§ The Marquess of Breadalbane, in presenting a petition against the intrusion of ministers into the Church of Scotland, and praying that the bill then before Parliament, introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), might not pass into a law, observed that the general assembly of the Church of Scotland had, as their Lordships were aware, come to a decision, by a large majority, unfavourable to that bill, and such he believed to be the feeling not only of a great majority of the Church of Scotland, but of the people at large.
The Earl of Haddington felt it necessary to say, that the concluding portion of the noble Marquess's observation did not tally with the information which he had received, and which he believed most other persons had received, from that portion of the United Kingdom.
§ The Marquess of Breadalbanecould only refer the noble Earl to the numerous 763 petitions which had been presented in favour of the principle of non-intrusion which principle he did not consider was embodied in the bill of the noble Earl.
Lord Broughamsaid, that not having been able to consider sufficiently the bill of the noble Earl, he would abstain at present from saying anything respecting it. He would, however, maintain the opinion which he held the last time he had the honour of addressing their Lordships upon the subject, which was, that the people of Scotland did not go along with those who had placed themselves in resistance to the law of the land. The law of the land had been declared by the highest authority in the law—by their Lordships in their judicial capacity; and if there were any who persisted in offering resistance to the law, he asserted that it was not the people of Scotland, but those misguided individuals or bodies who had thought fit to join them. He might be told that there was conflict and collision upon the subject; but what was it? It was a conflict and collision which there ever would be in every case where a decision had been pronounced by a legal, authorized, and only authorised tribunal—namely, a conflict and collision between that tribunal and the party against whom that tribunal had pronounced judgment. And whether that party were an humble or a powerful individual—whether an individual or a body corporate—whether the meanest lay corporation in the country, or the highest clerical body in the country—it fell within the same rule, and must be considered as the party in a suit in which the decision was given against it by a competent tribunal. Great differences prevailed on other points in that part of the kingdom to which he alluded; he was anxious that those heats should subside; he was anxious, as the peace of the country would be endangered if the peace of the Church were endangered—he was most anxious, before any legislative measure should be adopted, that proper means might be taken in the proper quarter to secure and enforce not merely a nominal but a real and substantial obedience to the law as it at present existed.
§ Petition laid on the table.