CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

HC Deb 15 March 1842 vol 61 cc646-53

Mr. A. Campbell

moved for a Select committee to consider the constitution and principles of the Church of Scotland, and to inquire into the causes of the collision between the Supreme Courts of that Church and the Supreme Civil Courts, and to report their observations thereon to the House; with power to send for persons, papers, and records. He should not occupy the attention of the House for any length of time upon this subject, for the real object which he had in proposing the present motion was, to ascertain the feeling of the House upon it. He would venture to assert, that there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House representing English constituencies, who, notwithstanding the lengthened debate of that night, were still but slightly acquainted with the real merits of this question. He submitted to the House that they could adopt no better mode of getting rid of this difficulty, and of reaching the real merits of the case, than by agreeing to this motion. Such a course would at once put an end to all controversy on the subject, and he had the greater confidence in calling upon the House to adopt this motion, when her Majesty's Government had declared their intention not to introduce any measure upon the subject, asserting that the law of the land was sufficient to meet every difficulty which might arise. He thought, however, that when the courts of law in Scotland were at variance upon the effect of the existing statutes upon this subject, the House would agree with him that the time was come when the interference of Parliament was called for.

Mr. Cowper

was one of those English Members to whom the hon. Member had referred, and he undoubtedly was free to admit, that he had gained little advantage from the debate of that night. He thought that it was highly desirable that the Government should accede to this motion, not only that what he was sure might be taken to be the prevailing ignorance which existed upon the subject might be removed, but that the whole question should be sifted. It appeared to him that the confidence of the country was wanted in the present law. The law which the Church asserted was said by the Civil Courts to be opposed to the statute law of the land. The General Assembly on the other hand contended, that the law set up by the Civil Courts was opposed to the fundamental laws of the Church, and to the Act of Union. The question of nonintrusion was sufficiently narrow and simple. It was allowed by the Civil Courts that the congregation had a right to reject a minister, But those Courts asserted that reasons must be assigned for the exercise of that right. But, he would ask, was it reasonable that that House which had a right to refuse its confidence to a Minister of the Crown, as he refused his to the right hon. Baronet opposite, was bound to give the Crown such reasons as would satisfy the Sovereign judicially, that the reasons were well founded? It was not sought to take from the patron the power of nominating, but to apply to it such checks as would require them to consult the wishes and the religious feelings of the congregations; and what in fact had been the working of the veto? Amidst all the excitement that had prevailed, out of two hundred and thirty appointments, only seventeen had been vetoed. He thought that if the Government would concede the point of non-intrusion, which the Church had declared to be one of her fundamental points of doctrine, that the question might be easily arranged. As to all claim of the Church to entire freedom from all interference of the civil jurisdiction, he thought that claim unmaintainable; but he thought the Government ought to concede the point of non-intrusion. He should vote for the committee.

Sir James Graham

said, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had declared that he had no confidence in the Government of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel). It was probable, however, that his confidence had been accorded to the Government of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), who had in the course of the last year quitted office. Viscount Melbourne, when this subject had been under discussion, had declared that he was perfectly satisfied with the law which regulated the Church of Scotland, and after all the discussions upon this question which had taken place, looking at the whole case, and at all the circumstances surrounding it, he (Sir James Graham) and his Colleagues had come to the same conclusion. It was true, that in matters of ecclesiastical law arising in Scotland, the General Assembly was supreme, and that in civil matters the Court of Session was supreme, and that these two courts were at variance upon this subject; but the House of Lords was the court of the last resort, and upon the decision of that House, which had declared the civil tribunal to have given the proper decision, and which had decided that the veto law was inconsistent with the law of the land, he was prepared to rest. Her Majesty's Government thought, that, entertaining this opinion, it was not inconsistent with their duty to resist this motion. But he begged the attention of the House to the form of the motion. It proposed a committee to inquire into the "constitution and principles" of the Church of Scotland. He thought that this was not a time to submit to the decision of a select committee a question involving the whole system of church government in Scotland, but that to accede to such a proposition would be inexpedient and highly dangerous. It was to be observed that it was not an inquiry into any law or any statute which was proposed, nor an investigation into any matter of fact, but the motion was for a committee to inquire into great principles recognised by the Act of Union itself; and therefore he thought that the House would agree with him that this committee should not be granted.

Mr. Fox Maule

was perfectly able to reconcile the vote he was about to give in favour of the motion, with those Presbyterian feelings to which the right hon. Gentleman had appealed. He had come down to the House rather inclined to vote against the motion, but having heard the instructions of her Majesty's Government, and knowing the committee could only inquire into facts relating to the constitution of the Church of Scotland he should vote in favour of it. They could not give power to any committee to alter the constitution of the church in any way, because that was a power which the legislature itself did not possess. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the difference between the power of the Courts Ecclesiastical and Civil. He (Mr. F. Maule) thought it right that the public in England should thoroughly understand what was going on in the North, which they did not understand at present, although the effects of it might soon reach their own firesides. With regard to the Church of Scotland itself, he felt convinced that it was fixed upon such solid foundation that it would emerge from all its difficulties and be more triumphant than it had ever been, even in its brightest days. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that in the Auchterarder case the church had agreed to refer the question of jurisdiction to the House of Lords, and he said, that if the decision had been the other way, they would not have heard about it. The church had referred that question to the House of Lords only for the purpose of determining how far the Court of Law could go with regard to the temporalities of the living, and the moment that was decided to be a matter subject to the cognizance of the Civil Court, the church had succumbed and had directed the Presbytery of Auchterarder, not to take advantage of what had occurred. So far as this had gone they had bowed to the decision of the law, and would do so in all others relating to their civil rights. Then, again, a great deal had been said of the rebellion of the church and of the prosecutions of the seven ministers. Now what had those seven ministers done? Mr. Edwards had been presented by the patron to the living of Strathbogie; personally, he was unexceptionable, but having acted as a political agent in the parish, he certainly ought not to be appointed. The appointment was vetoed, and Mr. Edwards appealed to the Court of Session, to order the Presbytery to admit him, which they had no power to do. What did those seven gentlemen do? Did they appear in court? Did they appear to bow to the authority of the superior Church of Scotland? No such thing. They entered the Civil Courts, and by their own application obtained a decree against them, in order to that which they held to be necessary to their ordination. They could no more compel a Presbyterian to ordain any person, any more than a churchman. These men were ordained, and the commission of General Assembly proceeded to summon them to the court; eighteen months elapsed; every opportunity was given them to make an apology, but they did not adopt that course. The church had been driven from corner to corner by those who ought to protect her. He warned the Government that if they did not legislate on this point they must take the consequences that must ensue from the great confusion that must inevitably result from letting things remain as they were.

Sir R, Peel

was surprised that the hon. Gentleman had said anything decidedly in support of the motion—and above all, after the time that he had been in office, and in an office so nearly connected with this subject—for a select committee, on the supposition that that would settle the question. It was the opinion of the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Cottingham), expressed on the motion of the Earl of Aberdeen on this subject, that it would be only a fruitless proceeding to attempt to legislate under present circumstances on this question. If, therefore, this was the opinion of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged in 1840, and if they would not aid and support his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) in the plan which he proposed, and if they would not adopt or propose a measure of their own, because they thought that, in the then existing temper of the people of Scotland, it was impossible to settle the matter in a satisfactory manner, they might have adopted a proposition for a select committee, if they had thought proper, but they refused to do so. He must, therefore, express his surprise that, after the conduct of the hon. Gentleman on former occasions, and after the doubts which he had expressed in the earlier part of the evening, he should have lent any countenance to the present motion. If a Government wished to evade any difficulties on a question of this kind, or on any other, the best course for it to pursue was to go to a select committee; this was a temporary sort of arrangement, which was befitting a shabby Government. He attached great importance to the settlement of this question; and it was impossible, for too many reasons for him to state, not to do so. He was too deeply interested in the moral and social welfare of Scotland not to feel deeply any matter which must interfere so much with it, for before these unfortunate dissensions had arisen, he had enjoyed communications and feelings of uninterrupted harmony with that country. He apprehended that his right hon. Friend never intended to say, that be was satisfied with the state of things which existed with reference to the Church of Scotland, but that he had stated that, after having opened communications with all parts of the country, the impression in his mind was similar to that which actuated the predecessors in office to the present Government, namely, that there did not exist that feeling in Scotland which was likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question. He would at once state, that, immediately after the present Government had been appointed to office, they took the subject into their consideration with the view to its settlement. As to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, that it was desirable that a select committee should be appointed, to allow English gentlemen to obtain information on the subject, he would only observe, that there were ample sources of information without resorting to such a means of obtaining it. If any hon. Gentleman wished to get information on this subject, he might, after reading the full and learned judgments before the Court of Session, and the arguments and judgments in the House of Lords, take up the multitudinous pamphlets written on the subject, and then he believed that he would find ample sources of information. When a similar proposition as the present was made to the noble Viscount the late head of the Government, he did not acquiesce in the proposition, but said that it was for the Government to determine when the time had arrived for legislation, and he distinctly refused to transfer the duties of the Government to a select committee. If the matter was referred to such a tribunal, witnesses would be called up, who would make charges of crimination and recrimination, and the result would only tend to prolong the unfortunate dissensions which now existed in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman saw any chance of quieting the disputes in the Scotch church, why not bring in a bill for that purpose? If, in the present temper of Scotland, he saw any opportunity for the adjustment of the question, why not bring in a measure for its settlement? If he thought a bill resting upon just principles would be accepted, would it not be better to bring such a measure forward, and submit it to the temperate discussion of Parliament, rather than bring up the contending parties to London, and enter into long details and counter-statements on either side of the question. He had no other motive in taking the course he was adopting than the settlement of the question. Its settlement would be a relief to Government. He believed that the appointment of a committee could produce no satisfactory result. It would widen instead of healing those breaches which already unhappily existed. He knew that, if he came down to the House and said that he bad nothing to propose on the question, but that he hoped the House would assist him by means of a committee in acquiring that information on which he might found a measure, he knew that were he to do so, he would be told that he was not acting as a minister or a statesman ought to act, and he felt, therefore, that as he could not agree to adopt such a course himself, he could not acquiesce in it when proposed by another. He hoped that the House would pause; he hoped that the House would look to the practicable results which could be expected to follow from the adoption of the proposition embodied in the motion before its notice, before it gave that proposition its sanction.

Mr. Fox Maule

said, that there had existed no reasonable grounds for hoping that any measure which would have the effect of permanently settling the discussion, could be carried through when he was in office.

Mr. Campbell

said, he would only detain the House while he read five lines of a letter he had received from a clergyman of the Scotch church, proving the interest taken by the people of Scotland in the success of his motion. The letter stated, Your motion is looked forward to with the greatest interest by every friend of the church, and I can only say, God speed you. This was the alleged dismay with which his motion had been received by the people of Scotland. The party whose cause he advocated did not shun inquiry; they courted investigation, for their cause was the cause of truth. He did not bring forward a bill upon the subject, because he did not believe that it would experience fair treatment. What he wished for was a patient investigation into the merits of the question in the calm of a committee room, and he thought that the agreement of the House to his proposition would be only doing justice to the people of Scotland and to itself.

The House divided — Ayes 62; Noes 139: Majority 77.

List of the AYES
Aglionby, H.A.	Hill, Lord M.
Band, W.	Holdsworth, J.
Bannerman, A.	Howard, hon. H.
Bateson, Sir R.	Jardine, W.
Blewitt, R. J.	Johnstone, A.
Bowring, Dr.	Jones, Capt.
Brotherton, J.	Mackenzie, T.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.	M'Taggart, Sir J.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R.	Mangles, R. D.
Dalrymple, Captain	Maule, right hon. F.
Duff, J.	Mitcalf, H.
Duncan, G.	Morris, D.
Dundas, Adm.	Murray, A.
Evans, W.	Napier, Sir C.
Ferguson, Col.	O'Brien, W. S.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	O'Connell, M. J.
Forster, M.	Paget, Lord A.
Gill, T.	Pechell, Capt.
Gore, hon. R.	Plumridge, Capt.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Power, J.
Harford, S.	Rawdon, Col.
Harris, J. Q.	Rice, E. R.
Hastie, A.	Ricardo, J. L.
Hay, Sir A. L.	Scholefield, J.
Hayes, Sir E.	Smollett, A.
Heathcoat, J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.

Stewart, P. M.	Williams, W.
Tancred, H. W.	Wood, B.
Thornely, T.	Yorke, H. R.
Tufnell, H.
Tuite, H. M.	TELLERS.
Wakley, T.	Campbell, A.
Wawn, J. T.	Cowper, Mr.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Ackers, I.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Acton, Col.	Greenall, P.
Adderley, C. B.	Greene, T.
Allix, J. P.	Grimsditch, T.
Antrobus, E.	Grimston, Visct.
Bailey, J.	Hale, R. B.
Bailey, J., jun.	Hamilton, W. J.
Balfour, J. M.	Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Hardy, J.
Barrington, Visct.	Henley, J. W.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Herbert, hon. S.
Bernard, Visct.	Hodgson, R.
Boldero, H. G.	Hope, G. W.
Borthwick, P.	Horsman, E.
Botfield, B.	Hutt, W.
Broadley, H.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Broadwood, H.	Jermyn, Earl of
Bruce, Lord E.	Johnson, W. G.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H;
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Kemble, H.
Burroughes, H. N.	Knatchbull, right hon.
Chelsea, Visct.	Sir E.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Knight, F. W.
Christopher, R. A.	Legh, G. C.
Chute, W. L. W.	Lennox, Lord A.
Clayton, R. R.	Lincoln, Earl of
Clerk, Sir G.	Lindsay, H. H.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Lockhart, W.
Cochrane, A.	Lowther, J. H.
Colville, C. R.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	M'Geachy, F.
Courtenay, Visct.	Manners, Lord J.
Craig, W. G.	March, Earl of
Cripps, W.	Martin, C. W.
Crosse, T. B.	Mitchell, T. A.
Darby, G.	Morgan, O.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Mundy, E. M.
Dickinson, F. H.	Neville, R.
Douglas, Sir H.	Newry, Visct.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Nicholl, right hon. J.
Dowdeswell, W.	Paget, Col.
Drummond, H. H.	Palmer, R.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Peel, right hon. Sir R.
Duncombe, hon. O.	Peel, J.
Egei ton, W. T.	Pigot, Sir R.
Egerton, Sir P.	Pollock, Sir F.
Eliot, Lord	Pringle, A.
Escott, B.	Pusey, P.
Fellowes, E.	Rae, right hon. Sir W.
Ferrand, W. B.	Rashleigh, W.
Fuller, A. E.	Reade, W. M.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Richards, R.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Gordon, Lord F.	Sanderson, R.
Gore, M.	Sandon, Visct.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Scott, hon. F.	Villiers, Visct.
Sheppard, T.	Vivian, J. E.
Sibthorp, Col.	Waddington, H. S.
Somerset, Lord G.	Whitmore, T. C.
Somerton, Visct.	Wilbraham, hon. R. B.
Stanley, Lord	Wodehouse, E.
Stewart, J.	Wood, Col. T.
Stuart, Lord J.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Stuart, W. V.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Sutton, hon. H. M.
Trollope, Sir J.	TELLERS.
Trotter, J.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Tumor, C.	Baring, H.