HL Deb 29 April 1841 vol 57 cc1245-8
The Earl of Haddington

rose to put a question to the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the appointment to the Chair of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that some time since, a noble Friend of his alluded to a rumour which prevailed, that Mr. Candlish was about to be appointed to the chair of biblical criticism in the University of Edinburgh, that gentleman at the time having been guilty of a violation of an interdict of the Court of Session. He, and other clergymen, had been enjoined by the Court of Session not to officiate in any of those parishes from which certain ministers had been suspended, that suspension having been declared illegal by the Court of Session. It appeared, however, that Mr. Candlish had officiated in one of those parishes, notwithstanding the interdict of the Court of Session. Under these circumstances, his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) had asked the question as to the appointment of Mr. Candlish. His noble Friend had received what he conceived to be a satisfactory answer. The noble Marquess stated, that it had been the intention of Government to appoint Mr. Candlish to the chair of biblical criticism, but in consequence of representations having been made to him, that Mr. Candlish had committed a breach of the law, that intention had been abandoned; and the noble Marquess further observed, that there was no difference of opinion amongst her Majesty's Ministers as to the propriety of discouraging those who disobeyed the law and encouraging those who manifested obedience to the law. This was so far satisfactory. This, however, was not the only place in that country, and, indeed, in that neighbourhood, where questions were asked and answered. And it appeared, that a question was recently put elsewhere by one Gentleman to another Gentleman very nearly officially connected with the noble Marquess on this subject. The answer to that question, which he gathered from the ordinary channels of intelligence, he did not very clearly understand, but it was, that the intention to place Mr. Candlish in the situation of professor of biblical criticism was not "abandoned," but "suspended;" and, that hon. Gentleman said, waited the result of some proceedings in a court of law, before he could make any statement on the subject. Now, the two answers were exceedingly different, and he wished to know whether the intention to appoint Mr. Candlish had or had not been abandoned? As to proceedings in a court of justice, he did not know to what it referred, or how it could bear on the point. The offence of Mr. Candlish was complete, and he could see no defence in a court of justice that could make any alteration in the case. This gentleman had acted in direct violation of an injunction of the superior court, and he could not conceive how that offence was to be removed by subsequent proceedings in a court of justice. He wished to know, whether, in consequence of the proceedings adopted by the Court of Session, the appointment had been abandoned or superseded?

The Marquess of Normanby

said, that he must give the same answer he had on a former occasion, that it was not his intention to persevere in the appointment of Mr. Candlish. He thought the noble Earl had misunderstood what had been said in another place relative to the event of ulterior proceedings. Suppose the Court of Session should determine, that the interdict was not a legal one, surely that would put Mr. Candlish in a different position from the one he now occupied, but he could not be called on to state how he would act, in the event of such a decision being come to.

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that he had advised those who had suffered from the persecution of this gentleman's party, not to bring the matter before the court in such a way as would place him or them in such a position as to attract sympathy; and, therefore, he thought, that any idea of bringing him before the court for punishment would be abandoned. There were various modes by which Mr. Candlish might move for the repeal of the interdict, and his not doing so, was a proof he was afraid of encountering the consequences. If the institution of the professorship were of such importance, it ought to be filled up immediately, and there were many persons in Scotland quite as well, if not better, qualified for it as Mr. Candlish. The course adopted by the Government on this question was not a fair one; it was a shirking course; and he called upon them to carry out their own decision—a decision which he thought was most proper, and which nothing on earth ought to cause an alteration of.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, that if Mr. Candlish thought, that he had committed no offence, the mercy shown him by his opponents was anything but kind. Now, with regard to the appointment, despite the harsh terms which had been used by the noble Earl, considering the present state of the Church of Scotland, the various causes of dispute and excitement which prevailed respecting it, with which few of their Lordships were acquainted, but which he knew too well—considering, also, that all the eminent man connected with that country and her Church were compelled to take one side or the other, and were not allowed to hold themselves aloof from the controversy, and that no other description of person could accomplish the objects which they had in view, in the institution of the professorship—he must be allowed, he again said, to exercise his own judgment on the question; and that judgment induced him to decline appointing any professor, at any rate, at present.

The Earl of Aberdeen

said, that he must still entertain the opinion that the legality of the interdict did not in any degree alter the offence of Mr. Candlish. He was not entitled to decide for himself that a process of the Court of Session was contrary to the law of the land.

The Earl of Haddington

was certainly much dissatisfied with the statement of the noble Marquess. In fact, he even now scarcely knew whether the intention to appoint Mr. Candlish was entirely abandoned or only suspended. For his own part, he suspected the latter.

Subject at an end.