Lord Broughamsaid, the subject which he was about to bring under the notice of their Lordships (the proceedings in the Auchterarder case) was one that was viewed with great interest by a number of their fellow subjects in Scotland. He should, therefore, in order that it might be rightly understood, briefly state the leading facts of the case, and then ask of his noble Friend near him a question, to which, he apprehended, only one answer could be given. The case, which had recently come before their Lordships, involved this question, namely, whe- 374 ther when a lay patron presented to a living, the people of the parish had a right to be consulted, and to put a veto, if they pleased, on the presentation? That question was strenuously argued in the court below, and the Court of Session had decided, that the people had no such right. The case had afterwards come before their Lordships on an appeal from that decision. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and himself, had heard the most learned counsel on this question, and without any consultation together, in fact without any communication whatsoever between them on the subject, they came to a clear decision, affirming the judgment of the court below, negativing the right of the people of each parish to decide on the fitness of the candidate, finding, that the patron had the sole right to present, and deciding, that the presbytery were bound to admit on his trials the person so presented. In fact, he had never seen a clearer case. It seemed to be all one way. The only ground raised against the admission of the individual in this case was, that the people had not consented. But their Lordships, by their decision, had negatived the existence of such a right of veto on the part of the people, in accordance with the law of the Church of Scotland, and the law of the land, and, therefore, the ground thus assumed was good for nothing. Since that decision, however, a meeting of the General Assembly had been held, at which the Lord High Commissioner was present, on behalf of the Crown. It should, however, be recollected, that the Crown was not considered as the head of the Church of Scotland more than any one of their Lordships. The Lord High Commissioner was never consulted in anyone way. He was merely present, but had no authority whatever. He was merely informed, that the Assembly had adjourned, in order, that he might know when he was to meet them again. The General Assembly, however, met. Things were there stated which were not according to law, and many observations were made, that should not have been made, against the decision that had been pronounced, and the grounds on which it stood. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than such a proceeding. At that Assembly, a resolution had passed, which, although in terms it professed to obey the decision of the House, yet really placed obstructions in the way of its au- 375 thority. That resolution was calculated to prevent the patron from duly exercising his legal right. Now, those who proceeded thus could not legally call into question what had been solemnly decided by that House in their judicial capacity. He did not enter into those points as matter of argument, but merely to make the case clear to those who heard him. On a subsequent meeting, and he called the attention of his noble Friend to this fact, an intimation had been conveyed, as he understood, to the General Assembly, through a deputation which had been in communication with her Majesty's Ministers, that the Lord Advocate would introduce a measure into Parliament which would have the effect of settling the question; in which measure a clause would be introduced giving the people the power of exercising the right which they claimed, but which had been negatived by their Lordships. The Lord Commissioner, it was also understood, had sent a letter to the Moderator, stating the satisfaction of her Majesty, at the uniform loyalty of the General Assembly; and intimating that, until the bill was prepared, the Crown patronage should not be exercised without consulting the people. The General Assembly then, after considerable debate, carried a resolution by a majority of 104 to 23, prohibiting the Presbytery, in any event, "from taking the rev. Mr. Young on his trials." Now, it was proper, that they should know whether the letter sent by the Lord High Commissioner, and which went to impugn the decision of that House, was written under a misapprehension; and whether the Government had given any ground which could authorize the General Assembly, proceeding on the report of the deputation, to agree to the resolution to which he had referred.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, that as to what had occurred with reference to the Lord High Commissioner and her Majesty, it was not in his power to offer any explanation—nor, indeed, in his opinion, would it be prudent to advert to it. He believed, that the noble and learned Lord described the circumstances of the case very accurately. With respect to what had passed between the Government and the deputation from the Assembly, there was not the slightest intention to cast the smallest censure or imputation on the decision of the Court of Session, affirmed, as it bad been, by that House, Their Lord- 376 ships constituted the highest judicial court in this country, and what they decided lo be the law of the land ought to be received with respect and obedience. All that had been said by Government was, that this was a very intricate question, and under all the circumstances, deserved very serious consideration; that, therefore, the Lord Advocate would be directed to confer with the Procurator-general, to see whether the matter could not be settled —not with the intention of framing a bill immediately—not with the intention of pledging the Cabinet to proceed to legislate on the subject, but to show, that it was a question that ought to be calmly and carefully considered. As to the Crown patronage, all that was stated on that point, was, that it would be administered, as it had hitherto been, in conformity with the provision of the Veto Act, passed by the General Assembly in 1834.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was satisfactory to hear from his noble Friend, that there had been considerable misapprehension on the part of the Lord High Commissioner. If the Government had intimated any discontent with the decision of that House, it would have been most unhappy for the peace of the Church, whose safety depended on a strict obedience to the law.
§ The Earl of Gallowaysaid, nothing could be worse than the way in which the Crown patronage was administered in Scotland. The people being allowed to choose the clergy, must give rise to a kind of "preaching match" between rival parsons, who were judged of according to the sermons which they preached on probation. In one case, it was found, that a preacher who had been elected had copied the sermon, for which he was chosen, from one which had been preached by an eminent clergyman of the metropolis.
§ Subject dropped.