THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

HC Deb 15 March 1842 vol 61 cc618-46

Sir A. L. Hay

considered it his duty to call the attention of the House to the present unfortunate position of the Church of Scot- land, and he begged to assure the House, that he did so in no spirit of partisanship, or from any spirit of party—he did it from a sincere feeling that the circumstances which had now existed for some years in that country with which he was so intimately connected were most detrimental to the Established Church, to the people, and, unless they were put an end to, they would tend most eminently to break down the best interests of society. He felt compelled to call the attention of the House to the subject, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer given by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in the first week in the Session to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule). The right hon. Baronet then said, that it was not his intention to legislate on the subject, or, if he did, he would give ample notice of that intention; nor was he prepared to pledge himself to support any effort at legislation on the part of any hon. Member. Living as he did in the very centre of the heats, the animosities, and the confusion caused by the present state of the law, he could conceive nothing so derogatory to the station to which he had been elevated by his constituents, as to sit down silently when he had an opportunity of bringing the state of that unfortunate Church under the consideration of the House. He was not going to enter into an historical detail of the circumstances which had placed the Established Church in Scotland in her present predicament; but he was prepared with documents to show, that there were persons of great weight in the country, who had expressed themselves with admiration of that establishment—persons who thought it was an establishment worthy of the utmost protection of the law. In the report of a committee of which the right hon. Baronet was a Member, it was stated, that they had in the course of their long and laborious duties,— Become impressed with no feeling so strong as that of veneration and respect for the Established Church of Scotland. And in the progress of the debate which followed the right hon. Baronet said, he considered that establishment as a most important and useful instrument for propagating true religion, and securing the peace and welfare of society. Now, was that an establishment which ought to be allowed to exist in circumstances that must destroy her usefulness? It was not for him to point out any particular line of duty which the Government or the Legislature ought to adopt; but he would say, that it was necessary, absolutely necessary, that there should be some legislation on the subject, and that without the least delay. Hon. Gentlemen generally might be aware, that the Church in Scotland was established under the 10th of Queen Anne in 1711. That act regulated the manner in which ministers were to be inducted to their parochial charges. That act was carried into execution for many years without question; indeed, until the right of patronage was called in question, and an anti-patronage society was formed in Scotland in 1824. The members belonging to that society increased greatly within the next ten years, and in 1834 the General Assembly of the Church passed what was called the Veto Act, for the purpose of giving the people a voice in the choice of their ministers. That act was wholly inconsistent to, and could not co-exist with the law of Anne, and ever since that year there had been no peace in Scotland. Was it possible that the Government and the Legislature would allow Scotland to remain year after year under circumstances which were tending to shake the very foundations of society, under a state of things in which the people became lawbreakers under the sanction, and in the company of their ministers? He was not pressing the question on the attention of the House without being backed by high authority. The Earl of Aberdeen, on March 31st, 1840, said,— It appeared to be so clearly the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to undertake to propose measures to Parliament upon such a question—it was one so immediately affecting the peace and good order of the community, that he took for granted, that the responsible advisers of the Crown would not abandon a duty so imperative. And again, on the 19th of June, in the same year, he said, in speaking of the case of the Strathbogie ministers,— This is 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. These were strong expressions, and they had fallen from one who was now her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he had another authority, and it was one whom he could never name without a feeling of deep respect—he alluded to the Duke of Wellington. In the same debate the noble Duke said,— That such a state of things ought not to be allowed to exist, and the whole weight and influence of the Government ought to be exercised to put an end to it. He was fortified then by strong testimony, and he did not think after citing such opinions any blame attached to him for calling the attention of the House to the subject. Many hon. Members present would recollect, that it was in the cause of a presentation to the parish of Auchterarder, that the ecclesiastical and the civil courts first came in collision. That case was long litigated in the civil courts, and upon the question of the temporalities an appeal was had to the House of Lords, where the judgment of the civil court was affirmed. The next case which arose was, that of Marnoch. In that case there was the settlement of a minister against nearly the unanimous wish of the parishioners, without any reference to the act or the orders of the General Assembly. Then followed the deposition of the seven clergymen by the General Assembly for disobedience to the orders of that, the highest ecclesiastical court. The consequence was, that that court conceiving that they had a bounden duty to perform, and according to the ecclesiastical law, appointed ministers to preach the gospel in the seven parishes. Those ministers did not preach in the churches, because the civil courts prevented that, but they preached in other places, to the great scandal of the people. This collision between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities had a tendency to produce upon the minds of the people an effect which they could not but lament. It led to a disregard of the law of the country; men were undecided whether or not they ought to obey the law; and were such a state of things allowed to exist, the worst consequences would ensue. He might be permitted to allude to one circumstance respecting this dispute, which had reference to Dr. Candlish, a minister of Edinburgh, one of the most learned and eminent men in the church of Scotland. That gentleman was on the eve of being appointed to the chair of Biblical Criticism in the University of Edinburgh, when it was discovered that, in conformity with the orders of his ecclesiastical superiors, he had gone into the parish of Huntly, and had there performed divine service in opposition to the interdict of the Court of Session. Dr. Candlish was, compelled to make his election whether he would act in opposition to his ecclesiastical superiors or to the law of the land; he chose to obey the directions of his ecclesiastical superiors, and in consequence of adopting that line of conduct he did not receive his appointment to the chair of Biblical Criticism. Dr. Candlish was, he believed, with the exception of the deposed clergymen, the only person who had suffered punishment—if he might use that term—for his opposition to the civil law in this contest. He thought that this question ought long since to have received the serious attention of Government, with a view to its final decision. He regretted that her Majesty's late advisers had not taken measures for the early settlement of these unfortunate disputes, and he thought they had acted injudiciously in neglecting to do so. He was also of opinion, that it would have been well had the right hon. Baronet now at the head of her Majesty's Government brought this subject under the consideration of the House at an early period of the Session. The next case to which he would call the attention of the House, was one which had recently occurred in the parish of Culsalmond, in the presbytery of Strathbogie. There being a vacancy, Mr. Middleton, a gentleman who had acted as assistant-minister in the parish, was appointed by the patron. The presentation was opposed by the people; but the majority of the presbytery obtained the assistance of the civil power, the sheriff, ma gistrates, and police officers, and proceeded to the settlement of the presentee. This proceeding took place on the 11th of November last; and a riot was the consequence, of which the church was the principal scene. Information of the occurrence was forwarded to the Home-office, by whom an investigation was directed, which took place on the 21st of December; and the result was, that four persons, including a minister, were committed on the charge of riot, and were now, he believed, on bail to appear before the Court of Justiciary for trial. He thought both parties might be chargeable with acting inconsistently; but he mentioned these facts to show the working of the system which now existed. In the parish of Glass, in the presbytery of Strathbogie, the clergyman had lately died, and the Duke of Richmond, who was the patron, had appointed a Mr. Dubois as his successor. This appointment had been regarded with dissatisfaction by the people, and there was reason to suppose that the settlement of the minister would occasion some commotion. In consequence of this apprehension a number of her Majesty's troops had been removed from Huntly to Glass, a distance of thirty or forty miles, in order to repress any disturbance to which the settlement of the minister might give rise. He was aware that it was necessary that the civil power should be protected; but he would ask if such a state of affairs as this ought to be permitted to continue? The settlement might in this case be accomplished without any popular commotion which might require the interference of the military; but there was no doubt that if Mr. Dubois was inducted he would be deposed by the general assembly, and it was absolutely necessary that it should be decided how far the power of the patron could be controlled by the assembly, or whether he could exercise that power independently of its interference. He himself was the lay patron of two parishes, and certainly, if he should have the opportunity of doing so, he would exercise his right of presentation, and if the General Assembly deemed it their duty to suspend the parties he might present, he would take measures to vindicate his privileges. There were, he believed, at this time seventy parochial ministers in Scotland under the ban of the General Assembly, in consequence of their having opposed the claims advanced by the Assembly in reference to this question. The feelings of the people of Scotland, he could assure the House, were strongly excited on this subject, and they were most anxious to learn what course it was the intention of Government to pursue. He might observe, that the general impression in Scotland was, that when the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) occupied the post of Secretary of State for the Home Department, he exercised the right of patronage to which he was entitled by virtue of that office in a most judicious and satisfactory manner. As related to the parish of Elgin, which more particularly formed the subject of his motion, he must say that the people, in the appointment of the minister, had not been treated with the consideration that was due to them. When the vacancy was declared as about to take place, four-fifths of the communicants sent him (Sir A. Leith Hay) a memorial, requesting that a particular clergyman might be appointed as their minister. He transmitted the memorial to the Secretary for the Home Department for the time being. Coming to London soon afterwards, he went to the Home-office to ascertain what effect the appeal had produced. He was met by this answer: "We have received your memorial; but there is no vacancy." This was in August last, when the late ministry were on the point of leaving office. The moment that he received this reply he sent to the Tiend's Court in Scotland to ascertain whether the vacancy had taken place or not. It so happened that the clergyman who was to make the vacancy in Elgin had been removed to another parish; and the presbytery, whether by design or otherwise, put off declaring the vacancy until the present Government came into office. The majority of the proprietors of Elgin, and the majority of the town council also, petitioned the Minister of the Crown for the appointment of the same person in whose favour he had previously transmitted the memorial. A short time after the vacancy had been declared, he wrote to ascertain what determination her Majesty's Ministers had come to. He received an answer, stating that they were not prepared to say what step they intended to take. He never subsequently wrote to them upon the subject, believing it would be useless. He heard reports that another person was appointed, and at length it appeared that a person really was appointed—a person wholly unknown to the inhabitants of the parish—a person whom none of them had ever previously seen. This showed a strong determination on the part of the Government not to comply with the wishes of the people. In other parishes appointments had been made in the same manner in direct opposition to the feelings of the inhabitants. In one case the patron of the parish having recommended a person to the right hon. Baronet, he (Sir James Graham) for a long time returned no answer to the letter of the patron, but desired the Presbytery to examine into the character of the individual recommended, and give him information as to his feelings and principles. And what did the right hon. Baronet then do? Before the report of the Presbytery could reach him, the presentation was sent down, but not to the person for whom the patron, or for whom the majority of the parishioners, wished. He found no fault with this step. He did not say that it was not a judicious one. His desire was, that every possible concession should be made to the wishes of the people. He did not stand up for the intrusion of Ministers into parishes, contrary to the religious feelings of the people; and he thought the people of Scotland were competent to judge who should be their spiritual guides. But while he said this, he had no hesitation in adding, that as he had been, so he should continue to be, a strenuous advocate for the support of the law, as long as that law existed on the statute book. But there was no reason why the statute book should continue to retain a law that was inconsistent with the good of the country. It was said, if the statute of Anne were repealed, what would be substituted? and would he place the whole power of the appointment of ministers in the hands of the people without any control whatsoever? His answer was, that he would support no such system, but he would give the people their undoubted right of a voice in the appointment of their Ministers. He had felt it a duty to bring this subject before the House. If the Government thought that the evils of the case would cure or ameliorate themselves—if they thought that, by any possibility, the feelings that had been stirred up in the minds of the people of Scotland would be calmed down and done away with, without legislative interference, they laboured under a grievous error. The question might certainly have been settled two years ago much more easily than it could now. But he had no doubt that a Government so powerful as the present could, if it made the attempt, effect a settlement of the question in a manner correct as regarded the law, equitable with regard to the courts, and judicious and satisfactory in the eyes of the people. If he had not taken the course pursued by him to-night he should have thought that he was not fulfilling his duty; and if the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had been present, he should have asked him for his support. He should have asked the hon. Baronet for his support as a means of preventing the foundation of the Church establishment from tottering. He would point out to the hon. Member, that while the Government and the Legislature were looking on at the conflagration, some of the burning embers of discord might fly across the Tweed, and might produce fatal effects in England. He would conclude by entreating the right hon. Baronet to proceed to settle the question boldly, calmly, and firmly—leaning neither to the opinions of the over zealous and presumptuous, nor to those of ultra-liberalism, but to effect a settlement accordant with the dictates of reason, justice, and common sense, and the people of Scot- land would be ready to support him. The hon. Member concluded by moving, That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of correspondence in the Home Office since the 1st day of July, 1841, relating to the appointment of a minister to the vacant charge of the parish of Elgin.

Sir James Graham

assured the House that he never approached any subject with a greater consciousness of the important duty he had to perform, than that to which he was now about to address himself. For he felt that a heavy responsibility rested upon him, lest any thing that fell from him on that occasion, should have the effect of aggravating the mischief, and increasing the danger which unhappily existed in reference to the question which the hon. and gallant Officer had brought under the consideration of the House. He confessed that when the hon. and gallant Officer gave notice of the motion, he had very great doubt as to the course he should probably pursue; for he could not help remembering that upon former occasions he and the gallant Officer had very much agreed in their views upon this subject. He remembered particularly that in 1834, when Sir George Sinclair brought forward his motion, the hon. and gallant Officer was one of the most strenuous opponents of the doctrine then put forward that the appointment of the Minister was in all instances to be governed by the expressed opinion of the majority of the inhabitants. He remembered that on the 9th of June, 1834, the hon. and gallant officer expressed in very strong terms opinions with which he then coincided, and to which he was still disposed to adhere. On the 9th of June, 1834, the hon. and gallant Officer said that he had several petitions entrusted to him to present, all praying that no alteration might take place in the present law of church patronage in Scotland, that he was certain, notwithstanding the outcry raised on the subject, that all the more rational and more numerous portion of the inhabitants of Scotland were not only attached to the Established Church, but also that the way in which the establishment was conducted was most just and satisfactory. That was to say, that after the veto had been passed by the General Assembly, the hon. and gallant Officer was perfectly satisfied with the mode of inducting ministers—with the manner in which the patronage of the church was exercised—with the whole state of the law, and with the way in which it was executed. Upon the present occasion the hon. and gallant Officer had passed a glowing eulogium upon the Church of Scotland. He was not a member of that church; but, from his earliest youth, living near the borders, he had had opportunities of observing the influence of the Scottish church upon the people of Scotland, and he was bound to say that he could never speak of that church but with heartfelt respect. He had seen its ministers content with moderate endowments, active in the daily performance of their parochial duties, and sedulous in the prosecution and advancement of a happy system of parochial education. He thought that parochial duties so performed by an honest and upright ministry, had produced a most salutary influence upon the character, morals, and habits of the people of Scotland, and if he could ascribe to any one cause so general a good, he should say that to that influence might mainly be attributed the high moral and trustworthy character of the people of Scotland, which made them one of the finest races of men to be found in the range of the whole civilized world. He entertained, therefore, towards the Church of Scotland the strongest and warmest feelings of respect. But, at the same time, he was bound to admit that an unhappy division had arisen in its bosom, which had made a rent in the sacred edifice, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, that it was hardly possible to overstate the degree of danger which would result if the present state of things were allowed to continue. Upon all those points he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, but then he must say, having listened with all the attention in his power to the speech of the gallant Officer, that he had never in his life heard an address which gave him less satisfaction. The gallant Officer stated, all the difficulty and danger of the case, said that things could not be allowed to remain as they were, and that it was indispensably necessary that something should be done without the delay of another day. But what course did the hon. and gallant Officer recommend as the best to be pursued? Something he said, must be done consistent with justice to all the parties concerned; something that should produce peace, harmony, and content, in the midst of all the disorders which had sprung up. But what that "something" was to be the hon. and gallant Officer did not give the House the slightest inkling or sight of. The hon. and gallant Officer talked of the late Government, and referring to the speeches made by the Earl of Aberdeen, the Duke of Wellington, and the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government, he let drop an expression in which he very much agreed. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that this question might have been settled two years ago much more easily than it could, possibly, be settled at present. In matters of this kind, time, no doubt, was everything. That which it was possible to do in a case two years ago, might, by the lapse of time, be rendered impossible and impracticable in the existing day. The hon. and gallant Officer referred to what the Earl of Aberdeen said; but he omitted altogether to refer to what the Earl of Aberdeen did. The Earl of Aberdeen not only advised the late Administration to attempt to settle this question—not only exhorted them to make an effort for that purpose; but upon their declining to propose any legislative measure, introduced a measure himself with the hope of bringing about a settlement of the question. He must say, that the experiment so made by his noble Friend, was not in its result very encouraging. The Earl of Aberdeen endeavoured so to frame his measure as to satisfy the just expectations of all moderate men. The result, as often happened in moderate councils, where adverse parties entertained strong and violent opinions was, that the moderate party in Scotland turned out to be the weakest, and the measure did not receive support. What was the observation of the Duke of Wellington, when the subject was under discussion in the House of Lords in 1840? The noble Duke said, If moderate councils are attended to, it will not be difficult to settle the question; it is because moderate councils are not attended to that the difficulty arises. His right hon. Friend now at the head of the Government said, in the same year, that an attempt should be made to settle the question before the end of the Session, and he exhorted her Majesty's Government to make the effort. Finding that the Government declined to do so, his right hon. Friend and himself became parties to the introduction of the bill proposed by the Earl of Aberdeen. That measure, as he had already stated, did not succeed. In the following year, 1841, no advice was pressed upon the Government to interfere in the matter by any legislative enactment. The hon. and gallant Officer now said, that the question was, whether the law was to be obeyed or not, or whether it was to be allowed to remain in a doubtful state. He agreed with the hon. and gallant officer, that that was the true question to be considered; and it was the firm conviction of her Majesty's Government that the law must in the first instance be obeyed. It was the firm resolution of her Majesty's Government steadily to act upon that principle, and without violence, but with a fixed determination to insist on obedience to the law. The hon. and gallant Officer had made another remark, which was exceedingly apposite, as following the observation he had just made. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the act of Anne. It must be borne in mind, that that which was called the Veto Act was not an act of the Legislature. The Ecclesiastical Court of Scotland, some years ago, adopted a form of discipline, popularly called the Veto Act, which had subsequently been declared by the Civil Courts of that country, and by the House of Lords in the last resort, to be illegal. He agreed, therefore, with the hon. and gallant Officer that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the act of Anne. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer, that the Veto Act could not co-exist with the law of patronage; and it was the duty of the Government to see that the veto of the General Assembly did not prevail over the law of the land. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that it was necessary to legislate promptly upon the subject, and asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to delay legislating upon it. He begged to ask the hon. and gallant Officer wherein existed the necessity for legislation? He took it, that the law of the land was sufficient to attain all the ends that could possibly result from additional legislation. The veto had been pronounced to be illegal. If there were any doubt upon certain points of the law of the land, they were now in a fair way of being settled. Actions of the greatest importance arising out of this controversy were at the present moment pending in the courts of Scotland; and the decision of those actions, by competent tribunals, would go far to clear up the state of the law, so that if there were any instant of time at which it would be more particularly inappropriate than another to embark in a coursé of legislation upon the subject it was the present, pending the decision of the questions now in the course of litigation. The hon. and gallant Officer would appear to insinuate, that whilst the Government hesitated as to the course it would pursue in respect to legislation, there was something variable and uncertain in their conduct which had led them into acts of indiscretion and injustice in several particular instances, out of which very serious disturbances had arisen. He could only say, that in all these cases her Majesty's Ministers had acted uniformly upon the principles they had laid down as the rule by which their conduct should be governed upon this subject; in every instance, the regular legal proceedings had been adopted, and all necessary steps taken to prevent a breach of the peace. The hon. and gallant Officer referred particularly to the case of Elgin. He was certainly surprised to hear that the hon. and gallant Officer had any objection to make to the course which her Majesty's Government had pursued with respect to the appointment of the Minister in that case. It appeared, that there was a decided division of opinion in Elgin as to the person who should be appointed to the vacant benefice. That being the case, he acted upon the principle laid down on a former occasion by the hon. and gallant Officer himself, and concurred in by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and finding that the parishioners were divided as to which of two particular clergymen should be appointed, be appointed neither, and nominated a stranger. That stranger, he was happy to say, notwithstanding the previous heat that had existed, had succeeded in restoring a feeling of harmony to the parish. He was prepared to say, that every effort had been made by the Government during the recess, as before in 1840 by the Earl of Aberdeen, to try whether any declaratory law could be framed, which might satisfy the reasonable expectations, and which might receive the general support, of that portion of the community in Scotland who felt interested in the subject. Having reason, however, to believe that no such measure could in the present temper of the people of that country be produced with any fair prospect of success, the Government had come to the decision, deeply regretting the necessity which had compelled them to do so, that it was at present most advisable for them not to attempt legislating on the question, and that it was incumbent on them to stand by the law of the land as laid down by the civil tribunals of the country. This was the decision which the Government had come to, after having given the subject their best consideration and reflection, and, for his own part, he could not reconcile it with his sense of duty to take any other course. He agreed with what had fallen from the noble Viscount at the head of the late Government. He was prepared to stand by the law of the land, and to defend the opinion of Government on the responsibility of Government, nor could he consent to the delegation of that responsibility to a committee. Believing that the hon. and gallant Officer had brought forward the motion merely that he might have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject, it was certainly not his intention to assent to the motion.

Mr. Fox Maule

said, that he also was prepared to stand by the law of the land, but he took a very different view from the right hon. Baronet, of what really was the law of the land in relation to the Church of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member, in introducing this motion had opened up a wide field, and as Government had intimated their intention of not legislating on the subject, pending the questions before the Court of Session, he was afraid, that the present occasion would be the only opportunity afforded him, during the present Session, of expressing his opinion on this important subject. In entering on the question, he begged to remind the House, that a party in Scotland—since party they chose to call it, but which he denominated the Church of Scotland-maintained, that by the statute-law of Scotland, from 1567 down to the present time, the Church of Scotland, by her Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly, possessed a distinct, independent, spiritual jurisdiction, secured to them by various acts of Parliament, and by the Act of Union—a jurisdiction with which neither law nor Parliament could interfere. With the permission of the House, he would very shortly trace the various statutes through which this power had been conferred on the Church. In 1567, the first care of the General Assembly was to secure the establishment of the exclusive ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church Courts in spiritual matters, and they addressed certain articles to the Scottish Parliament. One of the articles was to this effect:— That to this our kirk be granted, and by this present Parliament confirmit, sic free-some privilege, jurisdiction, and authoritie, as justly appertains to the true kirk, and that na other face of religion be permittet; and that na jurisdiction ecclesiastical be acknowledgit within this realme, other than that quhilk as sal be within this kirk, or flows frae the same. This, evidently, formed the basis of the act of 1567, in reference to which he begged the attention of the House to the extract he was about to read. It begins: Anent the article proponet and given in be the kirk to my Lord Regent, &c, anent the jurisdiction justly appertaining to the true kirk, &c. The enactment is:— The Kingis grace, with auise of my Lord Regent and thre estatis of this present Parliament, hes declarit and grantit jurisdictioun to the said kirk, quhilk consistis and standis in preicheing of the trew word of Jesus Christ, correctioun of maneris, and administratioun of holy sacramentis: and declaris, that there is na other face of kirk, na other face of religioun, than is presentlie by the favour of God establischeit within this realme, and that their be no other jurisdictioun ecclesiasticall acknawledgeit within this realme, other than that quhilk is and sal be within the same kirk, or that quhilk flowes thairfrae concerning the premisses. In this manner was the Presbyterian Church first established as the law of the land. The act 1579, in the sixth Parliament of James 6th, repeats the above act; 1581 ratifies and approves all freedoms, whatever privileges or immunities given by his Highness, or his Regent, to the true and holy kirk presently established, and especially enumerates the act of 1567. Then came the act 1592, on which the Church founds her spiritual jurisdiction, and which repeats all the preceding acts relating to the Church. Chap. 116 of that act expressly enacts, with reference to a prior statute, as to the jurisdiction of the King and his courts, that it should— Noways be prejudicial, nor derogate anything to the privilege that God has given to the spiritual office-bearers of the Church, concerning heads of religion, matters of heresy, excommunication, collation, and deprivation of ministers, or any such like essential censures, specially grounded, and having warrant of the word of God. It is true, that the same act, when appointing presentations to be directed to Presbyteries— With power to give collation thereupon and to put order to all matters and causes ecclesiastical within their bounds, according to the discipline of the kirk. Adds this proviso, that they be "bound, as restricted to receive and admit" qualified Ministers presented by the lawful patron. Nor did their ancestors in those days not foresee in establishing such a jurisdiction the possibility that it might interfere with matters of civil right falling under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The very next statute of that year, cap. 117, enabled the civil courts to give the stipend to the patron, enacting, as it did, that In case the Presbytery refuses to admit any qualified minister presented to them by the patron, it shall be lawful to the patron to retain the whole fruits of the benefice in his own hands. The case of Auchterarder seemed to be here anticipated, for the statute clearly provided for the independent spiritual jurisdiction of the church to collate and ordain ministers on the one hand, while, on the other, it gave compensation to the patron for the injury which he might sustain in the rejection of his presentee. He thought, that that act fully established the independent jurisdiction of the church, and provided for the collision that had taken place. He might be told, that no case had ever occurred in Scotland, in which the benefice had been separated from the cure of souls, but— In the case of Culross, in 1748, a patron attempted, by bill of advocation, to stop the ordination of another man than his presentee, but the court unanimously ' refused the bill as incompetent.' Again, in the case of Dunse, in 1749, an application to a similar effect was made to prevent the moderation of a call at large, with which the court" would not meddle," because That was interfering with the power of ordination, or the internal policy of the church, with which the Lords thought they had nothing to do. Accordingly, Lord Prestongrange, an able lawyer of that period, acknowledgesߞ There is no law in Scotland, no practice or precedent for an action before the Lords of the Session to compel a Presbytery to ordain the presentee—no quart impedit lies against them. So also, Lord Kames— The person authorised by their sentence, even in opposition to the presentee, is, de facto, minister of the parish, and as such, entitled to perform every ministerial function. It belongs, indeed, to the Ecclesiastical Court to provide a parish with a minister, but it belongs to the Civil Court to judge whether that minister be entitled to a stipend, and the Court of Session will find that a minister wrongously settled, has no claim to a stipend."—(Law Tracts, Tract 7. It would thus appear, that in 1749, the Court of Session recognised the independent spiritual jurisdiction of the church courts in the collation and ordination, and that all the court could do, when the civil right was interfered with, was to separate the fruits of the benefice from the cure of souls. He must admit, that it would be rather inconvenient to have one man drawing the stipend and another performing the spiritual duties; but such was exactly the state of the law in Scotland. That might be contrary to the notions which hon. Gentlemen opposite held of the establishment, but such was the way in which the question had been dealt with by the authorities of the land. He would just allude to what followed the act 1592. The latter acts of James, who endeavoured to restore prelacy, and the headship of the sovereign, were rescinded by acts 1649; and this act was rescinded by the act of Charles 2nd, 1662, establishing episcopacy. By the act 1689, episcopacy was abolished, and in 1691, the act was passed, which established the Presbyterian religion with all its privileges, and nothing occurred to interfere with this act until the act of Anne, 1711. There never was a law more foully imposed than the act of Anne. When he considered the character of those by whom it was passed, and the manner in which it was passed, he could not help feeling convinced that the opinion, pretty current at the time, had some foundation in fact, that the act of Anne was a deep laid conspiracy to overturn the Protestant religion in the country. That act passed so rapidly through the Commons, that there was scarcely time to communicate with the people in Scotland, in reference to it, and it was only when the bill was before the House of Peers that the general assembly had the opportunity of being heard against it. How was it dealt with in the Lords? Mr. Carstairs, one of the deputed ministers, was heard against the second reading, but the Lords took no time to consider his argument. The bill was read a second time, committed, reported, and read a third time in the same evening. Instead, therefore, of its being a well considered plan for the government of the Church, it appeared to him to be an act of treason and treachery to the people of Scotland, and a direct violation of the treaty of union. He considered that these were the strongest grounds for the repeal of that statute, but he feared that the principle of non-intrusion had now taken such root, that the mere repeal of that act would not prove satisfactory. He for one was not yet prepared to vote for the total abolition of patronage, but he was anxious to see the Veto Act of Assembly of 1834, or something tantamount to it, become the statute law of the land. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department could not, therefore, accuse him of not proposing a remedy. The right hon. Baronet was wrong in supposing that the decision in the Auchterarder case had settled the whole question in dispute. From the decision of Lord Cottenham, the right hon. Baronet might learn that only one-half of the question was decided in that case. But it mainly related to the civil side, and did not touch the spiritual jurisdiction of the church court. It merely decided that the presbytery ought to have taken Mr. Young on his trial. No more. And in consequence of their not having done that, he was entitled by the act 1592, ch. 117, to draw the fruits of the benefice. The question of ordination the church would never consent to refer to any civil tribunal, and in maintaining the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, the General Assembly had no doubt been actuated by a strong sense of duty, and not by any factious motives. Whatever might be done out of doors, he hoped the House would take the views of both sides into their consideration, and, without disparagement to either, judge fairly between them. He regretted, that the Government had not taken up the subject with the bold hand of legislation. How could they expect to tranquillise the public mind of Scotland on this subject by taking the course which they proposed, or how could they yield satisfaction to those who looked for some measure far more extensive than Government were inclined to give. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department stated, that he had had intercourse with various parties during the recess for a settlement of this question. He, believed, that when the right hon. Baronet had fully comprehended the terms of the non-intrusion party, the negotiations were broken off. He would never consent to see the rights of the people transferred to the hands of the clergy; he would rather prefer the absolute patronage of the patron. If they looked back on past times, when the schism took place in 1734, he thought they would perceive the great danger of another schism at the present time. The late Government had not proposed any settlement of the question, but they had studiously consulted the wishes of parishioners in the bestowal of their patronage, and they had only met with one or two difficulties during the time he was Under Secretary of State in the settlement of nearly one hundred vacancies. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, had alluded to the case of Elgin, and had told the House, that he had followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in filling up the vacancy. He would take the liberty to contrast the presentation to the same church by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, with that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1824, when he held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department. He held in his hand a copy of a letter addressed on that occasion by the right hon. Baronet to Colonel Grant. It was to the following effect:— Mr. Peel presents his compliments to Colonel Grant, and has the honour of informing him that Mr. Peel must adhere to the decision which he has come to with respect to the church of Elgin. The course pursued on this occasion, has been the same with that which was pursued under similar circumstances in the year 1818. In that year Colonel Grant forwarded an application from the magistrates and the town council of Elgin in behalf of Mr. Gordon, which application was attended to. On the occasion of the late vacancy, a memorial was forwarded to Mr. Peel, signed ' in name and by appointment of the town council of Elgin,' by the Provost, recommending the rev. Alexander Walker. This memorial bears date the 1st July, and up to this day, when he received Colonel Grant's letter; no intimation has been made to Mr. Peel that the proceedings of the town-council were not perfectly regular. In addition to the memorial from the town-council, Mr. Peel received a letter from Lord Fife, in behalf of Mr. Walker, in which Lord Fife stated, that he was chief heritor of the parish of Elgin, and that his family possessed half the parish. Under these circumstances, Mr. Peel conceives it would have been a departure from the principles on which the Crown usually acts in regard to church preferment in Scotland, if the application on behalf Mr. Walker had been rejected. Mr. Peel must add, that he received assurances from very disinterested authority, that Mr. Walker's character was perfectly unexceptionable. Such was the very creditable way in which the right hon. Baronet had filled the vacancy in 1824; but how had the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Dorchester, proceeded in regard to the same parish? A petition was presented to the right hon. Baronet, signed by three-fourths of the communicants, heads of families, by all the elders, except one, by the magistrates and town-council, by a majority of the burgh proprietors, and by six out of the eight landward heritors of the parish, representing a valued income of 4,682l. out of 6,329l. All these persons petitioned for Mr. Stewart, but notwithstanding this the right hon. Baronet had given the appointment to Mr. Wylie. How, then, could he be said to have followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth? The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department said, that Mr. Wylie had been harmoniously received. He was glad to hear of it; but in reference to what had taken place in the parish, he thought that, on the whole, the non-intrusionists were rather to be praised than blamed. He could not tell what would be the result of Mr. Wylie's appointment, but he believed, that the non-intrusionists were about building a new church for the minister of their choice. In regard to what had taken place at Cupar, he must say, that he could not approve of what had been done. Mr. Birrell died suddenly at Cupar, while acting as clerk of the Presbytery meeting, on Tuesday, 1st February. Mr. Birrel was buried on the 7th February, and, on the 8th February, his successor was appointed, contrary to all precedent and to the practice of the Home-office, considering the great excitement existing on the subject. This hurry had left an indelible impression of feeling against the right hon. Gentleman, which he would have been sorry to have incurred. But the right hon. Gentleman's rule seemed to be in no case to attend to the wishes of the parishioners. If the right hon. Gentleman did not hold that opinion, he would be glad if he would give some evidence to the contrary in his public acts, for, with the exception of Locklee, there had been a studious indifference in all cases to public opinion. His hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to several cases, and he said, that if all the cases were examined, the General Assembly and the Commission of the General Assembly would be found to have bowed to every decision of the superior courts in civil cases; they had only differed in those cases where the Civil Court intruded within the pale of the Ecclesiastical Court. He held, that the Ecclesiastical Courts had never interfered with the civil rights, and he was ready to maintain that opinion of the ablest lawyers in Scotland. With these opinions, he could not regret that his hon. Friend had brought forward the motion, though he knew that in the shape in which it stood it could not be granted, the documents moved for not being in possession of the Home-office, because it had given full opportunity for discussion.

Mr. A. B. Cochrane

said, that this question was one of so much importance, that he wished to trouble the House with a few observations. No man could be so ignorant of the state of the country to which it referred as to imagine that it interested the inhabitants of that part of the empire only; that the sacrifice of the vested interests of the patrons of Scotland would not be fraught with danger to the interests of the patrons in England, or that the Established Church of Scotland could be overthrown without the Church Establishment of England being shaken by the fall. It was immaterial to inquire whether the Church was at first ruled by bishop or Presbyters, or to allude to the cruelties inflicted on the Church of Scotland by the Episcopal party, or the treasons of the Knoxes or Melvilles of the other. The question here was one of fact and of law, and so it should be looked at. When he heard the hon. Member for Perth quote the Acts of Parliament relating to the question, he (Mr. Cochrane) was curious to see how they could be made to support the opinions he advanced, for having looked most carefully at them himself, he could not but come to the conclusion, that they supported his view of the question, widely different as it was from that of the hon. Member for Perth. It was said, that they declared, that when the majority of con- gregations objected to a clergyman, that objection was conclusive without an appeal to the Presbytery. The first Act to which it is necessary to allude is that of 1567, which never received the sanction of the Crown; it was passed under the Government of the Regent Murray; it ordained, that the examinations and admissions only were under the control of the members of the Church, but the rights of patrons were strictly reserved. By the Act of 1592, presentations were directed to the Presbytery, with full power to collate, provided they admitted qualified ministers appointed by the patrons; if not, all the profits were to revert to the patrons. Then followed the Act of 1549, which also was passed at a time of rebellion. The Act of 1549 ordained, that the Kirk Session should elect the minister, and intimate their choice to the congregation; if a majority dissented, the presbytery were to judge of the same, and unless they found the dissent to be founded on causeless prejudices, another election was to take place. No absolute veto was given to the people by the Act of 1769, on the contrary, it expressly declares, "that if the presbytery disapprove of their minister, they are to give in their reasons, in order that the affair may be cognosed upon." The authority on which the Church of Scotland relied was their own books of discipline, which never received the sanction of the State. It was said, that although the spirit of what was denominated the "call" was lost, yet the form of it was kept up. But by preserving even the form, the Church of Scotland was acting in opposition to the acts of Parliament. The Act of Queen Anne expressly declaring "that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be continued to extend to repeal or make void the aforesaid Act of William and Mary, except in so far as relates to the calling or presenting of ministers;" besides, even if such had not been the case, a mere form could be accounted for little; it will be remembered, that until the union with Ireland the English Sovereign was termed king of France, and quartered the royal arms of that country, but no one would on that account urge pretensions to the throne of France. Lord Aberdeen had prepared a bill which gave full power to the members of the Church to make all objections to ministers, only providing that the reasons for refusal should be stated, and that the questions should be first referred to the Presbytery, and from thence to the Su- preme Ecclesiastical Court. This bill was rejected by Scotland. He was gratified to hear the determination of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, to adhere to the law, for the variances which arose between ministers and congregations were productive of great evil.

Sir, I believe that no one who has paid any attention to the few observations which 1 have made, for I have attempted little more than to submit to the House a full statement of the facts of the case, can consider that the course at present pursued by the Church of Scotland is founded upon any law; it is to the law that the patrons appeal, it is by every consideration of justice, of public advantage, that they enforce their claims. The wild pretensions of the Scotch churchmen must at once be overruled, and the Court of General Assembly must learn to respect the majesty of the law. In truth, this is a question which cannot be lightly regarded or carelessly overlooked; you cannot postpone it for future consideration, each moment of delay increases the evil, and renders the remedy more difficult. In the nineteenth century a Church court has presumed to get itself in opposition to the State, to claim privileges unknown even in the worst periods of ecclesiastical tyranny. Mr. Dryden prophetically observed, that the time would come when The Presbyter puffed up with spiritual pride, Should over the necks of the great nobles ride. But even he never contemplated, that in times of peace and sunshine, the church would dare to over-ride the authority of the law. I, Sir, cannot forget, that it was owing to some of the members of the Church of Scotland that one Sovereign was driven to exile and death, while their descendants commenced that revolution which terminated in the martyrdom of King Charles the 1st. Years have not subdued their fanaticism, time has not served to appease their agitations, it is still carried on in a systematic manner, while every village and hamlet of Scotland is disturbed by conflicting interests, and party strife. It was but yesterday, that taking up a Scotch newspaper, I observed among the advertisements, "the Anti-patronage Catechism for the Young;" the circumstance of such a work being advertised for sale may in itself be of little moment, but still it serves to shew the feelings of the country, as a feather will tell how the wind blows. Dr. Chalmers has said a good deal about "peaceful parochial agitation," but I can tell him, that it is this which is ruining his native land, by setting landlord against tenant—minister against congregation. He would do well to remember the words of Lord Clarendon, "That men cannot so easily fix what they have unnecessarily shaken." "The law is to the church what the bridle is to the horse—the price of food and shelter." I would not, however, be understood to express myself in any manner against the doctrines of the Scotch church or its own interior discipline. There is a party still existing in Scotland, who, refusing all inducement, all temporary advantage, have ever remained true to their ancient faith, and worshipped the Lord after the manner of their forefathers. Such are Cameronians, otherwise called, the hills people, and in them we may well esteem the simplicity and unpretending character of their religion. But it is when men, who have sold everything to the patronage system, come forward to overthrow it; when they strike away the hand which has nurtured and protected them, that we cry aloud against ingratitude and deceit, and should determine to compel that obedience which is denied to us. By using energetic measures, by showing a fixed determination to uphold the vested rights and privileges of the Scotish proprietors, we shall find our efforts crowned with success in the destruction of that wanton insolence and inordinate ambition which threatens the religious welfare and moral happiness of the people.

Mr. A. Campbell little

expected that the first occasion on which he addressed the House he should be compelled most thoroughly to condemn the line of conduct her Majesty's Ministers were about to pursue. The right hon. Baronet had declared in the most emphatic terms that he would enforce the law against the Church of Scotland. He begged leave to tell that right hon. Baronet that he could not do what he had declared he intended to attempt. He defied him to do it. The united voice of Scotland would be against him; and he was convinced that on such a question Scotland would meet with the hearty sympathy of the rest of the empire. He earnestly requested hon. Members to divest themselves of any other feeling than the conviction that the present was a question of national justice. Those who, on the abolition of the Scotch Parliament, had entrusted the Presbyterian Church to the vast majority of Episcopalians in the united Houses, well knew and foresaw what must be the result. With respect to what had been said of such Reformers as Knox and Melville, he begged to assure the hon. Member that those names would be remembered when that of the hon. Member was utterly forgotten. The same hon. Member had said, that the people claimed the veto, and not merely that, but he had had the audacity to add that they claimed it without appeal. [Cries of "Order."] He would not, then, use the word audacity; but he would say, that the hon. Member had had the ignorance to assert that there was no appeal. He hoped that the House would excuse his warmth, for the subject excited the strongest feelings in Scotland. Scotch Members, therefore, ought to be borne with while discussing a topic of such vital importance, not only to the people, but actually to the cause of spiritual religion. After the declaration of the right hon. Baronet he felt bound to state his views. As a Conservative he had long held his peace, and had thereby suffered much in the opinion of many of his church friends. It was his hope, until he heard the right hon. Baronet, that a Government which on many occasions had acted so wisely would on this question have seen that their duty lay in the very opposite direction to that which they intended to take.

Mr. Cochrane

explained what he had meant to say respecting the veto. In 1834 Dr. Chalmers and others changed their views with respect to an appeal to the Presbytery, and the only hold now upon the majority was, that they were to declare that they were not actuated by political motives.

Mr. A. Campbell

requested the hon. Member to examine the point again; if he did, he would find, that an appeal lay first to the Presbytery, then to the synod of the province, and finally to the General Assembly.

Mr. Cumming Bruce,

knowing the circumstances connected with the parish of Elgin, felt himself bound to declare, that no conduct could have been more calculated to throw oil on the animosity existing in the breasts of the parishioners, than that pursued by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. The majority of the heads of families, by far the greater number of the most respectable inhabitants, were opposed to the views of the violent non-intrusion party. But his right hon. Friend, seeing that the great- est animosities would arise from the appointment of either of the candidates proposed by the different parties, appointed neither, and sought out a person who, he thought, was eminently qualified to perform the duties of the sacred office. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had had the honour of receiving a letter from his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), in which he distinctly stated that no political considerations should ever influence his decision in appointing to the crown preferments in Scotland. He regretted to say, that Lord Fife had not acted upon the same principle, and had ultimately signed a requisition, which he at first refused to sign, with reference to the appointment of Mr. Stewart, through a desire to promote the views of some of his political friends in the borough. Had his right hon. Friend appointed the person named by the non-intrusion party, he would have offended a great majority of the parishioners. He had avoided that evil, and appointed a gentleman who he (Mr. Bruce) was happy to say had been received with great unanimity. No attempt had been made to exercise the veto against him, and there was every reason to believe that he would discharge his duty with advantage to the parishioners and the cause of religion. He believed, on the other hand, that political views and motives were discoverable in the conduct of the non-intrusion party, and apprehended that they wished to make the question one merely of a political character. Her majesty's Ministers were blamed for not bringing forward a new law on the subject, but he would ask what encouragement they had received to introduce a new law? Before it could be expected that Ministers would bring forward a new law, it ought to be shown that there was some chance that it would be obeyed. The General Session called upon the Government to pass a new law to enable them to settle this question; but before they did this they ought to have shown the Government that that new law would be obeyed, by their showing obedience to the law as it now stood. What was it that the Church of Scotland now made pretensions to? It was pretended that the ecclesiastical courts were possessed of a power — a power for which he never had heard any pretensions advanced by any reformed church, and only during the ecclesiastical tyranny of the tenth century—that they were possessed of a power to declare what was civil and what was ecclesiastical; and that they alone, and not the civil courts, were empowered to say what the interpretation of the law should be. What did that involve? It involved this—that an unfortunate individual might, on the one hand, be found guilty and punished for the violation of a law as interpreted by the supreme civil tribunal; while, on the other hand, he should be declared guilty of a violation of the same law by an ecclesiastical tribunal, which had, nevertheless, put a totally different interpretation upon it. This was no imaginary evil; for it had actually occurred in the case of the Strathbogie ministers. What had they been punished for? They had been punished by the Ecclesiastical Court with the highest, most cruel and most unjust punishment to which men had ever been subjected. He knew that many Scotchmen were afraid to declare their feelings on this subject. But if he were called upon to conceal his feelings, and his seat depended upon it, he should throw his seat to the winds, and do justice. Seven ministers of the presbytery endeavoured to evade obedience to the law; but, impelled by their consciences and by the declaration of the civil court, they did give effect, and they rendered obedience to the civil law and the statute law of the land as it stood now unrepealed. What happened? The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, represented by its majority—for, thank God! there was a large portion of that Assembly not affected by this strange infatuation—first suspended those seven ministers from their benefices, and finally deposed them from their sacred functions. And for what? Because they obeyed the civil law of the land, which they were bound by their oaths of allegiance to obey. This was certainly a state of things which ought not to be suffered to exist. He would not trouble the House with any arguments on the subject of the veto law, but would mention one instance to show how it worked. He knew of one parish with a population of 1,700, where the presbytery consisted of six old men, three of whom could not sign their names, and yet they, by the veto law of the General Assembly, had the power to reject the presentation of a person against whose character and attainments not the slightest objection existed, or was made in any of the competent courts. He therefore felt that her Majesty's Government were fully justified in the course they were pursuing; and that before any legislation took place upon the subject, the Church of Scotland must place itself in a position to render legislation of any avail. The hon. Member for Argyll had stated his views with regard to the condition of the Church in 1640. The writers in that period of our history, however, were entirely at issue with the hon. Gentleman. Dr. Chalmers had particularly dwelt on the dreadfully excited state of Scotland at that time, in consequence of religious enthusiasm, and the church feuds in which the then Duke of Argyle had borne so prominent a part. He could not but remark, that it was a rather singular circumstance that the lineal descendant of that nobleman should, at the present time, be also so warmly engaged in the advocacy of one of the parties to the existing dispute. However, he did not at all intend to impugn the motives of the nobleman he had referred to, who, he was convinced, was actuated by motives of the purest patriotism. Whatever might be his opinion on the policy of the matter, he was convinced the noble Duke had no other object in view than the promotion of the welfare of the Church.

Mr. Duff

wished to say a word as to a charge which the hon. Member who had just sat down had made against the character of his noble relative Lord Fife. The hon. Gentleman had said that Lord Fife had been actuated by political motives in the course which he had pursued with regard to Mr. Stewart. Now he (Mr. Duff) utterly denied the truth of that statement. It was entirely false, and the hon. Member well knew it to be false. [Cries of "Order," and "Chair."]

The Speaker

was sure the hon. Member would, on reflection, see that his language was quite unparliamentary.

Mr. Duff

would at once retract the expression he had used, and begged to express his regret for having so far deviated from the rules of the House. It was well understood, however, in the hon. Member's neighbourhood, that Lord Fife at all times carefully abstained from political interference: and he was sure that the hon. Member well knew that his noble relative would have taken no part whatever in the matter on any political consideration.

Mr. Cumming Bruce

was quite aware that the hon. Member (Mr. Duff) did not, in using the word "false," intend to accuse him of making a statement which he did not believe to be true. He had made the statement upon authority on which he believed he could rely, that his noble Friend and relative, the Earl of Fife, had refused to sign a statement relative to the case of Mr. Stewart, and that the general impression was, that having so refused, he afterwards did sign it; and that it was believed he had been influenced to do so by a desire to forward the political views of the party to which the noble Lord was himself attached. He (Mr. C. Bruce) had stated this upon authority which he had every reason to believe, and which he did still believe, to be correct.

Motion negatived.