Lords Sitting of 28 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Hereditary Revenue (Scotland); Tonnage Admeasurement; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Dominica Relief.—Read a second time:—Reform Act (Scotland) Amendment; Small Debts (Scotland); Glass Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from three Places, in favour of the Scotch Church; from the Farmers of Fife and East Lothian, against the Game Laws; from Belfrons, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Shropham-for Amending the Poor-Law Amendment Act.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS—OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON LETTER STEALING—SACRILEGE.
Lord Denmanwished to refer to three Bills which had been brought up from the Commons some time since. The first of these had for its object the giving of persons indicted for felony the power of making a full defence to the jury by counsel. He had not had an opportunity of stating what he thought of the Bill, when it was referred to the

1067
Committee, who had given it their utmost attention. The evidence upon the Bill had not yet been printed, or else had only just been printed, but not delivered. It was, therefore, quite impossible that the Bill could be proceeded with during the present session. It would be more correct, however, to fix a day for the second reading, and it was his intention to move that it should be read a second time that day six months. In the meantime the attention of their Lordships might be beneficially directed to the Bill, as all of them would then become acquainted with the nature of its provisions, and with the evidence for and against it. The Bill contained some provisions to which on no account could he agree. One of them for example was, that a prisoner might require a particular gentleman at the bar to be his counsel, and undertake his defence, and that such gentleman could be compelled by the Court to undertake that office. Such a provision would be most unjust to gentlemen who had entered an expensive profession and depended upon their professional income. The second Bill was for making offences against the person punishable more severely than at present. It was quite clear that that Bill could not pass while the fate of the other was suspended. Besides, there were strong differences of opinion as to the propriety of any new enactment at all. When, therefore, that Bill again came before the House, he should, as in a former instance, move that the consideration of the next stage, be postponed till that day six months. The third Bill to which he alluded was one to take away the capital punishment from the offences of stealing letters, and of sacrilege. To that Bill he believed that no reasonable objection could be made, and he should therefore fix the second reading for Saturday. With respect to the Bill to take away the capital punishment from the offence of sacrilege, he had been asked by a noble Viscount (Melville) whether the Bill was to extend to Scotland; and he had also been asked whether it was to extend to Ireland. He had submitted the matter to the consideration of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and to the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate had informed him that the state of the law in Scotland did not require that the proposed act should be extended to it, but the Attorney-General for Ireland thought, most decidedly, that the introduction of such a law into that country would be highly beneficial there. He gave notice, there-
1068
fore, that he should propose a clause extending the Bill to Ireland.
Lord Broughamentirely agreed with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. With respect to the Prisoners' Counsel Bill he understood that it had been fully discussed, and evidence taken on it before the Committee, but that the subject had been found to be full of difficulties, not only as to the probable working of the Bill in England, but as to the operation of a law of the same kind in Scotland, where it had long existed. He had introduced the Bill, and had, therefore, a strong feeling in favour of the measure, but he must admit that the weight of evidence against it had pressed strongly on his mind. He had never thought the subject perfectly clear, but he thought so now less than ever. Several witnesses of great professional experience at the Old Bailey had been examined, and their testimony was generally against the Bill. Mr. Phillips, for instance, had given strong evidence against it, than whom a man more in favour of the liberty of the subject was not to be found; so that his evidence against the Bill went far. Then there was his noble Friend, the noble Earl behind him (Earl Radnor), a recorder and a magistrate, whose love of liberal principles were too well known to be doubted. There were, however, other gentlemen whose evidence was of importance upon the other side of the question. It was right that their Lordships should be fully acquainted with this conflicting testimony, and under these circumstances he felt that he should not be discharging his duty if he pressed the measure through this session.
The Earl of Harrowbywished to make one observation on a remark which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with respect to the Bill to take away the capital punishment from the offences of stealing letters and of sacrilege. His observations would not be directed against the Bill, for as he felt at present he was inclined to support it; but what he meant to observe upon was, the remark as to extending the Bill to Ireland. He wished to ask what means any of their Lordships could have of forming a judgment upon that part of the proposition? The Bill had come up to their Lordships without the word, "Ireland." When they went to extend it to Ireland they must go on the statement that in the opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown in that country, the Bill should be extended to Ireland. A more striking instance of the inconvenience of bringing up

1069
Bills at this period of the year could not be given. Whether they were or were not to include seven millions of people within the operations of the Bill, was to depend solely on the privately expressed opinion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. That opinion had never been stated in the House of Commons, and had never been heard of till now, and yet on that dictum of the learned Gentleman their Lordships were now called on to legislate. He mentioned the matter that their Lordships might see to what a state they were reduced by this practice increasing from year to year of bringing up. Bills from the other House at the end of the session. He thought that the practice should be put an end to.
Lord Denmansaid that the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing that this Bill had only just been brought up, at the end of the session to their Lordships' House. The Bill had been upon their Lordships' Table during the last two or three months. He should have brought it under their notice earlier, but he expected that it would have been done by a noble Viscount, who usually took charge of Bills of this description. It had, however, escaped the noble Viscount's attention, and he took this, the earliest opportunity, of noticing the subject. With regard to what he had said as to the opinion of the Attorney-General of Ireland, he begged to observe that he had not taken that learned Gentleman's opinion as to whether it was proper that the Bill should pass. He had thought the principle of the Bill right, and believing that what was a right principle of legislation for England would be so for Ireland, he had merely asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the state of the law in Ireland was such that the introduction of a measure of this kind was required in that country. He had taken that opinion as he did not pretend to be conversant with the whole law and practice of the courts in Ireland. He had not stated the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion as an authority in favour of the Bill itself, and he did not think that he had laid himself open to censure, as he should have done had he done more than consult the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the state of the law in that country.
Lord Clancurrysaid, that the Irish people would have great reason to complain if a Bill found to be good for England was not extended to Ireland. They ought to legislate for both countries alike; and the Irish had reason to complain when Ireland was
1070
made an exception to that rule at the time that a beneficial measure was passed for this country. A late decision of their Lordships had shown that the true interests of Ireland were not much attended to. Nothing had shocked him so much as their late rejection of the Irish Constabulary Bill. The mode in which the constabulary force was managed, had converted into a partisan force that body on which the peace of the country depended. The rejection of the Bill had been the mere act of a party in that House, with the view to injure the present Ministry; for a measure of the kind had been recommended by every Government that had existed in Ireland for some years past.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that, among the extraordinary things which all of them had lately heard, the most extraordinary was that which the noble Lord had just stated—namely, that the Constabulary Bill had been made an engine for party purposes. He denied the statement altogether. In the debate upon the Bill, every one had agreed on the efficiency of the force, and on its having done effective service in Ireland, where its exertions to preserve the peace of the country were fully relied on.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to say one word on the subject. The noble Baron opposite had stated that the question decided on a preceding night had been decided on party motives. This imputation of motives was quite out of order. The noble Lord should have abstained from it; and he positively declared (laying his hand on his breast), that he for one had not given his vote upon any such ground.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Viscount Melbournemoved the third reading of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseawould not make any observations upon the Measure; but to record his opinion against any measure of this kind, he should take the sense of the House on the Motion that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The House divided on the original Motion: Contents 69; Not-Contents 5; Majority 64.
[It was stated that the Ministers and their supporters did not vote on either side, but retired to the foot of the Throne; and thus abstained from expressing any opinion on the Bill in its present state.]
Bill read a third time, and passed. To be sent to the Commons, and their concurrence requested in the Amendments.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Winchilsea

Roden

Boston

Falmouth

Kenyon

On this stage of the Bill, the following Protests against the Bill were entered:—
Dissentient,—
1. Because we view with the deepest jealousy and alarm the unconstitutional power which, by the advice of the Ministers, has been claimed by the Crown (and which has never before been conceded to it) of issuing a commission of an inquisitorial character, such as that which stamps the commission on which this Bill has been founded.
2. Because, as the constitution of this country consists of King, Lords, and Commons, we will maintain inviolate that sound constitutional doctrine (regarding its maintenance as the best security for our national rights, privileges, and liberties), that no commission conveying such powers as are contained in that now referred to can properly proceed from any one power of the State, but should rest on no less authority than the concurrence and approbation of the other two remaining branches of the Legislature.
WINCHILSEA.
Dissentient—1. Because the Amendments to the Bill alter its whole structure, are altogether inconsistent with its principles, and while they impair its efficiency to any good purpose, present it to the view of the country in a light still more unfavourable than even the Measure thus altered may in itself deserve to be regarded.
2. Because the alleged preservation of the rights of freemen within the corporation is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the nature of corporations, and of the title by which they hold property—it being a principle wholly undeniable, that whatever property is held by any corporate body, it belongs to that body, under whatever form and with whatever modifications the Legislature may be pleased to impress upon it, and that all corporations, as well ecclesiastical as lay, only have a title to the property which they possess upon the ground of the corporation continuing identically the same after its formation has been changed by law.
3. Because the continuing of the Parliamentary franchise to the freemen, or those who would have been entitled to become freemen but for this Bill, is a perpetuation of the very worst evils of the representative system, the freemen being the class of voters among whom all the evils of bribery and corruption have been in all cases found most extensively to prevail.
4. Because the qualification adopted of the sixth part of the rate-payers—those who pay the largest amount of rates—is contrary to the whole principles of our free constitution; establishing for the first time as a rule, that the political rights and privileges of the state shall
1072
belong only to those who have more money than their fellow citizens, not affixing, as our order-laws have done, a certain amount of wealth as the test of the right to mingle in public affairs, but excluding all therefrom except the richest class; so that not merely rich persons, or persons in easy circumstances, are henceforth to be deemed eligible to office, but the richest; the persons who excel their fellow-citizens in wealth are declared to be alone capable of administering the municipal concerns,—a principle absurd in itself, and oppressive and fraught with the mischiefs of oligarchy in its worst and most offensive form—the oligarchy of mere property without any other qualification or modification whatever.
5. Because the introduction of this novel and pernicious principle is rendered still more absurd by the alternative which is added, allowing any person, in some boroughs, of 1,000 l., in others of 500 l. worth of property, to be eligible, inasmuch as this wholly defeats the only purpose for which the new principle objected to is adopted. So that the provision, taken altogether, is wholly inoperative to prevent fraudulent and fictitious qualifications, the sole ground of intruding the new principle, while it sanctions for the first time a doctrine altogether inconsistent with the spirit of all our institutions.
6. Because the election of aldermen for life is the fruitful source of manifold inconveniences and abuses, removing the persons chosen from all salutary control, forcing them into a class set apart from their fellow-citizens, to whom they are wholly unaccountable, sowing the seeds of constant dissension and jealousy between the different classes of councilmen, perpetuating the power of men whom unfitness not originally discovered, incapacity supervening old age, infirmity of any kind, may render wholly or partially unable to discharge the duties of their office.
7. Because the continuance of the existing aldermen or capital burgesses and town-clerks is the certain introduction into the new councils of the worst evils of the old close and self-elective system—making it inevitable that the same kind of influence should continue to prevail in the corporations affected to be reformed, and wholly preventing the change which this Measure professes to effect from producing any substantial benefit in purifying the administration of municipal concerns.
8. Because these alterations of the Bill, and more especially the last, have a direct tendency to exhibit this Measure to our countrymen as a mere mockery, or pretence of reform, as holding out in words the promise of improvement, which it at the same time breaks.
9. Because the converting an office granted during pleasure into an office for life, without the consent of the grantor, is contrary to all principle, without any precedent, and a much more glaring violation of the rights of parties than any which even the adversaries of the Bill have imputed to its provisions.
10. Because the amendments, and those especially relating to retaining persons in their office, proceed upon a supposition that the councils chosen by the people are less fit to be trusted with the administration of the corporate offices, and more likely to do acts of imprudence and of injustice, than the present bodies, which owe their existence and continuance to self-election.
11. Because the requiring that a councilman shall be a member of the Church of England before he can vote for the presentation to a living is utterly repugnant to the whole spirit, and even to the letter, of the law of England, sanctioning the principle of tests long after these had been abrogated, absurdly assuming that corporators are less fit or less likely honestly to exercise rights of church patronage than private individuals, who are by law subject to no such restrictions, and stigmatizing Dissenters with the hateful imputation of being disposed to violate trusts reposed in them, by appointing unfit persons to perform clerical functions, with the view of fraudulently undermining the Established Church—a conduct of which we in our consciences believe the Dissenters to be utterly incapable.
12. Because we believe that the character of these Amendments is to injure the Measure in all its essential principles, leaving only as much of it as could not have been altered without rejecting the Bill altogether; while we are firmly persuaded that the changes effected are calculated to produce in men's minds an opinion of this House being far more hostile to the fundamental principles of the Measure than it really is; and because we thus hold it to be inevitable that far more harm will be wrought by the changes made in the Bill than good can be gained, even according to the views of those who have propounded them.

BROUGHAM.

DENMAN.

CHARLEMONT.

TEYNHAM.

CLONCURRY.

BREADALBANE.

(Except the 2nd Reason).

CHURCH COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Aberdeencalled the attention of the House to a subject which, in his judgment, was not second in importance to any that could be submitted to their Lordships' consideration—he meant the Commission recently issued respecting the Church of Scotland. He had some suspicion that the noble Viscount himself was not fully aware of the true nature of the course in which he was engaged, and the consequences likely to ensue from it. He thought, if he could only open the noble Viscount's eyes to the facts of the subject, that there might yet be time to arrest the evils which threatened the character and independence, if not the existence, of the Established Church of Scot-
1074
land from the nature and constitution of this Commission. His Majesty's Government had issued a Commission of Inquiry into the means and nature of the religious instruction afforded by the Church of Scotland. This Commission originated in consequence of numerous petitions from Scotland for an extension of the means of religious worship in connexion with the Church of that country. Government thought proper to issue a Commission, he presumed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether public assistance ought to be afforded in aid of the private contributions raised in Scotland for the purpose of supplying additional Church accommodation. He foresaw, at an early period, that this Commission, from its nature, could not fail to excite dissatisfaction in Scotland, and the prediction which he had ventured upon this subject was soon accomplished. The Commission of the General Assembly met on the 13th of August, and came to a resolution that the Commission, as at present constituted, was not entitled to the confidence of the Church of Scotland. It came to this resolution on the ground that among the Commissioners were the names of persons decidedly hostile to any connexion between Church and State—persons who were unfriendly to the Church of Scotland, and did not possess that knowledge and experience of the subject necessary for carrying the professed objects of the inquiry fairly into effect. A division took place on this resolution, when there were ninety in favour of it, and three against it; or, more properly speaking, three individuals were for adjourning the consideration of the subject. This was a very strong proceeding on the part of the General Assembly, which was not a political body, and seldom or never meddled in political matters unless its interests were vitally concerned in them. The majority on this occasion was composed of fifty clergymen and forty laymen of various shapes of political opinion. In fact, the resolution was proposed by a Gentleman of the most liberal opinions, and supported by others of the same sentiments as the noble Viscount. The three individuals who objected to the resolution were three Whig attornies, or, as they were called in Scotland, writers to the signet, but no clergyman could be found to support the Amendment. The Assembly proceeded to adopt this course from their knowledge of the Gentlemen composing this Commission, and doubtless their opinion must have been strengthened

1075
when they learned the terms of the Commission. In looking at the Members of the Commission, he declared that he had not the least objection to individuals belonging to the same political party as the noble Viscount—far from it, provided they entertained friendly feelings towards the Church of Scotland; he had rather there should be persons of such political sentiments on the Commission. He did not even object to the names of Dissenters among the Commissioners, merely on the ground of their being Dissenters, because he hoped the great body of Dissenters was not hostile to the Church of Scotland; but when he saw persons who were opposed to all religious establishments appointed Commissioners, he thought it a mockery to place such individuals on a Commission to inquire into the expediency of extending the efficiency of the Established Church of Scotland. He was no friend to any Church Establishment except so far as it afforded a security for the maintenance of true religion and the extension of religious knowledge; but for the accomplishment of those objects he looked upon Establishments as highly desirable, and it was his firm conviction that the Church of Scotland had fulfilled them. With respect to the opinions of individuals composing the Commission, he might refer to a book published by one of the Members, which he admitted to be very ably written, and to contain the best arguments in favour of the voluntary system that he had ever seen. This production displayed great moderation of language, but was composed in a spirit of decided hostility to every religious establishment, which the writer endeavoured to show must necessarily be unjust and unchristian. [The Earl of Minto: the book was not written against the Church of Scotland.] Be that as it might, persons hostile to any connexion between Church and State, or to any Church Establishment whatsoever, would not, in all probability, be friendly to the Church of Scotland. He believed the majority of the Commissioners to be hostile to the establishment. When he stated his opinion on the subject on a former evening, the noble Viscount appeared impressed with the necessity of giving it further consideration. He understood the noble Viscount to state, that considerable discontent prevailed among the Dissenters, and that they complained of not being adequately represented in the Commission. He thought if the Commission were established to try the merits of the case, as between establishments
1076
and the voluntary principle, that the Dissenters ought to be represented, but he always understood the object of the Commission to be limited to the expediency of the required grant, and he must say, however he might still be disposed to admit Dissenters as Members of the Commission, that the admission of avowed enemies of the Church of Scotland in that capacity was an act of gross injustice, and calculated to defeat the object of the Commission. The dissatisfaction arising from the composition of the Commission would be aggravated by a reference to the terms of the document under which the Commissioners were to act. He objected to the numbering of the Members of the Established Church and of Dissenters as directed by the Commission; for if the assistance to be afforded to the Church of Scotland was made to depend on the doctrine of numbers, that was at once an approach to the voluntary principle. The Voluntary Church Association of Scotland, which met in December, adopted a Report, written, he believed, by the author of the book to which he had already referred, in which Report the issuing of the Commission of Public Instruction in Ireland was hailed as the commencement of a happier era, on the ground that the numbering of the Members of the Established Church of that country, with a view to the regulation of the establishment by that, involved a principle which, though it did not quite come up to the doctrines of the association, was notwithstanding a large advance towards there. No doubt the present Commission must be acceptable to the Members of this Association on the same grounds. He also objected to the Commission, because it threatened to interfere with the independence of Presbyterian Church Government. The functions delegated to the Commissioners belonged exclusively to the Church of Scotland itself. It was of the nature and essence of Presbytery that the whole authority of the establishment should be vested in the Body of the Church composed of ministers and lay elders, and not individuals. The King was not the head or visitor of the Church of Scotland, and by law he had no authority in ecclesiastical matters. It was true the presence of his representative in the capacity of chief Civil Magistrate was recognized in the General Assembly; but the Assembly could meet, and did meet, without his intervention. The King could not delegate to these Commissioners an authority to meddle with the discipline and

1077
government of the Scotch Church, which he did not himself possess. He also objected to the instructions given to the Commissioners to inquire into the funds of the Established Church and the amount or disposition of tithes or teinds. In Scotland the teinds were entirely private property; some being in the hands of capitularies of teinds (persons in the same situation ns lay impropriators in this country), and the greater part being held by landowners who had purchased the tithes of their own land, and had as good a right to them as to the remainder of their estates. The teinds were not the property of the Church of Scotland, which was merely entitled to a competent stipend out of them, to be determined by the Court of Session at Edinburgh. The remainder was private property, and though the amount of teinds might be augmented, it was impossible to appropriate them to the support of an additional church or minister. This species of property was not open to the proposed inquiry. The commission, like another of which their Lordships had lately heard so much, gave very extensive powers on this head; but, whatever might be thought of the legality of the Municipal Corporation Commission, there could be no doubt here, for the King was not even visitor of the Scotch Church, and the whole powers of the Commission were illegal and nugatory. He objected to the appointment of local Commissioners of Inquiry, which was contemplated under the original Commission. If information were all that was really required, it might have been obtained without the appointment of anew Commission, and without the cost of a single farthing, through a Commission, not in existence for building churches in the Highlands, the duties of which Commission had been admirably executed for several years at no expense, with the exception of a small salary to the secretary. It was not with respect to members of the Church of England that the Church of Scotland entertained any apprehensions; on the contrary, to no quarter did she look more confidently for sympathy and support than to the right rev. Bench, and he believed the demand would be responded to. Though himself a member of the Church of Scotland, no one could be more attached to the Established Church of this country, and he felt confident that members of the Church of England looked with like kindly feelings at the establishment in Scotland. He entreated the noble Viscount to consider this import-
1078
ant subject without reference to party, and to take such steps as might be deemed most conducive to the welfare of the Church and to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland. He entreated the noble Viscount to reconsider the matter, and if he could not wholly withdraw the Commission, at least to modify and explain its objects and improve the composition of its members. If the noble Viscount would take this course, the Church of Scotland had every disposition to co-operate with the Government in the accomplishment of the objects which it professed to have in view, and the noble Viscount would find that by adopting this recommendation he would avoid much trouble to himself and his Government, and remove a cause of much discontent in Scotland.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted the great importance of the subject introduced by his noble Friend. His noble Friend seemed to think that he had made some impression on him, and that he was disposed to make concessions in consequence of what fell from his noble Friend on a former evening. Now, his noble Friend's observations always made a considerable impression and had great weight with him; but on the occasion referred to his noble Friend had brought forward the subject without notice, and he was wholly unprepared to discuss it, so that any appearance of yielding or concession was owing to his ignorance of the matter, and to his having placed greater reliance upon his noble Friend's observations than, on further consideration, he found them entitled to. He was aware of the decision of the assembly on this subject—of the dissatisfaction felt by the adherents of the Established Church—and of the discontent of every other religious denomination in Scotland. After universal content and agreement, he did not know whether the next best testimony to the impartiality of a proceeding such as this, was not discoverable in the universal dissatisfaction of all parties, for that feeling showed that the commission was not exclusively or partially constituted. It would be well, in reference to this as to other subjects, if they could find persons to act as Commissioners who stood entirely aloof from prepossession or a suspicion of partiality; but that was absolutely impossible—for if you had an impartial Commission, in other words a Commission composed of persons wholly unacquainted with the subject, you must also have an ignorant Commission, one unacquainted with the subject of inquiry. Fail-

1079
ing an impartial Commission, it became necessary to look for truth from the conflict of adverse opinions, and on this principle he maintained that the Commission was fairly composed. The speech of Dr. Macfarlan in the General Assembly corroborated his view of the case. That Gentleman stated Mr. Dick, to whom his noble Friend had alluded, to be a very respectable man, and that his book was the best on his own side of the question. Now, he did not think that the fact of this Gentleman having put forth the doctrines imputed to him temperately, moderately, and in a philosophical tone and manner (for no bitterness or acrimony was charged against his production) should disqualify him from forming one of the Comsion. Besides, he had always found that the best way of mitigating extreme opinions was to employ the parties holding them in the public service, not that he supposed the modification of sentiment to arise from sordid motives, but because he was aware that when such men came to be practically acquainted with business, they saw the un-wiseness and inexpediency of extreme measures, and as they were persons of vigorous intellect, they became useful public functionaries. With respect to the other Gentlemen on the Commission, as his noble Friend had not gone into particulars, he should abstain from touching on their individual opinions. On the whole, the Commission appeared to him as fairly constituted as such a body could well be, but it was impossible to satisfy conflicting interests. One party, that of the Church, required that every body on the Commission should be favourable to the required grant.—[The Earl of Aberdeen: No: but that they should not be unfavourable to the Church of Scotland.]—Well, he apprehended that was much the same thing; for persons favourable to the Church would be desirous of procuring it the grant. But the other side was equally unreasonable, and required that none should be on the Commission but persons unpledged or hostile to the establishment. The application for a grant of public money originated with the Scotch Church; its friends said there was not sufficient accommodation for its numbers, and its opponents declared that there was more Church room than the present worshippers could fill. Those assertions were made so decidedly by each party, that the Government thought it wise to inquire into the real state of the case before taking any further step. Perhaps the terms of the Commission had been extended somewhat widely
1080
in consequence of a subsequent application. His noble Friend said that the Commission was contrary to the fundamental principles of the Scotch Church, and that it assumed powers which the King himself did not possess; but without pretending to have mastered the whole subject, he declared that he could not see how the Commission violated the rights or privileges of the Scotch Establishment. He did not wish to say anything which could be construed into an attack on the fundamental principles, or on the practice of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; but did the noble Lord mean to say, that if ever any allegations were made respecting the existence of abuses, or respecting the mode of reforming abuses in that Church, it was not in the power of either King or Parliament to inquire into those allegations? If the noble Lord meant to say that, it was a reductio ad absurdum. It was a higher pretension than had ever been set up by the advocates of the Roman Catholic Church against the principle of he Reformation. It was exactly the objecton which that Church had urged against the proceedings of the early Reformers. They said, "This cannot be done by the laity—the laity cannot reform the Church—the Church must reform itself." That had been the objection made by the Roman Catholics to all the proceedings of Parliament during the progress of the Reformation. The power of Parliament to inquire into the abuses or alleged abuses existing in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, extended also to examine into the amount of its property. The teinds were a property which belonged to the Church of Scotland—[The Earl of Aberdeen—" No, no,"]—Well, that was a complicated question of Scotch law, and he must confess that he did not exactly understand the statement made upon it by the noble Earl. He was, however, inclined to think that it was a property as liable to be inquired into as any other species of property. His noble friend had complained of the power given under this Commission to the persons named in it to appoint others to carry on this inquiry: but he thought that his noble friend would admit that it was impossible that an inquiry of this extent and character should be carried on without assistance. But the main question was this: the Church of Scotland had demanded a grant of public money. If it meant to establish its right to that grant in order to carry on the spiritual instruction of the people of Scotland, had not his Majesty and had not the

1081
State a right to say to the Church, "Show us what your funds are, and let us see whether your property is or is not sufficient for the purposes to which you would apply it?" These were the grounds on which the Commission was issued. The zeal of other parties had taken advantage of the fact of a Commission being issued, and had required that the inquiry should also be directed to other purposes, which might wisely be inquired into; and for that purpose the inquiry had been made as extensive as possible, and the Commission had been constituted as their Lordships now saw it. His noble Friend had said that the powers granted by this Commission were at once illegal and nugatory. They might be nugatory, for they were not compulsory, but he was quite certain that they were not illegal. He likewise must assert that the Commission was constituted properly and impartially. He was concerned to hear that the appointment of this Commission had excited discontent in Scotland, but he was consoled to find that that discontent was not of a party nature, but that it was extensive and universal. It was one of the strongest proofs that could be given of the impartiality with which the Commissioners had been selected, that no party was pleased with them. It often happened that things which commenced in discontent ended better than was expected, whilst things which commenced in universal satisfaction often terminated in general discontent. He hoped that the discreet and prudent manner in which the Commission would be executed would fulfil its objects without producing any of those disagreeable effects which his noble Friend had anticipated.
The Earl of Haddingtonexpressed his surprise that his noble Friend should have congratulated himself upon the universal dissatisfaction which the appointment of this Commission had created in Scotland. How far the issuing of a Commission, which on its first appearance had produced universal dissatisfaction, was likely to produce hereafter general content and religious reconciliation, he left to his noble Friend's ingenuity to discover. He would not pretend to decide to what extent the authority of Parliament ought to go in inquiring into the condition of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This, however, he would say without fear of contradiction from any person who knew any thing about the Presbyterian religion, that Parliament had no right to interfere with the religion or
1082
with the religious polity of the Church of Scotland. He would not pretend to set bounds to the practical omnipotence of Parliament; but this he would say, that no wise and prudent legislator would ever interfere with the Scotch church without great and crying necessity for interference. He complained that the issuing of this Commission had put the Scotch church upon its trial, and had placed its enemies in the situation of its judges. He admitted that when the Scotch clergy came forward to ask a grant of public money, Parliament had a right to enter into the statistics of the question, and to call upon them to show that the funds under their control were not sufficient for the purpose of administering proper spiritual instruction to the laity placed under their superintendence. They stated, and they stated with much truth, that there was in Scotland a great deficiency of places of worship for the members of the established Church. There was no doubt that Parliament had a right to examine into the correctness of that allegation; but Parliament had no right to go further. This Commission, however, went a great deal further, and therefore he was sorry that it had been appointed. It was not only a nugatory, but also an illegal commission; and it was illegal, because under the generality of its wording it was competent for the Commissioners, if they so thought fit, to inquire into matters connected with the Scotch Church, into which no lay person had any right to inquire. Again, there was a just ground of complaint in the manner in which the members appointed to act under the Commission had been selected from Gentlemen who were known to entertain opinions hostile to the Established Church. Besides the hon. Gentleman whose pamphlet the noble Earl had quoted, there was on that Commission a Gentleman who from scruples of conscience, had refused, when appointed to act as a member of the General Assembly, and another, who had written a pamphlet to prove that it was expedient to sever the connexion existing at present between the Church and State. That was the very madness of the day in Scotland, and had taken its rise from the general measure which was passed four years ago, and which had added very largely to the number of seceders from the Established Church. Previously to that measure the number of seceders in the country districts—he was not speaking of the large manufacturing towns —had very much diminished, and religious peace was generally prevalent throughout

1083
Scotland; but since that measure dissent had again reared its head; and from the manner in which this commission was worded, and in which the appointments under it had been filled up, he thought that the return of that religious harmony which prevailed some years ago would be postponed to a very distant day. That Commission would awaken a sleeping lion in Scotland, and so far from leading to future harmony and conciliation would leave their Lordships to seek next year, as they were seeking now, for the best means of restoring religious quiet to that country.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that the chief point which their Lordships had to consider was, as to the objects of the inquiry, and to the manner in which that inquiry should be conducted. He knew from his own knowledge that the majority of the Commissioners were favourable to the continuance of the connexion between Church and State; and he knew them to be gentlemen of such temper, moderation, and prudence, that he was sure no fear need be entertained but the inquiry would be conducted in the most proper and impartial manner. They represented no particular class of opinions or feelings, and he was convinced would conduct the inquiry just as it should be conducted. As to the statement which was made by the noble Earl that the number of Dissenters had increased since the passing of the Reform Bill, he gave it an unqualified contradiction, for he was persuaded that the numbers of persons connected with the Church of Scotland was greater now than it was three years ago.
The Duke of Buccleuchobjected to granting such extensive powers, as were given by this Commission, to persons who were totally unknown to the Church. As to the Commissioners, he knew nothing of them, with the exception of one for whom he entertained the highest esteem, and in whom personally he could place the greatest confidence. This, however, was only an individual feeling. He still looked upon this Commission with great distrust. If it were not actually illegal, it went as nearly as possible to infringe those Acts of the Legislature which had been confirmed by the oath of the Sovereign, who had sworn to leave inviolate the Scotch Presbyterian Church as settled by law. This Commission had given great dissatisfaction to every class in Scotland. The General Assembly looked upon it with suspicion, because they apprehended that injury would be done by it to the Established Church of Scotland;
1084
whilst the Seceders were dissatisfied with it because there were not more persons in the Commission who were for the destruction of that Church altogether.
The Marquess of Breadalbaneadmired the constitutional zeal of the noble Duke; but if the Commission were, as it had been said by a noble Earl opposite, completely nugatory, of course nothing could result from it. The dissatisfaction which had been spoken of was grounded upon the individuals composing the Commission, and yet, after all, only one of these individuals had been pointed out as being opposed to the Established Church. With respect to the rest of them, the only objection was, that some of them were very young men. Perhaps it would have been better if men had been appointed who were older and more experienced; at the same time, he had no doubt that though young, they would give a true and faithful Report of the facts they had to inquire into; for they had only to report on facts; they were not called upon, he supposed, to give any opinion on the subject of their inquiry. He thought, therefore, that all that had been stated against the Commission really amounted to very little.
The Marquess of Buteobjected to the Commission not on the narrow ground that it was illegal as applied to the Church of Scotland, but that such a Commission was inconsistent with the principle of an Established Church altogether, and, therefore, with the Established Church of Scotland.
The Earl of Aberdeenexpressed his disappointment at the very little assurance which his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) had given him as to any alteration being made in the terms of this Commission. Still, however, he did not despair; but trusted the good sense, candour, and good wishes of his noble Friend for the exercise of his authority in so far modifying the Commission, at least in the practical execution of it, as that it should not lead to those consequences which, he could assure his noble Friend, were but too generally apprehended by the people of Scotland would result from it.
Subject dropped.