Lords Sitting of 2 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Arms (Ireland); Advances Amendment.—Read a second time:—Timber Ships.—Read a third time:—Vagrants Removal.
Petitions presented. By Lord Prudhoe, the Marquess of Westminster, the Earl of Harewood, and several other noble Lords, from Cambridge, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Manchester, Westminster, and several other places, in favour of the Chimney Sweepers' Bill.—By the Earl of Haddington, from Master Chimney Sweepers of the Metropolis, to be heard by Counsel against the Chimney Sweepers' Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Lord Broughamrose to present a petition agreed to at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Edinburgh and its neighbourhood, which had been publicly convened, and which was signed as one account said, by 19,000 persons, and, as another stated, by upwards of 16,000 persons. He called their Lordships' serious attention (and particularly the attention of the noble Marquess (Breadalbane) behind him) to this petition, as affording informa-
362
tion on many points connected with public opinion, as to the church question, in that part of the United Kingdom from which the petition emanated. The petitioners stated, "That it was in their opinion inconsistent with reason, and with the doctrines of Scripture, for human authority to mingle in matters of religion, and they conceived, that in the legislation of this empire, that principle was violated by the establishment of a State Church." Now, on this point, with reference to an Established Church, it was his misfortune entirely to differ from those, no doubt, worthy and conscientious persons. The petitioners then adverted to the baneful effects produced by the bestowal of state favour on the Church; and he begged leave to call their Lordships' especial attention to the following important statement of the petitioners, namely:—
"That this truth (as the petitioners called it) is at the present moment receiving painful, but instructive illustration, from the state of the Church of Scotland, which exhibits the inconsistency of rights being claimed inherently as their own by bodies salaried and supported by the State, and in active opposition to the law of the land, as it has been promulgate by the supreme and only competent authority. The petitioners cannot sympathize with them in their present conflict, because no church is entitled to lay claim to independence, while it actually depends on the State for its support; and because what these parties ask falls far short of what they would be entitled to demand if they were not thus connected with the State. The petitioners then pray, that your Lordships will refuse all applications for grants of public money for Church Extension, and that you will take all proper measures for the separation of Church and State"
Their Lordships were aware that he differed from these petitioners with respect to their fundamental position against the establishment of the Church of Scotland, which, if conceded, would have the effect of putting an end to all Church Establishments; but he thought that no person could read the statement of the petitioners, and be informed of the number who attended the meeting, and the great zeal and unanimity by which their proceedings were distinguished, without being convinced, that their cry against Church Establishments, and their desire for the separation of Church and State, had been mainly promoted and increased by the late proceedings of the ecclesiastical authorities in that part of the country.
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, as the

363
noble and learned Lord had been pleased to make an attack on the proceedings of the General Assembly, he wished to offer a few observations on the subject. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the desire of a separation of Church and State had arisen from the conduct of those who directed the recent ecclesiastical proceedings in Scotland. [Lord Brougham: I said, "was promoted."] He thought that the noble and learned Lord had meant to go further. But it appeared that the noble and learned Lord charged those parties with only having promoted the feeling. But this was not a new question. Many years ago the subject of non-intrusion, and all those points that were connected with it, had been agitated in Scotland. Why was that? Because the Presbyterian clergy then, as well as now, were endeavouring to remedy what appeared to them to be a great abuse. It was from that feeling that the cry against ecclesiastical establishments arose, and not from the proceedings that had recently taken place. What the Presbyterians wanted, was a decision on this question, namely, how far they could separate the spiritualities of the Church from the temporalities.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had used the word "promoted" in speaking of the recent ecclesiastical proceedings in Scotland; and what he meant was, not that those proceedings had directly promoted the principle of separation, but that they acted as stimulants to the hopes of those who were anxious for separation of Church and State; who, when they saw what was done in the Church of Scotland, would be induced more strongly to hope that their wishes would ultimately be acceded to; and who would, in consequence, be induced to redouble their exertions to carry their favourite object.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas not surprised at what had fallen from the noble Marquess after the notice for the hearing of counsel which the noble Marquess had given on a former evening. He believed that the presence of the noble Marquess would be very necessary, that he might support and countenance the cause which he had so warmly taken up—
"Cum tot sustineas et tanta negotia solus."
The noble Marquess need not feel any alarm with respect to the Church of Scotland. It was very well for the noble Marquess to represent that Church as being
364
in danger, but nobody thought of interfering with its just rights. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BENEFICES BILL.
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, he had given notice of his intentions to move, that counsel be heard at their Lordships' bar on behalf of the parties whose petition he had had the honour to present at the last sitting of their Lordships. Owing, however, to the short period which had elapsed since he gave that notice, it had been found totally impossible to instruct counsel properly on a question of such importance. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Earl would postpone proceeding till counsel could be fully instructed.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the question in the first place, was, whether their Lordships would consent to hear counsel at all or not. For his own part, nothing would give him greater pleasure than that counsel should be heard. But it was for their Lordships to determine whether, consistently with the convenience of the proceedings of that House, they would consent to take that course on a bill of this nature. He had no objection that counsel should be heard now, but he could not consent to postpone going into Committee.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he must repeat on this occasion what he had formerly expressed, that in his opinion, both with reference to the general principle, and to the regulations of this bill, it would be imprudent, inexpedient, nay, pernicious, to proceed with it. It was not now desirable to legislate on this subject. In the present state of the question, men's minds were greatly agitated, and he felt that it was impossible, such being the state of their feelings, to compose or settle the dispute by this bill. In fact, the only effect of this proceeding would be to excite fresh acrimony and additional animosities, and to encourage Members of that, as well as of the other House of Parliament, to arrange themselves on both sides to prevent that impartial consideration of the question, which, if fairly followed up, would at a future time lead to satisfactory results. Therefore, he contended, that the course pursued by his noble Friend opposite was not the most favourable or the most prudent, either with respect to the

365
question itself, or to his own particular object. The real difficulty of this question was to be found in that which was the root and foundation of all these proceedings— namely, patronage. If his noble Friend hoped, by this bill, to put an end to the schism which prevailed in the Church of Scotland, then was the measure a hundred years too late, for that schism had for a long time divided the Church of Scotland, and had even been the cause of withdrawing from communion with that Church no inconsiderable proportion of the population of that country. As had been stated the other night by his noble Friend opposite, the whole of these proceedings arose out of the subject of patronage—to that might be traced the differences which prevailed at the present moment in Scotland. It might be said, that the system which was now acted upon was contrary to the practice, the tenets, and the spirit of the Church of Scotland; but those who maintained that position could not deny that it was in accordance with the usage, the custom, and the law, because they knew that such an assertion would not be consistent with the fact. The real question was this—there was a party in the country who wanted to abolish patronage, and another who wanted to maintain it, and you could not satisfy either without going the full length of their opinions:—
"Hi motus animorum, atque hæc certamina tanta
"Pulveris exigui jactu compressa quiescent."
This question seemed to have a remarkable tendency to inflame the animosities of the people, and it had also a tendency to induce the expressions of opinion on a subject that unfortunately was not particularly well understood in this country. He did not quite go to the length of Dr. Chalmers, who was reported to have said that in both Houses of Parliament, containing upwards of 1,000 individuals, there were not ten persons who had any knowledge or idea of this question. He did not go that length, but he thought that, looking at the interest which had been excited by the discussions now carried on, it was surprising how little the question had been studied or understood. He thought that the conduct of the noble Earl opposite, in urging forward this bill, was precipitate and unwise, and that it would have its effect on the minds of the people of Scotland.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the noble Viscount had given a decisive proof that he at least did not understand the present state of the question. The noble Viscount was quite mistaken in supposing that the dominant party in the Assembly had any wish for the abolition of patronage, or that they had even talked of it. It was true that many persons in the Church did view with an eye of great disfavour the exercise of patronage, but that was not the question involved in this bill. The question was, whether the Church should exercise a certain power which implied the repeal of Acts of Parliament by which the Church was governed; but it had nothing to do with patronage. If their Lordships agreed to allow them to possess that power, which by their decision of last year they had denied them, it was very possible that patronage might be abolished in a short time by their own act, in spite of the laws by which it was secured; but he thought their Lordships would scarcely permit the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to repeal Acts of Parliament, and, that before they consented to any measure of this kind they would themselves legislate on the subject. The noble Viscount seemed to suppose that he had made a mistake as to the schism. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) knew very well that a schism in the Church had taken place a century ago, but he very much feared that another schism might take place next month. The General Assembly, in the exercise of their usurped power, had issued their orders to their commission to proceed contrary to law against certain ministers of the Church who had opposed the majority of the Assembly, and determined to obey the law of the land as declared by their Lordships. The consequence would be, that in August, when the commission was to proceed against those ministers, all the ministers of the Church who adhered to the opinion that the law should be obeyed would take part with those suspended ministers. This would render each and all of them guilty of contumacy against the dominant party in the General Assembly, and they would thereby incur the penalty of deposition. That was what he (the Earl of Aberdeen) called a schism in the Church; one-half of the clergy would be in this condition. The difference between the schism and that which took place a century ago would be, that those who resisted the General Assembly would

367
be supported by the law. They were, therefore, the real Church established by law, because they acted in obedience to the law. It was the majority of the Assembly which defied the law, and which in the exercise of its assumed authority pretended to depose those clergymen whose only crime was that they had obeyed the law. That was the schism which he apprehended would take place in the month of August, and which he not only deplored, but wished to prevent. The noble Viscount said, that this bill would not be obeyed; he (the Earl of Aberdeen) hoped that the consequence would be different. The noble Viscount had certainly done his best, of course not intentionally, to prevent it from being obeyed. There were some persons who opposed the bill on grounds directly the reverse of those taken by the General Assembly, because they thought that it would abolish patronage. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack thought that he had struck a blow at patronage, which was perfectly inexcusable, and that he might just as well at once repeal the Act of Queen Anne. That was not the opinion held in Scotland; it was thought there that the bill would destroy the independence of the Church, by not recognizing the monstrous pretensions that had been put forward. The noble Marquess opposite (Breadalbane) was, he believed, the single person in the House who thought that the bill would be injurious to the independence and the proper jurisdiction of the Church, but everybody else who had expressed an opinion, considered that the only objection was, that it would do too much to establish its power and jurisdiction. Notwithstanding this, the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government having come practically to the same conclusion as those who opposed the bill for a reason perfectly different, did certainly give encouragement to the resistance which might ensue if the bill passed, that would not have been given if the noble Viscount had thought it consistent with his duty to take another view of the subject. He had reason to know that numbers of those who opposed the bill had been led unwillingly into that course, and deeply regretted the dangers by which they were surrounded, and that they would willingly retreat from the position they had taken. This bill offered them the means of doing so, and had not
368
the noble Viscount thought it his duty to oppose the bill, he did not doubt that if passed, it would have led to that result. He had thought it his duty to press this bill to its present stage, and, whatever might be the course he should afterwards take, he should certainly move the Committee to-day.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the schism to which he alluded, as existing in the Church of Scotland, was connected with the subject of patronage. He did not believe that the manifestation of that schism would be prevented by the bill of his noble Friend. With respect to the bill itself, and the important questions opened by it, he begged to be understood as having given no opinion whatever upon them. He had only said, that he thought it unwise and imprudent to press the measure at the present time, and under present circumstances.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, it was most true that his noble Friend had cautiously abstained from giving any opinion whatever on the great question which had now been agitating Scotland for the last year and a-half. His noble Friend need hardly have taken the trouble to bring that fact to the recollection of their Lordships, for every one must have been aware of it. He hardly thought that the reproach which the noble Viscount had thrown upon his noble Friend behind him, of having come 100 years too late for the settlement of this question, came with a very good grace from him. Their Lordships were all aware what was the course, or rather the no course, taken by her Majesty's Government on this question. They had had full warning at the time of the decision pronounced by the House in the Aucterarder case what was the real state of affairs in Scotland. He had stated on a former occasion, and he repeated now, that he thought the duty of her Majesty's Government at that time, considering the nature and extent of the existing controversy, was to have directed their most earnest and anxious attention to it, and to have thrown the whole weight of Government into the scale of the law of the land, in the way best calculated to settle the dispute. That they had not done; but they had continued hesitating and doubting whether they were to do something or nothing, and at last they resolved, pretty late in the course of the Session, that they would do nothing

369
at all. His noble Friend had brought forward the measure as soon as the determination of Government was known, and he must tell the noble Viscount, that if he had made up his mind to support the general principle of the measure, from which he was satisfied that neither the noble Viscount nor any rational man could dissent, there would have been a strong ground for hoping that the question would be brought to a satisfactory adjustment. He firmly believed, that a great portion of the public opinion of Scotland—of that public opinion which generally guided the country in the long run, was in its favour. It had also the support of a great portion of the clergy, and he thought that if it became law, they would hesitate before continuing to oppose not only the decision of the highest tribunal in the country, but an Act of Parliament passed to declare the law. If no measure were adopted, the danger of a great schism, such as his noble Friend had alluded to, would become imminent, and it would be much more extensive than that which had taken place 100 years ago. He sincerely hoped that his noble Friend would think it his duty to persevere with the measure, notwithstanding the discouragement offered to him by her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of Roseberrythought, the bill would confer large powers on the Church of Scotland, because it would transfer the veto from the people to the presbyteries. It would, however, restrict the independent jurisdiction claimed by the Church in spiritual matters.
The Marquess of Londonderrybegged leave to state that he had received from the north of Ireland a variety of opinions universally favourable to the bill, in which the Presbyterians of that part of the empire took much interest.
House in Committee, the several clauses of the bill were agreed to.
The House resumed.

THE O'REILLEYS (IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Westmeath The Marquess of Westmeath moved for a return of the party or parties to whom the 50 l. stated to have been paid by the rev. Philip O'Reilly, Roman Catholic priest of Ballymacue, in the county of Cavan, was given for the compromise of the offence with which he was charged upon oath; also a return of the purpose or purposes to which the same was applied; and also
370
a copy of the receipt given to the rev. Philip O'Reilly as a discharge for the same.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that there was this difference between the motion which the noble Marquess had made upon the subject last week, and the motion which he had brought forward that evening: In the former motion he had moved for papers which had existence; in the present he had moved for a paper which had no existence, at least, if it had existence, her Majesty's Government had no cognizance of it. With respect to the comments which the noble Marquess had passed on this transaction on a former evening, he had only to observe that he had received a letter that afternoon from Mr. Litton, the stipendiary magistrate, stating that the consequence of it had been the complete re-establishment of peace in that part of the country. The noble Marquess was trifling with the time of the House in bringing a motion of this insignificant character a second time under the consideration of their Lordships.
The Earl of Haddingtonprotested against the right assumed by the noble Marquess opposite, to read his noble Friend a lecture for bringing, what he considered, trifling matters before the House. No doubt his noble Friend near him attributed greater importance to the subject than the noble Marquess was inclined to assign to it.
The Marquess of Westmeathwould postpone the motion until the noble Marquess should have an opportunity of inquiring whether the 50 l. had been paid or not.—Motion withdrawn.

PAYMENT OF WAGES.
Lord Monsonhaving moved the third reading of the Payment of Wages Bill,
Lord Portmansaid, that this bill, which was to be extended to railroads, canals, and public roads, would, in his opinion, be productive of the most serious inconvenience. It would be impossible to carry it into operation on railroads, and it was only applicable to a limited number of cases. It was calculated also to increase the number of beer-shops, which he was sure none of their Lordships would be willing to do. Workmen on railroads would be subjected to much difficulty in procuring provisions, and the public also would suffer much inconvenience. If the noble Lord persisted in pressing the bill, he should feel it to be

371
his duty to move that it be read a third time that day three months.
The Marquess of Salisburysuggested that the bill should be withdrawn for the present, to allow time for its provisions to be fully considered.
Lord Monsonsaid, the bill had been before their Lordships since the 5th of May, and had before met with no opposition. He was convinced that the measure was calculated to do much good, but at the same time he was perfectly willing to withdraw it for the present, to allow time for consideration.
Bill withdrawn.