HL Deb 19 June 1840 vol 54 cc1294-304
The Earl of Aberdeen

rose pursuant to notice, to present a petition to their Lordships from the seven Suspended Ministers of the Strathbogie Presbytery. The case which he had to bring under the consideration of the House, was one which did not require any addition of high coloured statement to secure attention. A simple statement of the facts he was sure would be sufficient to secure for the petitioners the sympathy of their Lordships. When the petitioners brought this petition to him, he had informed them, that although he had seen great variety of opinions prevail on many questions which came before that and the other house of Parliament, he yet felt confident, that on this occasion there would not be one Member of that House or of the House of Commons, who would not feel the hardships and the cruelty of the position in which the petitioners had been placed. The circumstances of the case were simply these. In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed an act, which was known as the Veto Act, by which the Presbyteries were compelled, if the majority of the male communicants of a parish objected to the settlement of a presentee, to reject that presentee without assigning any reason for that rejection. That Act was passed in 1834, and some time afterwards a vacancy took place, in one of the parishes comprised in the Presbytery of Strathbogie. To that vacant parish the patron presented Mr. Edwards; but the Presbytery not being political churchmen, took it for granted that the General Assembly were warranted by the law of the land in passing the Veto Act, and a majority of the male communicants having dissented to the choice made by the patron, they acted on the law of the Assembly, and rejected Mr. Edwards with-out assigning any reason for that rejection. Some time afterwards, however, a person who had been placed in a position similar to that in which Mr. Edwards found himself, brought an action in the Court of Session against the Presbytery by which he had been rejected, and the Court found that that Presbytery by rejecting the presentee without assigning any reason for such a course, had exceeded their powers and acted illegally. Their Lordships had afterwards affirmed the decision of the Court of Session. On that decision being given, Mr. Edwards, who had been rejected by the presbytery of Strathbogie, raised an action against the petitioners, and obtained from the Court of Session a decree enjoining the Presbytery to take him upon his trial and to proceed to his settlement. On receiving that decree, the petitioners, after the most mature consideration, expressed their intention to obey the decision of the court, and to act in accordance with what that court had determined to be the law of the land. On their expressing that determination, however, the commission of the General Assembly proceeded by decree to suspend the petitioners from the exercise of all the functions of their offices as ministers of the Church of Scotland, on the grounds that they had placed themselves in a state of contumacy towards the General Assembly by their expressed resolution to obey the law of the land. Against the proceedings of the commission, the petitioners determined to appeal to the General Assembly on its meeting, and in the meantime they obtained an interdict from the Court of Session suspending the execution of the decree of the commissioners. At the meeting of the General Assembly, the petitioners complained to that body of the decree which had been issued against them by the commission; but the Assembly affirmed the decree of the commission, and held that the commission had acted properly in suspending the petitioners. And now let him say a few words with respect to this commission before proceeding farther. Their Lordships were aware that the General Assembly sat but for a few days in each year, and formerly this commission consisted of a few members of that body, who sat to complete the business left unfinished by the Assembly. The commission, however, never entered upon the consideration of any new question, and its powers were of a very limited kind. In the present case, the commission had acted with all the powers exercised by the Assembly itself, and in fact, it was to be considered as nothing else than the Assembly making its sittings permanent. It was, therefore, for their Lordships to consider whether, in a constitutional point of view, such a body was to be allowed to assemble, and to act at times when every one of their Lordships understood the sittings of the Assembly to be terminated. This commission; as it was called, was not recognized by any law. In no statute was there any reference to such a body as existing under the law, and he had, therefore, referred to the proceedings of this commission simply as an indication of what their Lordships would have to contend with if it was not now dealt with in a timely manner. After the sentence of the commission had been pronounced against the petitioners, numbers of persons invaded their respective parishes, and were directed to perform the duties of the suspended ministers. But those persons were of a violent character in the Church, and had recourse in their preaching and in their addresses to the parish. ioners to topics calculated to inflame and irritate the people, and to alienate them from their established ministers. Though at first those persons met with congregations devotedly attached to their ministers, yet it was not to be wondered at, if, after successive attempts, considerable effect was in the end produced by their violent language and proceedings. Accordingly, feelings were excited in the district of Strathbogie, of the most painful description. Family was opposed to family, and even the members of the same family were hostile to each other, some taking the part of the suspended ministers, and others siding with the commission of the General Assembly. Every means was used to embitter those feelings, and the state of things which was at last produced, was almost incredible in a country so civilized as this. Placards, hand bills, and addresses were circulated in great numbers, proclaiming the petitioners not only suspended for contumacy, but declaring at the same time, that the rites performed by them, such as baptism and marriage, were invalid and illegal. In short, the greatest excitements prevailed in the district, which contained a population of from 18,000 to 20,000 persons. Now, let their Lordships remember, that every act which those unfortunate suspended ministers had performed was recognised by the law, and yet such was the state to which they had been reduced, and such was the condition in which the district of Strathbogie had been kept since December. He believed no ministers of any church could have performed their duty more faithfully or zealously, or, with more moderation, than the petitioners. As he had before said, the petitioners had complained of their suspension to the General Assembly, and said, that body had pronounced, that they had been properly suspended, on the ground of contumacy. The Assembly, however, had appointed a committee of their number to confer with the suspended ministers, and to deal with them according to what they might consider right. The committee accordingly met the petitioners on several occasions, and at last agreed to a report, which they delivered in to the General Assembly. In that report it was stated, that the committee had had numerous and long conversations with the suspended ministers, and had received from them satisfactory explanations as to minor points, The committee added, that upon the whole, those conversations had left a deep impression upon their minds, that the suspended ministers, in acting as they had done, had not intended any disrespect to the Church judicatures, but were solely influenced by the conviction, that they were bound to submit to the decision of the civil courts. At the conference with the committee, the petitioners gave in a written statement, which was embodied in the petition, and which, although he should not trouble their Lordships by reading it at length, was, he could assure them, well deserving of their attention. The committee, at the nomination of their report, stated, that they could not conclude without expressing their gratification at the frankness and candour with which they had been received by the suspended ministers, and they added, that they would not abandon the hope that they might yet be brought to submit to the authority of the Assembly. The chairman of the committee also spoke in the highest terms of the petitioners, but, notwithstanding all these testimonies in their favour, the Assembly proceeded not only to continue their suspension, but to order the commission, if the petitioners did not retract and declare their intention within a specified time to disobey the law, to proceed to depose the petitioners. On these proceedings, the reflections of the petitioners would, he was sure, come home to the feelings of their Lordships. Your petitioners," they said, and the noble Earl read the following extracts from the petition, "find that they are actually suspended, and may be deprived of legal offices, established by law, because there is a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced against them, which they are willing and ready to obey. They find that they are not only to be prevented from obeying this judgment, buttobe punished and deprived of their rights, status, and functions, as ministers and members of the presbytery, because, under their oaths of allegiance, and as subjects of her Majesty, they desire to obey a judgment pronounced against them in that very character of ministers and members of Presbytery, and because, in the exercise of their rights as subjects, they applied for redress to the Supreme Court, which, found the sentence of the commission to be unconstitutional and illegal. ?Your petitioners humbly trust that they will not be exposed to consequences and to punishments so severe and deplorable, because they are willing to obey the law. If they thought that their vows of obedience to the Established Church, and. their duty as mi- nisters and members of the same, were inconsistent with their duty as subjects, they would at once withdraw from the Church of their fathers; for, as ministers of the gospel, they could not place themselves in rebellion against the law. But they cannot understand how obedience to a judgment of the House of Lords and of the supreme tribunals of the country can be inconsistent with their duty as members of the Church established by law, or can be contumacy against a Church whose authority in regard to the settlement of ministers in the parishes of the establishment is that which statutes have recognised and ratified, Your petitioners submit, that this state of things, which may also soon occur in many other cases, requires the interposition of the Legislature, by whose statutes the duties on presbyteries of the Established Church of Scotland are imposed. The highest judicial tribunal of the country has decided what is the meaning, import, and effect of these statutes. The Supreme Court of Scotland has found that your petitioners are bound to perform the duty so declared, and have found that your petitioners, as ministers of parishes and members of presbytery, must enter upon the discharge of that duty. Your petitioners have done so. They will not resist and disobey the judgment of the Supreme Court. They submit that no body in the country can competently require them to set the law at defiance. But the General Assembly has found that the desire and attempt to obey the law is an offence against a Church established by the very same statutes which impose the duty above referred to. The General Assembly has tried to prevent your petitioners giving effect to the law, by suspending them from their offices, and have directed them to be accused of contumacy with a view to deposition, if your petitioners shall persist in obeying the law. Such proceedings bring before Parliament a state of matters which calls for immediate interposition and instant protection to your petitioners as dutiful subjects of her Majesty holding offices established by law. May it therefore please your honourable House to take the premises into consideration—to apply such legislative remedy as the nature of the case requires, and to pass some statute by which your petitioners, who are acting in obedience to a decree of the Supreme Court, may be protected in the discharge of their statutory duty, and the Church courts be restrained from punishing or depriving parties of offices held under the laws of the country for obeying the decree of the Supreme Court, which gives effect to the statutes of the realm. This was a state of things which he thought justified their Lordships and the country in looking to her Majesty's Government for some interference or redress. But no, his noble Friend opposite, at the head of the Government, was alarmed at the notion of doing any thing, the dolce far niènte was much more congenial to his noble Friend's disposition. It might be said to those Gentlemen who came to that House as petitioners, "You have the decree of the court in your favour, and the law will protect you." But if their Lordships gave such advice to those Gentlemen, what was the course which they should resort to? They should make an application to the court, and the court would no doubt take measures to punish those who would intrude ministers into their parishes, as well as any minister who should illegally perform the duty which these gentlemen had bound themselves to perform. And if the imprisonment of those ministers were to be the result of that proceeding, others would be found to follow their example, and forthwith would be the scandal of having the prisons filled with the ordained ministers of the gospel. The petitioners, however, feeling as ministers of the gospel and of peace, would not be instrumental in having recourse to such proceedings, which would have the effect of making the present state of things still worse. They had hitherto abstained from taking any strong measures, and, he believed, there was no likelihood of their being influenced to adopt them. He was convinced that the bill which their Lordships had lately read a second time would remedy the evil, and he believed that the petitioners themselves, aggravated as the grievance was of which they complained, would be satisfied with it as a remedy. He had little doubt, whatever might have been the violent language of the General Assembly, that it would be wrong to attribute violent motives to the clergy of the Church, or to suppose that they were the cause of the evil. The fact was, the General Assembly was governed by a few ambitious lawyers—and he had no doubt, if the measure to which he alluded were allowed to pass, that the great body of the clergy would acquiesce in its provisions. The opposition of the noble Viscount, to that measure, although made without any statement of the noble Viscount's reasons for opposing it, certainly altered his expectation as to its ultimate success. The noble Viscount could not deny, that the present state of things required that something should be done. Feeling that the bill then before their Lordships' House would put an end to the dispute, he should never cease to regret that the noble Viscount, without showing that he had any great objection to the bill, or that he took a warm interest in the subject generally, should not have considered it consistent with his duty to have given the bill his support. He might conjecture what his noble Friend's reasons were for withholding that support, but he would not detain their Lordships by stating what he felt upon that point. He could only say, that he believed those reasons were intimately connected with the petition he was presenting. If the noble Viscount declined to adopt the remedy which he proposed for a state of things which their Lordships must agree was monstrous and disgraceful to the country; he thought the noble Viscount was bound to come forward with some measure of his own unless he were satisfied to allow matters to remain as they were. He should conclude with no motion. He should merely present this petition, feeling persuaded that their Lordships would regard the case as he had thus shortly and simply endeavoured to state it.

The Duke of Richmond

said, that, being connected with four of the parishes in which the ministers were suspended, and having been called upon by the noble Earl to bear his testimony to the character of the petitioners, he felt he should be deserting his duty if he did not assure their Lordships that, since he had become connected with that part of the country, he had had many opportunities of witnessing the zealous and efficient manner in which the petitioners had performed the arduous duties of the sacred office to which they had devoted themselves. Their Lordships might not be aware that those were not men who had been lately presented to the parishes, and of whom the parishioners were entirely ignorant. The first of those gentlemen whose names were signed to the petition presented by the noble Earl had been forty years a parish minister, the next twelve years, the next fifteen, the next seventeen, the next fourteen, and the last only two years. Their Lordships could, therefore, easily understand that great inconvenience must have arisen from the circumstance of ministers going to those parishes with the order of the commission of the General Assembly, and suspending these men with whom they had been so long intimately acquainted. The ministers who had been so sent by the General Assembly, had not, as his noble Friend had truly said, contented themselves with discharging their duty, but had harangued the people from the inns, and posted placards in every part of the parishes, containing reflections upon the suspended clergymen. He felt that the General Assembly, in directing and authorizing this, had exceeded their powers, and he could not understand how the Government could refuse to take it into their most serious consideration. He had taken the trouble to inquire into the nature of the Veto Act which had led to the present slate of things, and he had come to the decision that it owed its origin to a resolution of the General Assembly, passed in 1833, whereby they increased their numbers. So far as the petitioners were concerned he felt convinced, from information he had received from tenants of his own, as well as from public meetings which had been held in the different parishes for the purpose of recording the sympathy of the people towards those gentlemen, that their suspension could not have taken place in consequence of anything that could be alleged against their conduct or character.

The Marquess of Breadalbane

observed that the General Assembly, considering itself by law to be the supreme ecclesiastical court, felt that, in the exercise of its supremacy, it was bound to see that its decrees were obeyed by the inferior courts. That was in fact the whole question. Under the present circumstances of the case, it would be premature just now to call upon their Lordships to take any proceedings. The parties were in the hands of the courts, and the proper mode would be to let the courts decide upon the question according to the law.

The Earl of Haddington

deeply sympathized with gentlemen who were placed in so unfortunate a position as that of which the petitioners complained. With respect to what had been said as to leaving this question to the courts, it should be remembered that the courts were no parties to the transaction, except for the purpose of expounding the law. In that exposition the courts might be right or they might be wrong; but if their exposition of the law were found to be wrong, an appeal against their decision could be made to their Lordships. The present petitioners had acted with the utmost caution, and to the best of their judgment, under circumstances of pe- culiar difficulty. If they had not acted in close accordance with technicalities, it was not much to be wondered at. If the bill of his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) were passed, it would set the matter at rest, and put an end to the scandalous scenes which had already taken place, and which were still likely to continue in that devoted district. If the bill passed into a law, it was not at all likely that the General Assembly would proceed to the extent of suspending or dispersing those gentlemen for voting in accordance with what was the declared law of the land. He would go as far as any one of their Lordships in endeavouring to maintain the spiritual independence of the church of Scotland, but he could not bring himself to think that any matters, merely civil in their nature, were included in that term. The petitioners were very severe sufferers through the course which had been pursued towards them, and their parishioners were also sufferers in being deprived of their ministry. He would not further trespass on their Lordships than to express his hope that his noble Friend would see such a chance for the passing of his bill into a law, as might induce him to persevere in pressing it through Parliament.

Lord Brougham

was desirous of avoiding any of the points connected with this question which might be likely to come before their Lordships in their judicial capacity. With respect to the petitioners, their case was an exceedingly hard one, and there was no foundation whatsoever upon which to allege that they had gone out of their way or done anything unnecessary, for it had not been denied that they were bound by law, not only to do what they had done but even to go beyond it at some time or other. He should like to know how it was that the conduct of the petitioners, in the course which they had so cautiously and so unwillingly pursued, could be pronounced premature and unnecessary. Had they abstained from obeying the commands of the court of law, they would have been punished for contumacy, but so far from going out of their way or acting prematurely, they had on the contrary stopped short of their obedience to the court. So far from acting prematurely, they had performed that which was their duty in rather a confined and qualified manner. For this obedience to the law, they had been visited with the punishment of suspension by the Ecclesiastical Court, and they are suspended for a contumacious violation of the sentence of the Assembly, and that suspension was to continue until they expressed regret for having rendered obedience to the law of the land. He abstained from saying more on the present occasion, for he believed there did not exist either in that or the other House of Parliament a single individual who could say he conscientiously thought that those proceedings were either legal or justifiable.

Viscount Melbourne

entirely agreed in the feelings expressed by all noble Lords that had spoken upon the hardship upon these petitioners. They were deprived of the power of doing good, though they were still in possession of their temporalities. They were, however, suspended in the performance of their spiritual duties, and it was impossible not deeply to lament those circumstances. With respect to any redress which it was possible for this House to afford, it could only be done by a legislative measure; therefore, the question now before the House was reduced to the same question as had already been discussed, and the difficulties were the same as then existed. It was the question, whether or not they should pass his noble Friend's bill or some other bill on the subject. His noble Friend complained that he had not brought forward any measure, and seemed to intimate that it arose from his habitual, his constant indulgence in the dolce far niènte. Now he had lived long enough in the world to know, and had sufficient experience in public life to be fully aware, that the far niènte was not always the dolce, and that it was sometimes less irksome, less painful, and less troublesome, to act or bring forward measures than to abstain from doing so. He felt strongly the situation of these petitioners, and also all the evils which had arisen from the present state of things, but he did not see how the House could give redress in the manner suggested.

The Earl of Aberdeen

held it to be the first duty of the Government to maintain the peace of society; and, looking to the state of Scotland, arising from this agitation, he thought the Government had been guilty of an abandonment of duty in not having, at least, made some attempt at a remedy.

Petition laid on the table.