HC Deb 01 July 1835 vol 29 cc136-53

The Order of the Day for the Adjourned Debate on this subject having been read,

Lord John Russell

rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the Motion which had been made on a former occasion. I shall not (said the noble Lord) enter into the consideration of the various arguments which may be adduced on one side or on the other of the Question involved in it; but I wish to address the House, in consequence of communications which I have had with various parties to whom the question is one of the greatest importance—both those who urged the propriety of this grant to the Church of Scotland, and those who have felt the strongest objections to its being made. I have the satisfaction of stating, that both parties appeared to me to be perfectly willing to have a full and fair inquiry into the subject, and quite ready to abide by the result of facts accurately ascertained, and that they were both willing that this inquiry should be conducted by a Commission,—the one party seeming to think it better than a Committee, and the other seeming to think it quite as good and effectual. A difference appeared to arise between the two parties on this point—those who were seceders from the Church of Scotland said, that they had been unjustly and unfairly omitted from the accounts which had been made of the population now able to attend divine worship. Whether such may be the case or not, those who appear on the part of the Church of Scotland in this metropolis, and who lately presented an Address to his Majesty on the throne, are perfectly willing that an account should be taken of all the means and opportunities of public worship which are afforded; so that in this material point there does not seem to be any difference between the two parties. There is, however, a question—partly of fact and partly of principle—which still remains to be decided. Those who are in favour of this grant urge, that when you have taken into account all those means of accommodation which the Established Church of Scotland is able to afford, and when you have added to them those means of worship and means of instruction which are now afforded by the seceding or dissenting ministry, there remains still a large mass of the population to whom no sufficient religious instruction is afforded, and by whom the means of religious worship, if they are to be at all obtained, are to be obtained only at a price—at a sacrifice of money which the poorer classes are unable to make. The statement of opinion which, no doubt, will always be made by those who dissent from the Church, and who disapprove of any establishment, is, that religion will never flourish so well as when left to the voluntary support of those who may be inclined to attend divine worship. On that question of principle, I do not wish to enter; for I can give but one opinion—I can hold but one doctrine on that subject—namely, that a Church Establishment affords the best means of diffusing and promoting religious instruction. I think it our duty, as a Government, to maintain that principle, and to uphold the Church Establishment which is founded on it. There is, then, another question remaining, the issue of which depends, however, on certain facts, which should be correctly ascertained before Parliament comes to a final decision upon it. If it be true—and I will not now pretend to dispute the point with those who are acquainted with the state of circumstances so much better than myself,—if it be proved that there is a large mass of the population to whom the means of religious instruction are not afforded, either by the Church or by those who dissent from it, there remains, then, the question, whether you are obliged to supply that deficiency by an immediate grant from the public funds, or whether there exist the necessary means which are now by law, or which may become by law, available for the purpose of the Established Church. I think that it is impossible for us, as Ministers, to come to Parliament and propose any grant of money until the facts upon which the decision of that question ought to depend shall be clearly settled; and therefore, in my opinion, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, which was supported by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh (Sir George Clerk), is defective in this—that it does not propose the means Of entering into an inquiry with the view to effect that settlement. That right hon. Baronet stated, that the inquiry would be short and easy; that it would be sufficient to have the Committee for a week or ten days; that a Report might then be made, which would satisfactorily prove the case of the petitioners who had asked for the grant. I must fairly tell the right hon. Baronet that I do not think an inquiry of that kind would be satisfactory; I think that if the inquiry were to be conducted for a week or ten days, and only the partial case of those who ask for the grant were heard, and if we then proceeded to yield that grant, we should act against the wishes of a great part of the people of Scotland, who would say that the evidence which they were prepared to adduce not being heard, we had come to a decision partially and unfairly, and after considering only one side of the question. It is for reasons of this kind, I believe, that those who are most earnest for this inquiry are, at the same time, desirous that it should be conducted in such a manner as may satisfy all parties; and that object will, in my opinion, be best attained by the appointment of a Commission, to whom the conduct of it shall be intrusted. It may be urged as an objection, that the Commission might extend its labours to an inconvenient length; but that will be obviated by arranging that they shall report from time to time; that their Reports shall be laid before Parliament, and that as soon as Parliament and the Government shall have considered them, and ascertained that a remedy is required, and settled the nature of that remedy, they shall proceed at once to act upon them. I shall therefore propose to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Rae) to withdraw his Motion, and my right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate) that he withdraw his Amendment, and that the following proposition be substituted in its stead:—"That a humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and means of religious instruction, and the pastoral superintendence afforded to the people of Scotland, and how far these are of avail for the religious and moral improvement of the poor and of the working classes, and with this view to obtain information respecting their stated attendance at places of worship, and their actual connexion with any religious denomination; to inquire what funds are now, or may hereafter be, available for the purpose of the Established Church of Scotland; and to report, from time to time, in order that such remedies may be applied to any ex- isting evils as Parliament may think fit." I have communicated this Motion, in the terms in which I have drawn it up, to some persons of great eminence in the Church of Scotland, who have been most anxious that the grant should be procured, and they have expressed their concurrence in it. I think that if they concur in it—if there be no objection made to it on their part who belong to that religious denomination which composes the Established Church—there ought to be an equal concurrence on the part of others, the object of all being the same. I trust, therefore, that there will not arise on it much debate, and that the House will not be pressed to a division on it. He proposed that the Amendment of his learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, should be withdrawn.

Amendment withdrawn, and Lord John Russell's Motion as an Amendment on the original Motion put from the Chair.

Mr. Cumming Bruce

was not sure that he could agree to the Amendment which the noble Lord proposed to substitute, though the spirit in which it was introduced was much less objectionable than that which breathed in the speech of the Lord Advocate, in introducing his proposal for a Commission. There was no distinct mention of the Established Church. He disapproved also of the reference to present or future means which are or may be applicable to the support of religion. This was an attempt to throw a firebrand in between the landlords and the Church. It would not succeed. But he disapproved of the attempt. He must say that after the speech on Friday last, of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, he felt less disposed to place confidence in any proposal of the Government which professed to proceed on the ground of attachment to the Established Church. He had admired the tone, and cheered the beautiful periods of that noble Lord's speech, in which so strong an attachment was declared for the principle of an Establishment, that it should be extended so that the wayfaring man might hear of it and rejoice. But what was the fulfilment of this magnificent promise? What the miserable superstructure raised on this grandiloquent foundation? Why a 5l. stipend, paid to a minister, perhaps distant and inaccessible. The word of promise given to the ear was broken to the sense. Then he could not altogether separate this new proposal from that of the Lord Advocate, and the spirit in which the learned Lord introduced it—a spirit which seemed to declare war to the knife against all establishments in religion; therefore, he should much prefer the original Motion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Bute. He regretted the length of the Adjournment that had taken place, by which the powerful effect of the very able speech of his right hon. Friend, in introducing his Motion, had been in some degree lost, and he feared he had not the power necessary to restore it. The Church and people of Scotland had reason to rejoice that the Question had been taken up by one so able and so qualified to do it justice, as the right hon. Member for Bute. After the statements he had made, and the facts he had adduced in support of them the other night, he had hoped that the Motion with which he concluded would have obtained the unanimous concurrence of the House. In that he had been disappointed. Undeserved imputations—a factious, and to him an unintelligible, clamour, out of doors, had conjured up round the great and good object which this Committee had sought to promote, the mists of party and sectarian animosity; and he regretted to find that, even in that House, there were some unable, through such a medium, to see the objects presented to them in their true colours. The hon. Member for Falkirk, said it was a Tory job, for it was promoted by the Tory Clergy of the Church of Scotland; and he called for its entire rejection. His right hon. Friend appealed to the number of petitions in its favour, signed by persons of all shades of political opinions.—The learned Lord, with some sly insinuations of the efforts used by that same Tory Clergy to obtain signatures those petitions, wondered we had not had more of them; he thought we might have expected one at least from every parish— he cited with exultation the number of petitioners on the other side, and he concluded with his extinguisher of a Commission— an extinguisher which certainly the speech to night of the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, had done something to remove. Now, the opposition of both those hon. Members originated in the same profitless spirit of party, He preferred the unscrupulous, straightforward, and irrational opposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk, to the measured and in- sidious Commission of the learned Lord. But he deprecated altogether the introduction of party spirit into this discussion—because he knew its power in disturbing the accuracy of our perceptions. Hon. Gentlemen, under its influence, had been known to lose the power of distinguishing a nobler and more powerful spirit—the spirit of colours, and to vote that black was white, and white black. But he implored the House to call to the consideration of this Question Christian benevolence—that for once they might discuss a great national interest impartially. They would then consider it in the same spirit in which the right hon. Baronet, the late head of the Government, had advised his Majesty to call their attention to the subject—that spirit of disinterested and wise patriotism which had shed its halo round every proceeding of his short, but splendid administration. Now, if he thought that the connexion between Religion and the State was injurious to both—or that the voluntary principle was sufficient for the religious instruction of the people, he should be the last person to advocate the claims of these petitioners; but the reverse was the fact. He would not now enter into the scriptural argument, for which this House was not, perhaps, the fittest tribunal, and which was not necessarily raised by this Motion. Whenever such a Question was fairly brought forward, he should be prepared to contend, that on every ground of scripture, and reason, and experience—of every age and all countries the State which neglected to support the cause of religion, neglected its first duty to its subjects, and, above all, to that Almighty Being on whose favour alone the prosperity of nations rested. It was not, therefore, from any disrespect to those who opposed the Motion on those more general grounds, as to save the time of the House, that he should confine himself to those who opposed it on much narrower, though less consistent, grounds. They professed to be favorable to the principle of an Establishment; but held that in Scotland it was sufficiently extended. The Question then between them was resolved into an issue of facts. Now, all his right hon. Friend sought was, an inquiry into the facts. The allegation of these petitioners was, that the Church was not sufficient for the religious instruction of the people, and it puzzled him to understand with what consistency, in the face of such an allegation, so vouched, those who professed friendliness to the Establishment could refuse the inquiry. But the House could never disregard allegations of those petitioners which were of a nature to force themselves on their immediate attention. They asserted that the population of Scotland had far outgrown the means which, sufficient, perhaps, at an earlier period, the State had provided for the religious instruction of the people:—that in our towns, rising every day into increased importance, large numbers were growing up in utter ignorance and disregard of divine truth. They assumed that without a knowledge of that truth there could be no efficient restraint on the bad and selfish passions of man—and they announced the fearful fact, that a great class of the community—a class below the reach of the voluntary system—a class in which this want of religious instruction was least likely to be counteracted by the habits of society, or by a purely intellectual education—was fast lapsing into a state of absolute heathenism. Now it was said, the Dissenters and the voluntary principle had done much to remedy the evil; but if this were sufficient, how had this state of things, so dangerous to the very existence of well-ordered society, been allowed to gain its present strength and proportions? He was as willing as any one to acknowledge that much had been done by the voluntary zeal both of Churchmen and Dissenters, to arrest the torrent of reckless infidelity which threatened, if not arrested, to sweep them from their hold. But, in itself, the method of leaving the religious instruction of the humbler classes to the voluntary zeal of individuals, or to their own zeal, could not but fail, because it rested on the basis of a voluntary contribution from each individual; and such contribution the humbler classes, even if they were willing, were unable to make. But they were not willing. The natural man was enmity against God; and precisely in proportion to a man's ignorance of religion would be his disinclination to make any sacrifice to obtain a knowledge of it. The State, then, which recognized the aid which the cause of order and the restraints of law derived from the sanctions of religion, was doubly bound to interfere: first, in aid of the want of ability in the well-disposed, and, next, in resistance of the disinclination of those—the great majority—who, till their reason and their conscience were awakened, cared for none of those things; and especially it was bound to remove out of the way the stumbling block of a preliminary demand for money before a poor man could enter the church. It was bound to remove this in the mere interests of peace and order and submission to Government, and obedience to law. To say that such interests were involved, was at once an answer to that absurd clamour about the injustice of taxing Dissenters for the support of the Church. If the object to be attained—the religious instruction of the people—was of general benefit to the community, and if in no other way it could be attained, then that objection had no ground on which to stand. The system of paying all sects, adopted in France, was far less available for the promotion of truth, than the system which obtained in this country, and it was evident from the example of America, that the voluntary system had utterly failed. If the population went on in that country increasing at its present ratio, if no more effectual means were devised for the propagation of Christianity than at present, such was the spread of infidelity, that in less than fifty years the federated republic would contain upwards of 20,000,000 of infidels within its territory. But the hon. Member for Falkirk asserted, that in Scotland there was already an excess of churches. Why, if true, which he doubted, it only proved what the Clergy of the Church of Scotland asserted, that the mere existence of churches was not sufficient for the purpose, unless they were endowed so that they might be applied to the neglected localities of the town and country parishes on the only system by which churches could be rendered extensively useful for the civilization and benefit of society—the system of parochial subdivision, by which the labours of the clergyman should be confined to a particular district, out of which it should be his duty to gather his congregation. The Church of Scotland came to the House, not as a suppliant, but in the high attitude of a national benefactor, offering a large voluntary subscription in aid of a national object. She gave this substantial proof of the reality of her convictions, that increased means of religious instruction were required; and such an offer, proceeding from such a party, would warrant an immediate grant to the extent sought for. He was unwilling to say any thing unfavourable of any class of his countrymen; but there had, in recent instances, been exhibitions of reckless irreligion in large assemblages of Scotchmen, which no rightly constituted mind could contemplate without feelings of the deepest regret. Now, that recklessness, that irreligion, was not a peculiar element in the character of his countrymen; it was a natural element in human nature, but it was sufficient for him to know that it existed, to make him anxious, above all things, to apply to it that corrective power which he knew to be within his reach. That power existed in the proper application of the parochial system. At present the population of our larger parishes was beyond the limit of efficient moral cultivation, and the disheartening conviction that it was so, paralyzed the exertions of those who on a more practicable field would efficiently discharge their duties. The ill effects of this excess of population over the means of instruction were not confined to the individuals composing that excess, for every one of them was as a centre from which the principles and practices of infidelity radiated to corrupt and poison the mass of Christianity around them—thus adding incalculably to the labours of the minister—so that by every individual whom the State knowingly left uninstructed, it was, in fact, undoing with one hand what it professed to be endeavouring, by its limited Establishment, to effect with the other. This was not only inconsistent and absurd, but in the highest degree unjust, especially to the clergy; for you charged their want of success in christianizing the people as proof of the selfishness and inefficiency of the Establishments, while you rendered success impossible by your parsimony or neglect. He said then, let those large parishes be divided—let the charge of the clergyman be limited to a practicable district—let him, having made himself known to his parishioners by the faithfulness of his pulpit ministrations, superadd to these the pastoral duties of week-day visitations,—constituting himself the friend, the instructor, the adviser of his parishioners, wherever distress might call for relief, or sorrow invite consolation. Let him avail himself of all those opportunities, never long wanting, when in the dispensation of a merciful Providence the heart is softened to receive the impressions of divine truth—let him not be discouraged by a sense of hopelessness and impossibility—and the Legislature would soon restore the moral tone of society, and would soon see the churches filled with those who would need no new Sabbath legislation to induce them to prefer the Church to the alehouse—the high and elevating enjoyments of holding intercourse with their God, to the low and debasing pursuits by which they were now degraded. The House could effect this in no other way—in no other way could it confer a benefit of similar extent on society. Looking even to mere considerations of police, any appropriation of the public revenue, as was proved by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Bute, would be an economical appropriation. The whole sum sought would not amount to a third of a farthing on each individual of the population. The House had shown a willingness to give a million to Ireland—to make an advance to relieve the Churchrate payers of England—it never would seriously object to the small grant sought for his country. He, therefore, implored them to act in the wise spirit of a great living poet, when he exhorted the State To shape new channels which the flood Of sacred truth may enter, till it brood O'er the wide realm, as o'er the Egyptian plain The all-sustaining Nile. It was by such a course alone they could restore the moral verdure of society.—The neglect of opening such channels was the cause that the sands of the desert were every day encroaching more and more on those fields which, in the days of our fathers, were smiling with fertility and beauty; and that the strip of narrowing cultivation was menaced here, as in the states on the Mississipi, with the curse of absolute barrenness. Doubtless we knew that the desert would bud and blossom as the rose. The inspiration of prophecy, the announcements of angels, alike assured us of that result; but the days of miracles were past, and in our times Heaven works by human agencies. We must not, therefore, sit still, like the waggoner in the fable, and pray to Jupiter for assistance. We must exert the energies which Heaven had vouchsafed to us; and seeing that the voluntary system had utterly failed to effect the good which we desired, or to avert the evil which we deprecated, we must revert to the calm, and constant, and uniform energies of a sufficiently extended Establishment supported by the State, if we really desired to accelerate the period which should give realization to the prophecy and confirmation to the angelic announcements. The hon. Member declared, that, though he really believed the noble Lord was sincere in his friendly declaration towards the Church, yet, thinking the Committee preferable, and most likely to lead to an immediate grant, and since it might, if it thought fit, recommend a Commission, he should support the Motion, if it went to a division, of his right hon. Friend, while, in conclusion, he sincerely thanked the House for the great indulgence with which it had listened to him.

Sir Robert Peel

If the Motion of my right hon. Friend had been brought before the House at an earlier period of the Session, considering his high authority, I should have had no difficulty whatever in expressing my preference of it to the Amendment which has been moved. But I cannot omit from my consideration the time in which we are to decide upon it. On the 1st of July it is that we are called upon to go into an inquiry, and at this late period I feel that it is impossible to come to any conclusion which will lead to a vote of the public money. Two months ago I should not have hesitated to prefer the original Motion, but at this advanced period I cannot but think that the inquiry byCommission will be more satisfactory than the appointment of a Committee for the same purpose. I am afraid that the appointment of a Committee would lead to a double inquiry, that, at the termination of their labours, the Committee would find it expedient to recommend that a Commission of Inquiry should be instituted. In short, the result would be the same as that of the Corporation Committee. After spending much time in fruitless investigation, the Committee would find themselves unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion—a Committee of Local Investigation would, from its expense, be out of the question—and the only course left would be to appoint that Commission of Inquiry, which, if it is to be ultimately recommended, had better be appointed at once. I find it impossible to throw the present time out of consideration, and, therefore, I am inclined to prefer the full investigation of the matter by a Commission to its consideration by a Committee. There is a slight difference in opinion—slight in terms, but important in principle—between the noble Lord and myself. Last night I took the liberty of referring to that passage in the Address which was carried nemine contradicente. His Majesty, in his address to the two Houses, called their attention to the two Church Establishments, in the two parts of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland; and informed them that he had already appointed a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of the Established Church in this country. In the answer which the House returned to that portion of the Speech we expressed our acknowledgements to his Majesty for informing us that the special object of the appointment of the Commission was, to extend more widely the means of religious instruction, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, and to confirm its hold upon the affections of the people. We then assured his Majesty that we should take into consideration the condition of the Church of Scotland, and the means of religious worship which were afforded to the poorer classes in that part of the United Kingdom. All that I propose is, that the House of Commons should confirm and realize the assurance which they gave at a time not remarkable for the good agreement of the Members, but at a time when party spirit ran high, and when other parts of that Address were amended, in opposition to the Government. Notwithstanding the then bitterness of party spirit, the House of Commons unanimously assured the Crown that they would take into consideration the condition of the Scotch Church Establishment. Now, I do not hesitate to say, that though I am not a member of the Church of Scotland, yet I look at it, as an Establishment, in the same point of view as I look at that of which I am a member. There is, I apprehend, no one point which we are bound to uphold in the case of the Church Establishment in this country that we are not equally bound to uphold in the case of the Church Establishment of Scotland. This opinion I give not on dry and technical grounds—but I do state that the obligation which I feel as a subject of the King, is confirmed by my respect and attachment to that Church, arising from the opportunities I have had of witnessing the virtues and services of her Ministers, and their effect in improving the moral and social condition of the people. All that I ask is, that we should place the Church of Scotland, in our inquiries into its condition, in the same situation in which we have placed the Church of England, and that we should recognise its claims as an Establishment precisely to the same extent. To recognise the equal claims which the Church of Scotland has, will, I apprehend, give universal satisfaction to its members, and to all those who regard it in the light in which I regard it. The noble Lord opposite has moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty may be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendance afforded to the people of Scotland, &c. All that I propose is, to insert, after "pastoral superintendence," the words, "by the Church of Scotland." If I am asked, whether I would exclude other inquiries, I must say most certainly not. I do not, indeed, think that the object of the Commission could be completed if we excluded other inquiries—as, for instance, into the moral and social condition of the working classes, their actual attendance at divine worship, and their connexion with any religious sect. After the Commission appointed by the Crown to inquire into the means of religious worship according to the doctrines of the Established Church in England, and after the assurance of the House of Commons that the condition of the Church of Scotland shall be investigated, I do contend, however unimportant the point may be as to the inquiry, though it certainly is not in principle, that we should put the Church of Scotland on precisely the same footing as the Church of England, to which it has just claims according to law, and according to the Constitution. And this we may do without at all prejudicing the inquiry into the means of religious instruction afforded by other religious denominations. This, be it observed, is a delicate point, and I hope the noble Lord will consult, not the possibility of objection, but the importance of my suggestion, and accordingly will consent to the introduction of words recognising the principle of the Established Church in Scotland, as equal to the Establishment in England. That is the whole of my suggestion. But the discussion of the main Question I shall not enter upon, as I wish no hostility to be provoked between the Established Church and those who have seceded from it. What I feel is this, that there is between the Dissenters and the Established Church an enormous neutral ground of infidelity, which by an union of exertion and perseverance, it is possible to reclaim. Of the Dissenters I should be far from speaking with disrespect. Their voluntary exertions in support of religion I honour, and, therefore, while I support the principle of an Ecclesiastical Establishment, and the extension of its means of affording religious instruction, I should never grudge the applause to which the labours of those who have seceded from it are entitled. The Established Church and the Dissenters are, I say, equally interested in reclaiming from infidelity the thousands and tens of thousands who have never heard the name of their God—and for whose benefit it is proposed to extend the means of moral and religious instruction in Scotland. The only remaining point to which I shall allude is the expediency of his Majesty's Government considering the policy of making any alteration in the law rather than devolving that duty upon a Commission. Shall we authorise the Commission to inquire what funds are, or may be, available for the establishment of the Church of Scotland, and whether any funds are available without an alteration of the law, or shall we not rather reserve to ourselves that question? To the Commissioners ascertaining any important fact I have no objection; but certainly I think that the policy of altering the law ought to be ascertained by his Majesty's Government and the House of Commons. I doubt the expediency of transferring the power of considering such a point to the Commission, and withdrawing from the Government its proper responsibility. What may be the effect of this vague and indefinite direction? May you not cause those who are prejudiced against religious inquiries to entertain apprehensions which, however groundless, are not the less forcible with those who have not immediate access to the best sources of information. Besides, I would suggest that those who are well qualified for making religious inquiries are not always equally qualified for carrying on political investigations. I trust that the noble Lord will agree to my suggestion, and, if so, I hope that the discussion will be left in that state which is least likely to induce any irritated feeling or promote any asperity, which, in a question involving religious interests it is so desirable to avoid.

Lord John Russell

was happy to find that there really was no difference between the right hon. Baronet's object and his own. The right hon. Baronet approved of the reference of the subject to a Commission, rather than to a Committee of that House. As to recognising the claims of the Church of Scotland, he was as ready to recognise them as the right hon. Baronet; and, on the other hand, he was happy to find that the right hon. Baronet was as sensible of the valuable assistance rendered to the cause of religion by the Dissenters as he (Lord John Russell) was. It was a fact which ought never to be lost sight of, either in England or in Scotland, that where the State Establishment did not furnish sufficient means of religious worship for the people, it was exceedingly desirable that the deficiency should be supplied by other bodies. He did not, therefore, lament to see the growth of dissent in large towns, where the means of religious worship under the Establishment were insufficient; or that the ground which the Church was unable to occupy should be taken up by others. With respect to the manner and the nature of the inquiry, there was no difference between the right hon. Baronet and himself. As to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, a similar one had been recommended to him since he came down to the House, which he had declined adopting, because the Motion which he had offered to the House had been drawn up in the words of high authorities in the Church of Scotland. He had no positive objection to the words proposed by the right hon. Baronet; but, for the reason which he had already stated, he must decline consenting to their introduction.

Sir Robert Peel

observed, that all he wished for was, that the Church of Scotland should be placed on the same footing as the Church of England.

Viscount Howick

was rather at a loss to understand the right hon. Baronet's precise object. His noble Friend's Motion, as it at present stood, comprehended both the Church of Scotland and the Dissenters from that Church. Why introduce words which might be construed into a limitation of the inquiry in a manner in which the right hon. Baronet himself, according to his statement, did not wish to see it limited? Being all agreed on the principle of the measure, it would surely be impolitic to risk any angry feeling by the introduction of words which might be misinterpreted. He was sure that his noble Friend's object and the object of the right hon. Baronet were the same; and it was of the greatest importance that on an occasion like the present there should be a general concurrence of opinion. He hoped and trusted that when the result of the inquiry appeared, they would be able to prevail on both the Church and the Dissenters in Scotland to agree on the measure necessary for the desirable object in view.

Sir George Clerk

expressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for the tone and temper in which he had treated the Question. The noble Lord had, however, omitted, in the early part of his Motion, after the words "pastoral superintendence," some expressions suggested by the high authorities to which the noble Lord had alluded, recommending that an inquiry should also be instituted into the situation of chapels of ease and unendowed churches in Scotland.

Mr. Patrick M. Stewart

hoped that, as it was not practically important, the right hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment. It was at the request of persons concerned in the matter, and who were fully competent to judge of it, that the address before the House was adopted by his Majesty's Government. Though the words proposed to be left out were agreed to, it would cause no great alteration as to the leading objects for which the Commission was about to be appointed. It appeared to him, from the speech of the noble Lord, that the people of Scotland would be completely satisfied with what was proposed to be done by Government. The object of the proposed inquiry was, not to trench on the rights of the Dissenters of Scotland—not to interfere with their usefulness—and he felt confident that they would have no objection to it. What was intended was, to provide religious instruction and places of worship for that moral wilderness of population who came neither under the influence of the Dissenters nor of the Established Church. He thought this Commission would provide the very best means that could be devised for that purpose. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the period of the Session was too late to have recourse to a Committee. He begged to thank the Government and the House for the kind spirit and manner in which they had met the case, and the friends of the Established Church in Scotland ought to be thankful for the turn the discussion had taken that night. All that was proposed was to overtake and reclaim those increasing masses in Scotland who were now buried in darkness, without receiving the light of the Gospel either from the Ministers of the Established Church or from the Dissenters.

Sir Robert Peel,

being unwilling to disturb the tone and temper which had hitherto prevailed on this occasion, and understanding that the Motion was admitted to contain a recognition of the principle for which he had contended, felt that he should best perform his public duty by not pressing his Amendment to a division.

The Attorney-General

rejoiced in the right hon. Baronet's determination. He rose, however, to correct a statement made the other evening by the hon. Baronet, to the effect that such had been the rapid growth of infidelity in the city which he(the Attorney General) had the honour to represent, that not an eighth part of the population at present received religious instruction. So far was that from being the case, that he believed there never was a period at which piety and religion more extensively prevailed in the metropolis of Scotland than at the present moment.

Mr. Sinclair

cordially approved of the Motion and hoped the inquiry would be carried to the fullest extent.

Mr. Stewart Mackenzie

supported the Motion, and could but express his great satisfaction at the conciliating tone adopted in the debate.

Sir William, Rae

was not willing to obstruct the general feelings of the House. The facts he had stated were not submitted to the House without sufficient authority. The period of the Session was certainly late at which the Question was brought forward, but he trusted that the fault of delay would not be attributed to him. As the Government had agreed to that part of the Address to the Crown which related to the Church of Scotland, he thought it but fit to wait and see whether the Government meant to bring forward any Measure on the subject. They had not done so, and on account of the numerous petitions he had received on the subject he felt himself bound to bring the matter, though late in the Session, under the consideration of the House. He hoped the House considering these circumstances, would acquit him of being guilty of undue delay. The Question had been greatly altered by the manner in which the noble Lord had just spoken, and by the way in which the noble Lord expressed his determination to support the Church of Scotland. The matter had been fully and fairly discussed, and he trusted to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Much, however, would depend on the instructions that the Government should give to the Commissioners; those would much tend to make the noble Lord's statement satisfactory. He regretted that the words proposed to be inserted in the address, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, had not been adopted, as he thought their adoption would make the address more satisfactory to the people of Scotland He considered that no information would be obtained from an inquiry into the funds of the Church of Scotland. He would move, therefore, that the words in the address which referred to this point be omitted, as their insertion would leave a bad impression on the minds of the landowners of Scotland, and bear against the interests of the Established Church. He should have been glad if the words of the right hon. Member for Tamworth had been inserted in the Motion, but as his right hon. Friend had yielded, he would not detain the House any longer.

Dr. Bowring

said, that he would cheerfully consent to the nomination of the Commission; but he hoped that the Dissenters of Scotland would not be annoyed by the use of language offensive to them.

The original Motion was negatived and the address moved by Lord John Russell carried.