§ 5,000l. was then proposed to be granted towards defraying the expense of erecting a hall at Edinburgh for the use of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
§ Mr. C. Lushingtonobjected to this vote. He did not think that the people of England, Ireland, and Wales, Dissenters as well as Roman Catholics, should be made to contribute to a grant for the benefit of the Church of Scotland. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Church of Scotland was in a state of contumacy towards the law, and of stubborn resistance to the highest court in the country.
§ Mr. Ewartopposed the vote. He did not think that the general assembly, being at present in a state of rebellion against the law of the land, was justified in coming to that House for a grant of money.
§ Mr. Humethought that it would be absurd to vole away 5,000l. of the public money for the purpose of building a hall which would only be used five days in the year.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the general assembly had some years since a place of meeting which fully answered all their purposes; but that, in consequence of an arrangement with the Government, they gave it up, on a promise that a new one should be provided. The hon. Member for Kilkenny was mistaken in supposing that the building would only come into use five days in the year, for when not used by the assembly, it would serve as a 1192 church. Nothing could be more unfounded than the assertion that the general assembly was in a state of rebellion. It might as well be said, that, in a late transaction, that House was in a state of rebellion against the judges of the land. He believed that the time would come when the assembly would be able to show that their present conduct was perfectly constitutional.
§ Mr. Hawesthought the vote ought not to be agreed to, if it could not be better defended than it had been by the learned Lord. For a period of eleven years the assembly had met in a church without inconvenience. He had seen the place, and he thought they had sat there without inconvenience to themselves, although with much inconvenience to the Government and the public. That inconvenience had been so great, that he cared not that they had no place to sit. It was said, that there was an understanding with the Government to provide other accommodation; but was the present Government bound by any such understanding? He thought that they had turned over a new leaf, but it appeared he was in error. He did not know whether the church was in rebellion or not, but, at all events, the clergy were in absolute opposition to the law, as declared by the highest judicature in the country. Nor was there the slightest analogy between their case and that of the House. The House was maintaining the privileges of the main body of the people—the Scotch church was fighting for their own selfish views.
§ Mr. F. Maulecontended, that the vote was one of actual justice. It would be merely returning that accommodation to the Assembly of which they had been deprived, under a promise of restoration; and the building was to be used as a church, while not in use by the Assembly. That was not the occasion to defend the church. When the proper time came he would be prepared to prove, that she was fighting for that which was ardently desired by the great body of the people, and what, in his opinion, was her right.
§ Mr. C. Lushingtoncould not abandon his entire conviction of the contumacy of the Scotch church, notwithstanding all he had heard; and he did not see why the people of England, Ireland, and Wales, should be taxed for such a purpose.
§ Vote postponed.