The Marquess of Breadulbanepresented petitions from places in Scotland, and from the Presbytery of Newcastle-on-Tyne, against the intrusion of ministers in the Scotch Church. The noble Marquess proceeded to say, that the excitement prevailing on that subject in Scotland was already sufficiently strong, without anything being said or done in that House or elsewhere, which could tend to aggravate the feelings of the people of Scotland. He must say, that if that people, attached as they were to all the principles of their Presbyterian Church, considered, that by the decision of the civil judicature of the country, their rights had been infringed on, they would only conscientiously discharge their duty in endeavouring to obtain an alteration of the law. The pastors of that church would, in his opinion, have deserted their obligations, and would not have fulfilled their duties, if they did not endeavour to maintain the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of their Church when they thought it had been assailed.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenwas at a loss to understand what was the meaning of the noble Marquess in the observations he had offered to the House. The noble Marquess had said, that the people of Scotland had a right to call for an alteration of the law which they complained of. Undoubtedly they had. But when the noble Marquess said, that they were justified in complaining of a trenching on their rights, and a violation of them, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) must say, that no such violation had taken place. The law of the land had been 815 justly and equitably pronounced, and the hundreds of petitions that had been presented against church intrusion, while they prayed for an alteration in the law, left it to the wisdom of Parliament to devise the means of effecting their object. He (Lord Aberdeen) was as favourable to non-intrusion as any of those petitioners; but then it was non-intrusion as the law and the constitution of the Church understood it—that was his non-intrusion. When the noble Marquess referred to petitions presented by the Presbyterians of this country and of Ireland, he should remember, that the Church of Scotland was in a totally different position from them. They were not an Established Church in England and Ireland, nor were they endowed by the State. But while the Church of Scotland was receiving the support of the State, she must obey the law by which she existed, was established and maintained. As a Church of Christ she might exist without the law, but as a national church, and maintained by the law, she must obey the law by which she was established and recognised. The noble Earl concluded by saying, that he deferred any further discussion on the subject till the whole proceedings of the General Assembly were before them. They had not yet finally concluded their meetings, and therefore he would suspend any decision for the present.
The Earl of Camperdownfelt himself called upon to express his complete conviction, that the conduct of the majority of the Church of Scotland was endangering the institutions of that country in a manner they were not perhaps aware of. He did not deny that a very strong feeling had been excited, but it had been excited in a manner which, friendly as he was to the Church of Scotland, he was very sorry to see. As had been truly observed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord (Brougham) last evening, the Church of Scotland stood in direct opposition to the law of the land. He was ready to give credit to every man for any conscientious scruples which he might entertain; but if individuals or bodies of men were entitled to oppose the decisions of the courts, and to disobey the law, because they entertained scruples of conscience, he must say, that he thought one of the very first principles which bound society together would be endangered. He very much regretted to perceive that the bill of the noble Earl opposite had been rejected by the majority of the General Assembly. It should not 816 be forgotten that there was a strong and a growing feeling in Scotland in favour of the separation of Church and State. If any one circumstance more than another would lead to the accomplishment of that result, it was the course pursued with reference to this question by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
§ The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had last evening almost called the people of Scotland rebels, because they held, that the decisions of the civil courts were contrary to the fundamental principles on which their national Church was established. Were the people of Scotland to be called rebels, because they endeavoured to support the fundamental principles of their Church? The House of Commons, when recently supporting their privileges against decisions of the courts of law, had not been called rebels, then why brand the people of Scotland with that name.
Lord Broughamput it to their Lordships, whether there was much fairness, any more than good sense, if the noble Marquess would permit him to make the observation, in putting into the mouth of any person, a word which he had never used, more especially when at the very moment when the suggestion was made, it was declared that the word had not in reality been employed. The noble Marquess had suggested, that he had used the word, "rebel," whereass in fact, he had not used it. The noble Marquess began by saying, that he almost used the word, and then he proceeded to act and to speak, as if in truth he had employed it. Now, that was holding him up to the minority, as he said, of the people of Scotland, and to the majority of the Church judicature, as he believed, in an improper light, more especially in the exciteable state in which their minds now were.
§ Petition laid on the Table.