for the administration of the sacred ordinances of the Christian religion, and which expose both the ministers and the people to weather injurious to their health, and to inconveniences which ought not to attend the free exercise of religious privileges."
That was the unanimous opinion of the Committee; and he would shortly trouble the House whilst he substantiated that general view which the Committee took of the facts which were proved before them, by a reference to portions of the evidence taken on that occasion. There was one case—that of Canonbie in the county of Dumfries—in which the congregation was shown to suffer much inconvenience in consequence of the refusal to sell sites for the erection of places of worship. He would read from the evidence of the minister of that congregation (who bad since died), for the purpose of showing the mode in which they were compelled to join in divine worship. It appeared that at first, and for a considerable time, this congregation had no shelter at all; but they were ultimately permitted to erect a tent in a gravel pit. The evidence of the gentleman in question was not contradicted—it could not admit of a dispute. He was asked this question—
"Does the tent protect you from the severity of the weather?—In the winter of 1846–6, I often saw the rain freely percolating through the canvass and filling on the heads of the hearers. I often saw the seats thoroughly wet, as if they had been dragged through the river. I often saw the floor a puddle of mud. We got a tent better weather-proofed for this winter; but in keeping out the rain we kept in the damp that rises from the ground in the tent—the vapour in the tent—and I often in this winter received complaints from the people that the seats were covered with hoar frost; and I saw the melted congealed moisture from the roof of the tent falling upon the heads of the worshippers; the cold was intense, and particularly when the Sabbath school was
1152
opened for instruction after public worship, it was very difficult indeed for the children and teachers to bear it."
He would now quote to the House from the evidence which had been produced relative to the case of a congregation in Skyo, where there were several other congregations in a similar position. The clergyman of one of these congregations, after he had stated that they were in the habit of meeting for public worship, since they left the Church of Scotland, in the open air, was asked—
"Is there any shelter at all from the weather?—I have some shelter, but the people have none. Have you preached in all weathers?—Yes, in all weathers. Have you preached there in a fall of snow?—A very heavy fall of snow. Have you preached when the snow has been falling so heavily that you could scarcely distinguish the congregation from the ground except by their faces?—Yes."
A clergyman who ministered to a congregation in the eastern part of Scotland was asked under what circumstances his congregation united in divine worship; and he said that he had preached on the 22nd of November, 1846, during an incessant fall of rain; that he preached again, towards the end of January, when there was again a fall of rain, without intermission, during the whole of the service. He preached again on the 14th of February, when there was deep snow, and it was very stormy; and he had on some occasions administered baptism under those circumstances. He did not like to weary the House with quoting details, but he thought it was necessary he should fully substantiate the truth of the general statement made by the Committee; and, with the permission of the House, therefore, he would refer to one or two more cases. The first was that of Torosay in Mull, where there was no stated minister regularly to perform divine service. The people there were occasionally visited by ministers, who performed the duties of their office. A clergyman was asked whether he had ever administered the sacrament at Torosay, and he replied that he had done so in 1845.
"Where did you administer it?—In a gravel pit, within high-water mark. Was there any shelter from the
weather?—There was a canvass tent, which had been a good deal torn and spoilt before I went there. Was that merely for the minister?—There were a number of people underneath the canvass, but there were as many outside exposed more directly to the weather."
He would only trouble the House with one other case, .which was that of a congregation

1153
gation at Leadhills, in Lanarkshire. A clergyman from that district proved that he was obliged to conduct divine service for the people in the open air, exposed to rain, frost, and snow; and on one occasion he had to be lifted off the stone from which he had preached, he was so cold. Now, these were some of the cases, and he might say, perhaps, the principal cases, which were detailed in evidence before the Committee. The evil which was proved to exist then, he was sorry to say, mainly continued to exist still. There was only one case—the case of Sir James Riddell—in which there had been any indication of a disposition on the part of those who had the power to relieve these poor people from the circumstances under which they suffered. The number altogether of these congregations was supposed by the Committee not to exceed thirty-five; and all of them, as the House was aware, belonged to that great body which left the Church of Scotland five years ago, and which had now settled down into a great Presbyterian Church, embracing between one-third and one-fourth of the whole population of Scotland, and which must certainly influence the future welfare and history of Scotland to a very great extent. These congregations, in common with the rest of their body, as many Members of that House were probably aware, abandoned the Church to which they and their forefathers had belonged, rather than, as they supposed, sanction its adherence to a principle of spiritual sub-serviency to the State. They had, from that time until now, worshipped in the way that he had described, and would continue so to worship, as he believed, unless some relief were given by which the owners of domains as large, in some instances, as whole counties or a German principality, were compelled to sell a small spot of their extensive estates for the purpose of erecting a place of worship thereon, which might protect the purchasers from the severities of a northern climate. He contended that the House ought not to permit the present state of matters in Scotland, in reference to this question, if they could possibly prevent it. That state was not conducive to the interests of the public or of religion; and he contended that if he could suggest a remedy, it was their duty to exercise the highest function which they could fulfil—the protection of the weak against the strong, and to adopt it. It was their duty to endeavour to devise a remedy, and having devised it, to apply it for the benefit of
1154
these poor people. That remedy he bad endeavoured to find; he believed it was contained in the Bill which he intended to move should be read a second time; and having stated (he hoped briefly) the nature of the grievance of which these people justly complained, he would endeavour to explain shortly to the House the provisions of this Bill. This Bill then, proposed that congregations should be enabled to procure sites for places of worship, by making application to the highest court of justice in Scotland, the Court of Session, which had great administrative powers. The application was to be made in a formal manner, and the Court of Session would give notice to the proprietor, whose lands were alleged by the petitioners to be necessary to be taken for sites for places of worship. There would be a power on the part of the proprietor to contradict the statements in the petition; there was to be a formal investigation before the sheriff, who would report to the court; and where the Court of Session decided that the material allegations in the petition had been sustained, the sheriff should be directed to go to the estate, and select a proper place, with certain limitations as regarded the convenience of the proprietor; and a further provision was made that the expenses of the investigation, and for the conveyance in proper form of the land so taken, should fall upon those applying for the site. It was, in short, a power to take land compulsorily in certain cases where none other could be got, for the purpose of enabling religious congregations to erect places of worship. Now, he knew very well that here he should be met with the objection, and it was a grave one, that, in making this proposition, he was interfering with the rights of property. But he said that, while he admitted the fact, he denied the inference, because he contended that the proposition which he made came within the operation of the principle which the House acted upon every day, without that principle being ever disputed. There was not a Member who would not see, that, in the case of railways, every Bill which was brought before the House for the construction of a railway contained clauses to the same effect as those contained in the present Bill; and their introduction was assented to without demur. They held in that House—for there was no other principle which could justify that interference—they held that they had a right to say to the proprietor of a certain piece of land, "Provided you are

1155
compensated for the loss of this land, it is but just that the public interest and convenience should override your right." And they went even further than this—they deprived a proprietor, in cases where the public interest was concerned, of land, for which it was impossible to compensate him. He recollected, about four years ago, a case in point. He was on a Railway Committee, in which a proprietor of land was an opponent. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Smyth), who was now a Member of this House, but was not then, was possessed of one of the prettiest seats in Yorkshire, which happened to be located at a junction of railways—the Manchester and Leeds, he believed, and the North Midland. The proposed line was to run across from one to the other, and so place his house in the centre of a small triangle. He naturally objected to the destruction of his seat, which must ensue if the Bill were sanctioned in its original shape; but, notwithstanding the great beauty of his property, he was told by the Committee that inasmuch as the public convenience required it for the purposes of the railway, his objection must be overruled, and he must be content to accept what was deemed the worth, by a fair valuation of the property; although in truth to him it was impossible to fix its value. He knew another case of a similar kind. He alluded to the case of a gentleman which, perhaps, might be known to some Members of that House. His property was situate in Devonshire, close to the sea; the railway ran between his house and the sea; and he believed he might almost say that that gentleman died of a broken heart, in consequence of the destruction of his property thus occasioned. He recollected that about three years ago, the House passed an Act for the construction of a park in Battersea. By that Act some three or four hundred acres were to be taken, under compulsory clauses, from the owners for the construction of a park. And what great public necessity was there for those powers? There was no overruling necessity at all. There was the knowledge that it was desirable at some future day, whenever that neighbourhood was likely to become populous, to construct a park for the recreation of the inhabitants; and the Government, without any objection on the part of the House, introduced a public Bill, for the purpose of obtaining compulsory powers with regard to the procuring of land at Battersea, for
1156
that purpose. And in the same year another Act was passed for widening Piccadilly—no doubt a very desirable thing; but there again was an interference with the rights of private property—he believed, with those of one of the hon. Members for the city of London, Baron Lionel Rothschild, whose land interfered with the projected improvement. Now, he did not pretend to dispute the justice of those proceedings; but he said, while he thought they could fully justify and uphold them upon sound principle, they were bound fully to act upon that principle in other cases; and he defied them to draw a just distinction between the present case and those to which he had just alluded. The case which he had brought before them was one of the highest importance to these poor people and to the public generally in Scotland; and he warned them that not only the health but the morals of these poor people would be grievously endangered if the House refused to assist them in obtaining proper places for the performance of divine worship. Let him read to them what was stated by a gentleman whose name must always carry weight with it, and who had a European reputation for having devoted a long life to the advancement of the best interests of his fellow-creatures—he meant the late Dr. Chalmers. That gentleman was asked whether, in his opinion, the continued refusal to grant sites to the congregations of the Free Church of Scotland would have a tendency to prevent the progress of that Church? His answer was—
"I think it may perhaps have rather the reverse effect, and that it may not injure the Free Church: in point of fact, I believe it has drawn a good deal of sympathy and support in favour of the Free Church from those whom such a system as that of the refusal of sites is calculated to revolt. But though it may not injure the Free Church, I think it may effect an injury of a far more serious description in those districts where such a system prevails; it may have the effect of debarring the people from the benefits and blessings of a Christian ministration; and I consider that the injury to the Free Church is a mere bagatelle, as compared to the injury to the moral and religious interests of the districts where such a system prevails."
He (Mr. Bouverie) believed that statement to be most true. And as to the physical injury, a member of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons, who was examined before the Committee, was asked whether, in his opinion, injury to the health had been inflicted upon members of the Free Church attending divine worship in

1157
the open air during winter? and he answered, that in the districts in which he resided, at least fifty such cases had occurred to him in his practice, which he attributed to exposure under those circumstances. It was rather remarkable that the Established Church of Scotland possessed compulsory powers with respect to the procuring of sites for places of worship. He believed that the law in that respect was practically dormant, but it might be brought into operation at any moment. By that law, the Court of Session, upon proper application to that effect, had the power of compelling the owners of land in a parish to give (without compensation) sufficient land for the erection of a church and manse. Well, then, he contended that if that power existed with regard to one Church, they had no right to refuse it with regard to another. There was a strong case of grievance made out, which they were bound to relieve, if they could apply to it a just and fitting remedy. It was no new or unheard-of proposal. Without troubling the House with a list of learned authorities, he could state that modern canonists and civilians were undoubtedly of opinion, that if the erection of a church or a monastery were deemed necessary to the interests of any particular district, the civil law gave compulsory powers for the procuring of land for such purpose. The process of taking it was very similar to the one proposed by him. He could show them, then, that this was a power which was acknowledged by the jurists of other countries as a just and reasonable one. He had shown them the present state of things with regard to these people; and he asked them, were they willing to incur the responsibility of refusing the remedy which he proposed they should grant? He had purposely abstained from entering into all irritating topics, as regarded either the cause of these refusals, or the circumstances which attended that great secession of which he had spoken. He thought the case stood altogether irrespective of them. It was with the facts with respect to the present condition of the people that they ought to deal. They knew from evidence that they were a peaceable, godly, Christian, and moral people; and again he asked the House whether it was willing to incur the responsibility of keeping such a people in this state of suffering, rather than accept the remedy which he proposed to them? He begged leave to move the second reading of the Bill.
The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 25: Maiority 55.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Baines, M. T.

M'Gregor, J.

Bernal, R.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Bowring, Dr.

Maitland, T.

Bright, J.

Marshall, W.

Brockman, E. D.

Matheson, J.

Brotherton, J.

Matheson, Col.

Brown, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Melgund, Visct.

Clay, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Moffatt, G.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Ord, W.

Cowan, C.

Patten, J. W.

Craig, W. G.

Pilkington, J.

Crawford W. S.

Power, Dr.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Power, N.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Rawdon, Col.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Reynolds, J.

Dundas, G.

Romilly, J.

Evans, W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Fergus, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sidney, Ald.

Foley, J. H. H.

Smith, J. B.

Fox, R. M.

Smollett, A.

French, F.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Glyn, G. C.

Spooner, R.

Granger, T. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hall, Sir B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Sullivan, M.

Hastie, A.

Tennent, R. J.

Hayter, W. G.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Heywood, J.

Thornely, T.

Hindley, C.

Traill, G.

Hornby, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Tynte, Col.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Wawn, J. T.

Jones, Capt.

Wilson, M.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Lincoln, Earl of

TELLERS.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Loch, J.

Ewart, W.

List of the NOES.

Barrington, Visct.

Greene, T.

Benbow, J.

Henley, J. W.

Carew, W. H. P.

Hodgson, W. N.

Christopher, R. A.

Hope, Sir J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lockhart, A. E.

Compton, H. C.

Oswald, A.

Drummond, H.

Scott, hon. F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Seymer, H. K.

Du Pre, C. G.

Sturt, H. G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Thompson, Col.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Trollope, Sir J.

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Gordon, Adm.

Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B.

Granby, Marq. of

Mure, Col.

Bill read a second time.
On the question that the Bill be committed,
MR. STUART WORTLEY said, that he should be sorry if the question were dismissed before he had offered a few observations on it. He trusted his hon.

1159
Friend would be able to discover some mode of arriving at the same end—an attempt in which he would be ready to assist him, without going the length of the Bill which his hon. Friend now proposed. He had opposed the appointment of the Committee last year, because he thought that its appointment would only keep alive the spirit of opposition, which was dying away. He thought, if that Committee had not been appointed, many of the persons who refused to grant sites for churches would have yielded. But the pressing of the question had the effect of keeping the spirit of the controversy alive. For his own part, he was quite prepared to say, that where so large a number of people found themselves in the painful position of numbering amongst them large, respectable, and pious congregations, who could not find a decent place for worship, it was the duty of the Legislature of the country to find some remedy for so great and extensive an evil. But the question was, whether, to meet the evils of a particular case, it would not be sufficient to provide a remedy for the case itself, and not to enact a law, by the operation of which other sects, not so deserving support as the pious members of the Free Church, would be entitled to make similar claims. He urged his hon. Friend not to seek for so general a measure, but to confine his attention to the case before them; and he would beg of his hon. Friend to look at the possible operation of the measure he now proposed. Let him suppose a case in which a sect, not of so innocent a nature as that of the Free Church, were to find itself similarly circumstanced. Let him suppose that they might not even be Christians who composed it; or, if Christians, persons professing tenets and principles of so objectionable a character to all holders of property, that no one would wish to permit their settlement in his neighbourhood. Surely such a case would be so very different as not to be entitled to share the benefits of that Bill. They had had an instance of the mode in which legislation was made applicable to special cases in the matter of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, where the remedy was applied directly to the grievance complained of. On that principle he had given his assent to the second reading; but he hoped that his bon, Friend would limit the provisions of the Bill in Committee to the special grievance of the Free Church of Scotland alone.
Ma. ELLIOT said, that he believed the House had been taken by surprise in going to a division on the second reading; but having voted against the Bill, he wished to explain the reasons which had influenced him in doing so. There was no man in the House more anxious than he was to see the Free Church of Scotland possessed of sites for places of worship; and no man who more strongly condemned those by whom that privilege had been resisted; but his objection was to the Bill itself. He thought that the Bill had been brought in ostensibly for the purpose of providing sites for Free churches alone; but instead of that he found it to be a general Bill providing for every possible religious denomination of which a hundred members might be got together. All these were to have a power of compelling landowners to give them sites for places of worship. His hon. Friend, in moving the second reading of the Bill, had alluded to the case of railways as an instance of the compulsory sale of land; but it should be recollected that an application must be made to Parliament in the case of each railway company before the compulsory sale of land was permitted; whereas by this Bill no application to Parliament would be necessary, but wherever 100 persons, no matter what extent of country they might be spread over, could be got to join in an application, they could insist on as many sites for places of worship as they wished to erect, and it would not be in the power of the sheriff and Court of Session to refuse them. It was clear that under such a Bill, chapels would be established merely for the purpose of propagandism when no considerable congregation would exist. When the separation of the Free Church from the Establishment took place, a great deal of violent language had been indulged in. It had been stated that a Free church would be opened near every Established church in the country, for the purpose of preaching it down; and though such language had been since repudiated, it was clear that persons warmly attached to the Established Church must have been considerably annoyed by it. The number of proprietors who still refused sites to the Free Church was exceedingly small; and he did not see why each of these cases should not be brought forward as a separate case, instead of passing a general measure that would let in all denominations whatever.
MR. CHRISTOPHER objected to the

1161
Bill on general grounds. He thought that it was one of the most direct attacks upon property that had ever been introduced in that House. He could not but regret that no Members of Her Majesty's Government had been present when the division took place, to state what were the views of the Government with regard to it; and he hoped that before the debate closed, either the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would give some explanation to the House upon this subject. If this Bill passed into a law, how could they refuse a similar favour to the numerous classes of Dissenters in this country, or to the Roman Catholics in Ireland? The Roman Catholics would have a right to compel proprietors of land to afford them sites for their chapels whenever they required them; and if the measure were just with regard to the Free Church, it would be equally just with regard to the Roman Catholics, or the Unitarians, or any other class of Christian Dissenters in this country. On these grounds he should object to the whole Bill; and, as he had already said, if it were to pass at all, he would prefer seeing it pass in its present shape, to having it altered in the manner suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute.
SIR GEORGE GREY said, that it certainly had been his intention to have been present at the second reading the Bill; and he had attended in the House at the early part of the day for that purpose. He had been obliged, however, to leave the House for a short time on public business; and he was much surprised to find that, during his absence, a division had taken place without any debate. If a debate had taken place, he should have been prepared to express his opinions on the question; but the House having decided by a large majority in favour of the second reading of the Bill, the present debate was, he thought, rather irregular, and he was of opinion, that it was better to wait until the Bill reached the next stage before stating the course which he was prepared to pursue with regard to it. At the same time he was ready to admit that he saw great difficulties in the way of any legislation on this subject. When his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion for a Committee on this subject, he took occasion to state what the nature of those difficulties were; and the House having agreed to the appointment of that Committee, he had
1162
entertained a strong hope that the inquiry would have led to a remedy for what he should say were the very serious grievances of which the Free Church complained, without any further interference on the part of the Legislature being necessary. He understood that the cases in which sites were still refused were not so numerous as when the subject had been before the House last; but still he was informed, though he could not vouch for the information which had reached him on the subject, that there were from thirty to forty instances in which large districts, inhabited by numerous members of the Free Church, were yet left without sites for places of worship. If, as he feared, there were no hope of the just complaints to which his hon. Friend had alluded, as existing on this subject being removed, he could not deny that a grievance existed with which Parliament would have to interfere. That grievance was, however, of a limited kind, and he understood that the members of the Free Church were willing to accede to any arrangements by which their object could be accomplished. Whether the course taken by this Bill was the most reasonable one that could be adopted, was a subject for consideration in Committee; but though he saw all the difficulties which attended legislation on the subject, and though he had hoped that the object would have been obtained without direct legislation, he could not regret to find that the House had expressed so decided an opinion in favour of the second reading of a Bill for providing a remedy for so serious a grievance.
MR. B. COCHRANE: The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that the question had been virtually settled by the very large majority on the division for the second reading; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House had been quite taken by surprise on that division. There were many Members who had intended to address the House, but did not even know that the speech of the Mover had been seconded. He was surprised at the tone taken by the House on a question of such vast importance. If no one else ventured to say so, he did not scruple to assert that a more mischievous, a more arrogant Bill had never been introduced to that House. Hon. Members seemed to forget the history of the Free Church of Scotland; that it was a Church nurtured in revolution; and that it sprang into

1163
existence with the Reform Bill and the French Revolution of 1830. Nothing was more arrogant and presumptuous than its pretensions. They had refused every compromise—they rejected Lord Aberdeen's Bill, although that noble Lord said that the parties objecting to the clergyman should only be required to state the grounds of their objections, and however futile these might be, even extending to the colour of the man's hair, they should be admitted; but they would not accept this, and demanded the power of rejecting any and every minister, without stating any objection whatever to him. He had that day met with a passage in Milton which very curiously foretold the increase of ecclesiastical tyranny, and, singularly enough, associated with it the name of the present Lord Advocate, the chief supporter of this Bill:—
"Was it for this you bid us sheathe the sword, To force our consciences, which Christ set free—
And load us with a priestly tyranny, Led by ambitious men like Rutherford?"
It was quite monstrous to ask the House to pass such a measure as this, when the very parties who brought it forward admitted that these Free Kirk men had already obtained 700 or 800 sites for churches; that only thirty-one had been refused; and he had a paper in his hand, which he would not trouble the House to listen to, but which proved that these thirty-one had dwindled down to fourteen. Why, what were they demanding? To compel a man who conscientiously differed with them to have a church opposed to the Established Church in the same village and parish, thus opening the door to every kind of dissension and misery. And then, why had the schism ever arisen? Simply because the members—the leaders of the Free Kirk party—were arrogant, ambitious men: he would not except Dr. Chalmers. All they wanted to do was to obtain the whole patronage of the Church of Scotland; for their modest request was, that after a certain period the right of presentation, jure devoluto, should be vested in the Church courts; but the truth was, that the term Church should never be applied to such a sect. If, as Mr. Burke so happily said, "All Protestantism was dissent from the Roman Catholic Church, and Presbyterianism was the dissidence of dissent;" what term could be invented low enough to describe the Free Kirk of Scotland,
1164
who differed with the Established, not upon a question of doctrine, but of patronage? and the agitation was created by the very men who only possessed the power of agitation through that very patronage. He (Mr. Cochrane) feared the time was approaching prophesied by Dryden—
"When the Presbyter, puff'd up by spiritual pride, Should over the necks of the great nobles ride."
But, for his part, he would give every possible opposition to a measure to confer privileges on such a republican, presuming, and arrogant body of men.
COLONEL THOMPSON wished to know what was the necessity for this extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Free Church of Scotland? It had been his fortune to be brought up among a religious body, who, though most numerous, had never thought it necessary to apply to Parliament to assist them in procuring the means of exercising their religious worship. The Methodists, in all their agitation, never sought for any such aid. The conduct of the Free Church of Scotland, on the other hand, would remind one of the man whose horse had died, and who, after describing the numerous means that he had tried in vain, was asked if he had ever tried corn? In the same manner he would ask the members of the Free Church, if they had ever tried holding religious worship in their own houses, or building churches on their own ground? Had matters gone so far that sites for churches could not be obtained in Scotland, either for love or money, which were so powerful everywhere else? He was as friendly to religious liberty as any man possibly could be; but it struck him that it was for the interests of religious liberty in general that some resistance should be made to a proposal of the nature now submitted to the House. At all events, he wished to have time to consult his friends in the Dissenting interest, in order to ascertain whether, in their opinion, their cause could be advanced by a demand of this kind. He had heard of "the demands of the Establishment;" but here was a new establishment, whose demands, he believed, had been fairly described as a religious tyranny. Being such, he hoped they would not only be resisted, but resisted to the utmost, so that no Member should consent to them until he was perfectly convinced of the necessity for supporting so novel an application.
MR. OSWALD considered the reasons

1165
assigned by the hon. Member who moved the second reading of this Bill insufficient, and many of them illogical. The report of the Select Committee mentioned only eight congregations in Scotland, where the people were, at this moment, worshipping without a house to shelter them. Thirteen congregations only met in rooms, six were without ministers; there were five concerning whom there was no information either in the report or in the evidence; and one congregation to whom a site had been offered upon conditions. He contended that such a state of things as was here pointed out did not justify the application for the present measure. In fact it was a Bill to provide church accommodation to eight congregations only, and to grant it to them, also, without any reference to the Christian religion. He was not prepared to pass such a law as this without hearing more cogent reasons in its support than had yet been advanced. On looking over the reports issued by the Committee on Public Petitions, he found that up to the 8th instant, sixty-five petitions, with 7,845 signatures, had been presented on this question; and in all but two instances they prayed for "sites for Christian congregations." Whatever might be the spirit of the Church of Scotland, or that of the Free Church, it was certain that neither of them had a latitudinarian spirit; and he greatly doubted if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Fox Maule) would venture to say that the majority of the members of the Free Church would have signed those petitions in favour of the present Bill, if they had known it was a Bill not only for allowing but for compelling proprietors to give up their lands to any denomination of fanatics who pleased to assemble together to the number of one hundred. The case of the Free Church was special and exceptional; and he did not think that, for the sake of meeting a special and exceptional case, a general measure ought to be passed. Holding this view, he should move in Committee, if the Bill arrived there, that it be extended to "Great Britain and Ireland."
MR. COWAN defended the late Dr. Chalmers against the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. B. Cochrane), and added that he should not have supported the measure if there had been any other mode of obtaining the desired object. Public opinion had been brought to bear upon the site refusers; yet there was not, after all, the slightest indications of the Free Church congregations obtaining that
1166
right to which both by the laws of God and man they were justly entitled.
COLONEL MURE said, he should have supported a practical and specific measure to meet this special grievance, if one of that character had been proposed; but he strongly objected to providing for a special case by a sweeping enactment like the present, which interfered, unnecessarily, with the rights of property, and also with those of conscience.
MR. F. MAULE was not sorry that this discussion had taken place, because, notwithstanding the resistance which had been manifested, it was evident that the purpose of the measure had made great progress. All admitted that a grievance was existing; and all seemed to admit that a remedy ought to be applied. The only difference was as to the nature of the remedy. No one regretted more than he did the necessity for a Bill which appeared to have for its object the compulsory taking of land for such a purpose as building sites for churches. But after waiting and weighing the subject for five years, in the hope that the proprietors would of their own accord have volunteered something, he had been unable to discover any means, save such as the present Bill afforded, by which the grievance could be remedied—a grievance, let the House remember, not felt by a few individuals, but by nearly 1,000,000 of religious persons—a grievance, too, which, in his opinion, the proprietors of land, not in Scotland only, but everywhere else, would do well to remove from the long category which at present possessed the public mind. With respect to the Bill itself, he owned that he laboured under considerable difficulty as between the different opinions that had been expressed concerning it. Some hon. Gentlemen had stated that if the Bill were made a specific measure for the Free Church of Scotland only, they would support it; whilst others had said that if it were applied to the Free Church, it must equally be adapted to other Dissenting bodies. His own opinion was—and it was the opinion also of the body to which he belonged—that there was no objection to applying the same principlee to other Dissenting bodies as to the Free Church. Their opinion was, that every congregation should have the means of worshipping God after their own consciences under decent and respectable protection afforded them by the law. After much consideration, he certainly had come to the conclusion that the present Bill af

1167
forded the only effectual remedy that could be found; and he was sure every precaution had been taken to render it as little inconvenient to the proprietors as possible. Should it be the pleasure of the Committee to confine the operations of the Bill to the Free Church alone, of course the Free Church could not object to that; but their principle was, that it should be extended to every Dissenting body.
MR. HENLEY said, if the Bill had been intended to have applied to the Free Church alone, he should not have thought it necessary to say one word about it; but they had the express declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that in his opinion the Bill ought to be a general one; but if it were a general measure, it could not be confined exclusively to Scotland. A measure of this description, so extensive in its operation, could only be justified by a very strong case. Such a case had not, in his opinion, been made out; and that was the reason which had induced him to vote against the second reading.
MR. F. SCOTT believed that if the question had been allowed to rest, the proprietors would at length have yielded sites in localities not inconvenient to themselves, and suitable for the congregations. It was well known that originally almost all the landed proprietors of Scotland had been opposed to granting sites for Free churches. If, however, in the course of four years that number had been reduced to eight; and, if 700 congregations had already obtained sites, and there were only thirty congregations now requiring them; surely, he thought, the matter might well have been left to the common sense of the proprietors, and that he was warranted in saying that had the subject been allowed to rest, the proprietors would have yielded suitable and convenient sites. He was certainly of opinion that a general measure of this sort was very objectionable. He would recommend that the Bill should be confined to the Free Church; and, further, that it should be made a special Bill for those cases only where sites had been refused.
The Bill ordered to be committed.

SLAVE TRADE COMMITTEE.
MR. HUTT moved, that Mr. Cobden be discharged from attendance on the Slave Trade Committee, and that Mr. Cardwell, Sir Powell Buxton, and Vis
1168
count Brackley be added to the Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think it would be advantageous that a naval officer should be appointed as one of the Committee. I admit that there is a general expectation that Sir Fowell Buxton should be added to the Committee; but there should be also some person acquainted with naval matters. For what is this Committee appointed? To inquire whether any other better methods can be adopted than those which are now adopted for the suppression of the slave trade. I do not wish to give currency to any prejudices which may exist; I do not believe that any British subjects are indirectly concerned in this abominable practice; and I am convinced that, directly, no parties are concerned in this traffic. But, on the other hand, I am afraid that, indirectly, there are no inconsiderable bodies of British subjects who look with less disfavour on this slave trade than I should do. To speak plainly, if there is any part of the United Kingdom where mercantile transactions may be supposed to connect themselves, in some way or other, with the slave trade, it is Liverpool. Goods which are employed for the payment of slaves, either go to Brazil, and are from thence conveyed to the coast of Africa, or, in some cases, are sent direct to the coast of Africa, not to the persons who exchange them for slaves, but are consigned to persons who act for other individuals in other countries who are concerned in the slave trade. The representative for Liverpool is no doubt quite as free to exercise his own judgment in this matter as many other Members would be; but Liverpool is already sufficiently represented in this Committee. There is one hon. Member, the Member for Oxford, who, by his personal acquaintance, is perfectly competent to represent any matter in which the legitimate interest of the town of Liverpool may be concerned. There is also another Member connected with Birkenhead, next door to Liverpool, who is also upon the Committee, and from whom we have had a very good specimen in this House, of the great ability with which the hon. Member is competent to present any matter which he wishes to bring under the consideration of any judges. If the hon. Member opposite will take in good part that which I can assure him I mean in good part, I should say, that my hon. Friend behind me, the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Hutt), would meet my objection, and

1169
the objection of my hon. Friends—would kill two birds with one stone, by taking a naval officer instead of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps a naval officer, who was also a Member of the Government to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belonged—my gallant Friend Admiral Bowles—who, from his professional knowledge, will be able to give useful information, will not be objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I move it without disrespect towards him, not doubting that he will give a sincere judgment on the matter. I should therefore propose to substitute the name of Admiral Bowles for Mr. Cardwell.
MR. CARDWELL said, that he should be the most unreasonable person in the world if, after the manner in which the noble Lord had been good enough to make this proposal, he did otherwise than take it in good part; but then the noble Lord must allow him to say, that the part he took in this House must be directed, not by personal feelings as regarded himself, but feelings of duty as regarded the community which he represented; and he did not at all take in good part the observations of the noble Lord as to the bill of indictment which he had thought proper to prefer against his constituents. The objection taken against him as serving on this Committee was, with the most abundant courtesy, placed by the noble Lord upon no personal considerations; but, in terms the most distinct, the noble Lord laid down that neither he (Mr. Cardwell) nor his Colleague were, as Members for Liverpool, persons free to be trusted to give a fair and independent opinion on the best mode of repressing the slave trade. And the reason why they were not so to be trusted was this. The noble Lord acquitted the mercantile body of Liverpool of any direct participation in the African slave trade; but he said, that such were the ramifications of interest through which the trade was carried on—so largely was there an indirect interest of British capital engaged in the prosecution of the slave trade—that the merchants of England, and of Liverpool in particular, were not free to give their opinion in a temporary Committee with respect to putting an end to the slave trade. Now, if the noble Lord had come forward, and preferred a bill of indictment against Her Majesty's Ministers, because they had thought proper to bring in, in the year 1846, a Bill for the alteration of the duties on Cuban and Brazilian
1170
sugar; because, in the various ramifications of interest by which the slave trade was conducted, it was perfectly manifest that increased importation of sugar from Cuba and Brazil would necessarily lead to increased importation of slaves from the coast of Africa into Cuba and Brazil; and that, therefore, no Member of Her Majesty's present Government was fit to be a Member of the Committee on the slave trade; and further, that no such Member of the Government was fit to be entrusted with the seals of the Foreign Department, to which department was entrusted the duty of superintending the suppression of the slave trade—
Mr. SPEAKER (interrupting Mr. Cardwell): Six o'clock having arrived, the House is adjourned.