Lords Sitting of 19 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Canada Government; Church Discipline.—Read a second time:—Tobacco Regulations.
Petitions presented. By Lord Kenyon, from a place in Devonshire, against the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill; and from the Sword-bearer and Marshal of the city of

1283
Dublin, for Compensation should that Bill pass.—By Earl Delawar, from several places, against the same Bill, and against any further Grant of Money to Maynooth College.—By the Bishop of Winchester, from several places in his Diocese, against Sunday Trading.—By Viscount Gort, from Individuals of Cork, for Compensation should the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill pass.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from Kingston, against any further Grant to Maynooth.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill,
The Bishop of Exetersaid, there were circumstances connected with this measure which rendered it impossible for him to agree to go into Committee on it. Feeling as he did on the subject of this bill, he could not permit himself to consent that it should go through any further stage. He considered the bill as one pregnant with the most serious mischiefs to that Church to which it was his happiness and pride to belong; and, feeling that the bill must inevitably produce such effects, he considered it to be his duty to offer to it all the opposition in his power. He thought the fact, that the measure was calculated to injure the Protestant Church was too plain to require any arguments to convince those who considered the question coolly and deliberately in all its bearings. When he heard it asserted, that the Protestant Church could not, in any degree, be endangered by this measure, he begged leave to remind their Lordships that the bill would increase, greatly increase, the power of a very large body of persons in Ireland—of persons who were not only not members of the Church of England, but who were acknowledged to be fiercely opposed to that Church. The number of corporations that would be immediately affected by this bill was very large; but, large as it already was, that number might be still further increased, to a very great extent. Why, every town in Ireland having 3,000 inhabitants might, hereafter, under this bill, if the Minister of the Crown pleased, become the seat of a municipal corporation. A great number of corporate bodies might thus be created by the Minister under this law, bodies hostile to the Church, and who would, therefore, be anxious to use and exert all their newly-acquired powers to do injury to the Church. Let him remind their Lordships how this bill would act, by reference to what had occurred in the corporation of Tuam. That corporation
1284
was thrown open; and what was the consequence? Why, that it was completely in the power of the Roman Catholics; and, amongst other proceedings, they had appropriated all the funds of the corporation to the support of the Roman Catholic cathedral in that city. Yet the commissioners, in their report, had the confidence to recommend that the course adopted with reference to Tuam, should be acted on as the general rule for all the corporations in Ireland. To show that such was the fact, he should read an extract from their own report, under the head of "Tuam." After saying that all the corporation are "Roman Catholic," the commissioners proceeded to observe, that
"No particular individual can be pointed out as exercising paramount influence in the corporation since the change of its members in 1811, arid the proceedings of the Sovereign and free burgesses are of a more popular character than those of any other corporate body which we have visited. The admission of the commonalty to some share in the corporate proceedings, and the perfect freedom from religious distinction between the free burgesses and the great majority of the community, are strongly calculated to prevent the dissension which too commonly prevails in other places between the corporation, so called, and the inhabitants."
In other words, the tyrant majority of Roman Catholics was so great that the Protestant minority would not, and could not, have the slightest chance of successfully opposing any of their measures, however detrimental they might appear to be to the Established Church. Such was the opinions of those commissioners who set up the corporation of Tuam as that which was to be the rule for all other reformed corporations. But it was said, that amendments would be introduced of such a nature as to secure a just property qualification, by which the apprehended evils would be, in a great degree, avoided. But, if any one fact was more clearly and decidedly proved than another, it was, that a property qualification in Ireland was a mere delusion, and could never be taken as a fair representation of the property and intelligence of the country. In the first place, no possible mode could be adopted for ascertaining a real property qualification; and in the next place, if they had a property qualification of 5l., or 8l., or 10 l, they must see, by what had occurred under the Reform Act and under the Poor-law Act in Ireland,

1285
that the qualification afforded no guarantee of independence, when the parties were so completely under the control of the priests as they were in that country—when, in fact, they were obliged to act as the priests directed. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said two or three years ago, in another place, that he wished to transform the corporations into normal schools of popular agitation. Therefore, if this bill were passed, they were likely hereafter, in every town consisting of 3,000 inhabitants, to have a normal school of agitation, creating confusion and disorder throughout the country. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, speaking of corporations in Ireland, had said, "Give me corporations as I wish them to be, and I will secure every thing else." He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would not, by passing this bill, place great and extensive power in the hands of those who were likely to make an evil use of it. There was a very great difference between meeting agitation that was exercised in a disorderly, irregular, and illegal manner, and that which might be practised under the sanction of law. If this bill were passed, then the law of the land would favour agitation in Ireland, for it was said, that these corporate bodies would be normal schools of agitation, encouraging other bodies of agitators in every part of Ireland. A few years ago, the Minister of the day came down to Parliament and said, that in consequence of the dangerous agitation which prevailed for the repeal of the Union, it was necessary to apply to the Legislature for a Coercion Act. Would any Minister, he wished to know, come down to Parliament and ask for a Coercion Act in consequence of any agitation for the repeal of the Union, however violent, that might be carried on in the corporations created under this bill? No; it would not be endured that corporations coming forward, and trying by constitutional and legal means to effect the favourite object of the agitators in Ireland—the repeal of the union—should be interfered with. The new state of things created by this bill would alter the case; and no Minister-would dare to ask for power to put down this agitation. Why was the present bill to be passed? Where was the necessity for it? He hoped it would not be argued that to pass it was for the purpose of conciliation. He could say from experience and conviction that true conciliation
1286
was the policy which wise and good men were always anxious to adopt. But he confessed that he was no friend to that false and spurious sort of conciliation, which sought to silence an enemy whom they feared to oppose—that sort of unsatisfactory conciliation which implied that they were too weak to withhold anything that might be demanded from them by their opponents. That species of conciliation he did not admire; he was sorry to see that such a policy was now acted on. But the meaning of that course of proceeding was now so well known, that the word "conciliation" was scarcely ever adopted as a plea for making any demand on the Government. It was said, that the people of Ireland had a right to possess corporations, as they were possessed, and because they were possessed, by the people of England and Scotland. But it should first be ascertained whether the population of Ireland was fit for them; whether the condition of the people of the two countries was the same. Because, if it were not, that which might be beneficial in England and Scotland might be the very reverse in Ireland. Corporations in England and Scotland had grown up and been established for the protection of commerce—for the security of property. They were cherished by wise governments to prevent the arbitrary invasion of rights by feudal Lords, and to guard against the encroachments of the Crown. They were upheld by the people of England and Scotland as guardians and protectors of public property. Certain persons, however, now held, that even in England and Scotland the period had passed by for corporations; and, without agreeing in the opinion, he might remind their Lordships that Adam Smith had said, that in all countries which had arrived at maturity it was better that corporations should cease. But, without arguing that point, it might be stated without fear of contradiction, that with whatever object corporations had originally been established in England and Scotland, they were from the first established in Ireland for very different purposes. They were, in fact, founded on the principle of exclusion. They were established for the especial assistance and support of those who were settled in towns, and who were exposed to the attacks of the Irish, the latter being at ail times ready to endeavour to throw off what they conceived to be an ignomi-

1287
nious yoke. The new settlers were in a hostile country, and the Crown granted them those privileges to enable them to maintain themselves—against whom? Against "the Irish and the King's other enemies." Exclusion was, in fact, the great principle of the Irish Municipal Corporations; and they answered the purposes for which they were created. The ancient corporate towns were fastnesses against "the Irishry;" and "murage," that was, customs for the expense of maintaining the walls, was an ordinary privilege under the ancient charters. To prove that his statement was perfectly correct, he would read the heads of several charters. Henry 5th in a charter recited,
"That the town of Balygavoran, in the county of Kilkenny, in the march of that county, was situate far from the aid of the English, and surrounded by Irish enemies, who had lately burned it, granted to the burgesses and commons certain murage and pavage customs for a term of forty years."
New Ross, by a charter of 1 Henry 5th, had
"A special privilege to treat and traffic with the Irish enemies."
The charter of 1 Richard 3rd,
"Grants licence to pursue the Irish enemies who carry off the settler's property, and to make reprisals from them."
The same charter forbids
"A burgess holding a tenement to let the same to strangers, without permission of the sovereign, and forbids Irishmen to reside in the town without licence, and the registration of their names."
The charter of Henry 6th to Waterford,
"Grants 30 l. per annum out of the fee farm of the city for thirty years for the repairs of the walls and towers. No lieutenant or other lord to bring into the said city any Irish enemies, English rebels, &c."
Richard 2nd (A. D. 1389), by charter to Kinsale,
"Exonerated the commons of Kinsale (the town being in the marches, among the Irish enemies and English rebels) from attendance on wards, musters, and Parliaments."
Henry 5th, in his charter to Limerick, recites "services of the citizens against the King's Irish enemies granted," &c. The same charter directs,
"That no one of Irish blood or nation should be mayor, or exercise any other office
1288
within the city, and that no person should take or maintain any man or child of Irish blood and nation, as apprentice, on pain of losing his franchise."
Richard 2nd, by charter,
"Granted towards the fortification of Trim, where all the fideles of the county of Meath were congregated, certain tolls," &c.
The ancient charters of Dublin repeatedly recited the services of the citizens against the King's enemies. James 1st incorporated forty towns, and the charters recited that they should maintain a certain number of soldiers to protect the towns against the King's enemies, and all those corporations were empowered to send Members to Parliament. An ancestor of a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Enniskillen) was authorized by James 1st to form the town of Enniskillen. By letters patent dated the tenth of James 1st, the grantee was bound, within four years, to erect a town at Enniskillen. And the letters set forth, that
"He shall bring, or cause to be brought, in or to the said island of Enniskillen, twenty persons, being English or Scotch, and chiefly artificers and mechanics, to make, erect, and construct a town; and the said William Cole was bound within the aforesaid four years, to procure the same persons to be incorporated into one body politic, to endure for ever, as is necessary for the defence and security of the town aforesaid, as well for the defence and protection of all our faithful liege subjects there inhabiting, as for repressing and restraining rebels and other our enemies whatsoever,"
Within nine months afterwards the charter of incorporation issued, constituting the town a borough, with right to return Members to Parliament. The charter of Jamestown county of Leitrim—
"Incorporates the land mentioned in the charter, under the names of the borough and town of Jamestown; the said town to be built, erected, and made in the most convenient place of the said lands, which shall be next adjoining the river, called the Shannon."
In like manner at Killybegs, twenty houses and a church were to be built in four years; five in each year. The mayors were to take the oath of supremacy. Charles 2nd. gave a charter to Longford, in the county of Longford which recites—
"That the Lord Aungier intended to plant and settle the same in the hands of the King's English and Protestant subjects, and for the better planting the same, and for the better

1289
encouraging the King's English Protestant subjects to settle the same, incorporates it, &c., the Sovereign to take the oath of supremacy."
The charter of James 1st. to St. Johnstown Donegal, directed that the grantee, the Duke of Lennox, should within four years bring thirteen English settlers, &c. It contained a clause making void the grant, if the Duke should alienate or demise the premises to the mere Irish, or to any who should not have taken the oath of supremacy within a year previous. With respect to St. Johnstown, county of Longford, Charles 2nd's charter ordered, that there should be a town founded on some part of the four score and six acres granted; that it should be a borough; and the grant should be void, if premises were aliened for a longer term than forty years to any of the mere Irish, or who should not be sprung of the English or British stock or race. Thus, it appeared that from first to last those corporations proceeded on the principle of exclusion. That such a principle should be acted on was very natural, when they found that the whole province of Ulster had been forfeited for three successive rebellions. It was, therefore, not extraordinary that power had been all along refused to those who were decidedly hostile to the Crown of England. Not only, therefore, was property given to the settlers, but privileges were conferred on them to enable them to enjoy and maintain that property. The plain fact was, that the charter of almost every corporation in Ireland was granted with a view to sustain the British and Protestant connexion. It had been said, when it was proposed to extinguish these corporations, instead of new modelling them, that that would not be a conservative measure. But he contended that the extinction of those corporations would be a conservative measure, compared with merely preserving the name, and wholly destroying the principle on which they had been founded. He had heard with great regret that it was the intention of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lynd-hurst) to introduce certain amendments which would put the bill in the same position as the bill of last year—at least, though the noble and learned Lord had not exactly said so, vet such an interpretation might be placed on his words. He regretted the noble and learned Lord's intention, because he did not think that the
1290
bill could be so flamed as to afford proper security for the Protestant Church. Here he might be permitted to say, and he said it with the most unfeigned sincerity, that he felt the highest respect for the noble and learned Lord, that he felt as high a degree of respect for him as he could feel for any man. But he admired him for his talents, which were of the first order, and for his principles, which were of the most firm and honourable character. He thought that the Protestants of England, but more especially the Protestants of Ireland, had a serious claim on the consideration of the noble and learned Lord, and he hoped that he would be guided on this occasion by a just view of the situation in which they were likely to be placed by this measure. Many of their Lordships must deeply deplore the legislative arrangement which had been adopted with regard to the temporalities of the Established Church in Ireland. They must also deplore that still earlier concession, of which the Roman Catholic population of Ireland had since done so much to prove that they were unworthy. He felt it to be a particular duty to take every possible means of protecting the Irish Church. And he appealed to the noble and learned Lord to second his exertions. He recollected the time when he was told, that if the Irish Church Temporalities Bill were passed, and the Roman Catholic population persisted in their treacherous and unprincipled assaults on the Church, the very Ministers who proposed it would be prepared with some more stringent course to stop the agitation against the Church in Ireland. Circumstances had interposed to prevent the fulfillment of that promise, else he thought that the pledge would have been faithfully and honourably redeemed. The Reform Bill was carried; and by extending its provisions to Ireland, an enormous increase was made to the Roman Catholic influence. If Roman Catholic power was thus inevitably increased at that period, surely it was the duty of every honest Protestant to prevent every increase of that power, which no one could doubt would be employed against the Established Church. He could not over estimate the influence which this bill, if passed into a law, would enable the Catholics to exercise in Ireland. If the noble and learned Baron opposite thought that this was a good bill for the Protestant Church of Ireland, and

1291
that his duty urged him to contribute to passing it, let him do so. But if, on the other hand, he thought it a bill which might in any degree tend to weaken the influence of that Church, he called on him by every consideration most sacred in his eyes, to resist it to the utmost of his power. The noble Duke had said, two years ago, that he would not give his consideration to the Irish Municipal Bill until he saw two things done—namely, a property franchise established, and the safety of the Church secured with regard to tithes. Looking; it these two points, he ventured to intimate that the noble Duke could not think that either of them had yet been obtained. There was obviously anything but a real property franchise; and the little artifices of the supporters of the bill upon this subject had been ably exposed last year by the noble Duke. With regard to the Tithe Bill, what had happened? Had that been found, in point of fact, to provide any security to the Church of Ireland, even for the possessions remaining to her after that act of spoliation? Was there no danger in her present position? They did good in preventing the Irish peasants from starving the ministers of the Established Church under the dictation of their priests; but had they given to the Church anything like solid security? Why, a noble Lord in another place had rejoiced at the bill, expressly because it lessened the security of the Church in Ireland, and was shortly afterwards selected to represent her Majesty in person he alluded to the present Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. He did not know whether that noble Lord was now in his place or not, but he wished that he were. Another noble Lord, who was an officer of her Majesty's household, hail encouraged the people to agitate against the tithes. Was this a specimen of the security which the Irish Church was to have for her possessions? It was perfectly frightful to contemplate the envenomed hostility of which that Church was the object. An individual, who was a Member of the other House of Parliament, and to whom he would not allude but that it was absolutely necessary, had made the following statement lately in an address of the National Association of Ireland to the people of Ireland, which address was signed "Daniel O'Connell, Chairman of the Committee:"—
"The ecclesiastical state revenues of Ireland are applied to the Church of a comparatively
1292
very small minority of the Irish people. This is a master grievance: whilst it continues, there may be a parchment or a legal union, but there is no real union. To redress this grievance is the first and greatest object of our association."
This address had been widely circulated; a copy of it had been sent, he believed, to every one of their Lordships. He had received a copy from Dublin, forwarded, apparently, by the Association. He must, therefore, do that with unwillingness which he felt that the occasion made necessary, as he entertained no hope whatever that the offence would not be repeated. Now, what was the oath which had been taken by this individual, who thus proclaimed himself bent on destroying the Established Church in Ireland? It was this:—
"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law, within this realm; and I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever."
The word "Establishment" was wisely introduced into this oath to prevent any person from availing himself of the miserable quibble (which had, nevertheless, been attempted) of denying that the Church itself was assailed. "Observe," this person had said, "I don't mean to attack your Church, but your property." But what he had sworn was not to subvert the "Establishment," in other words, the property. The solemnity of the latter part of the oath made it painful to any mind to contemplate that such an oath should have been violated. He asked their Lordships, or any one of them, to get up (find if any Member of their Lordships' House entertained such an opinion he hoped to hear his reasons) and state whether he did not consider that the individual who had taken the oath contained in this paper had grossly perjured himself. Upon a former occasion he (the Bishop of Exeter) had been told by the noble and learned Baron the Chancellor of Ireland, that
"To make a charge of this description was to charge all those who supported that individual with subornation of perjury."

1293
To be sure, he meant that. He had intimated so much then, and he repeated it now. He did not hesitate to state his belief that every individual who was cognizant of this gross violation of a sworn pledge taken by that person—every one who did anything to increase the power of that individual, or showed him favour—was guilty of subornation of perjury. They had been told that, in another House, another noble Lord, very high in office, and only inferior in power to the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, had, subsequently to the issuing of this proclamation of perjury and perfidy, spoken of the individual by whom it was signed as "esteemed by many." The noble Lord did not think proper to say whether or not he was one of those who esteemed him; but he said nothing whatever against that individual. The noble Lord proceeded to state, that he was "considered by most persons in Ireland to be the friend of his country." What the individual who had stained his own soul with the crime of perjury, and, having done so, stained also the souls of those who were his supporters and adherents? What said this person about the present bill, in an address of the National Association prepared by him, and dated "April the 21st, 1840?"—
?The corporations of England and Scotland have been long reformed; but so strong is the prejudice against Ireland, and the disposition of the British Legislature to refuse her justice, that even the Ministers of the Crown, who are favourably disposed towards us, cannot venture, with any hope of success, to bring in a bill to give Ireland the same corporate reform which is possessed by Scotland and England. A paltry and inferior measure is in tardy progress through the Legislature; should it succeed, it will be inadequate; should it fail, it will be an additional insult. In either case it will continue a grievance, rendering the union a mockery and not a reality."
This was the measure of conciliation and justice which their Lordships were called on that night to cook up and make palatable to that learned person. It was disgraceful to see them solemnly deliberating on the benefits of a measure which was absolutely repudiated by those whom it was intended to conciliate. In conduct like this he would not be a sharer; and he certainly would not say "content" to the motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas desirous to address a few words to their Lordships, in explanation of the course which he in-
1294
tended to pursue. He had not been in the House when the arrangement took place, into which his noble and learned Friend below him had entered. It would tend greatly to the convenience of the House, if that arrangement were carried into execution. He hoped that his noble and learned Friend would present his amendments at once, that the Mouse might have an opportunity of considering them. The right rev. Prelate's objections might be properly taken into consideration in Committee, or at the bringing up of the report. But it really appeared to him, that when both sides were agreed as to the particular mode of proceeding with the discussion, it was desirable that this arrangement should not be departed from.
The Bishop of Exeterobserved, that it had been distinctly declared on the previous night, at both sides of the House, that the arrangement then made, must not be considered as pledging any noble Lord to consent to go into Committee. If this were the case, what had he done that either was strange or extraordinary? He had risen once or twice on the previous night, but hesitated and resumed his seat, thinking upon re-consideration, he might be able to consent to go into Committee. Reflection had, however, satisfied him, that unless by opposing this motion, he could not adequately discharge his duty to the Church of which he was a Bishop.
The Duke of Wellingtondisclaimed the intention of throwing any blame on the right rev. Prelate.
Their Lordships went into Committee. The preamble was postponed. Lord Lyndhurst proposed several amendments which were ordered to be printed; House resumed, Committee to sit again.

MINISTERS OF STRATHBOGIE.—THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose pursuant to notice, to present a petition to their Lordships from the seven Suspended Ministers of the Strathbogie Presbytery. The case which he had to bring under the consideration of the House, was one which did not require any addition of high coloured statement to secure attention. A simple statement of the facts he was sure would be sufficient to secure for the petitioners the sympathy of their Lordships. When the petitioners brought this petition to him, he had informed them, that although he

1295
had seen great variety of opinions prevail on many questions which came before that and the other house of Parliament, he yet felt confident, that on this occasion there would not be one Member of that House or of the House of Commons, who would not feel the hardships and the cruelty of the position in which the petitioners had been placed. The circumstances of the case were simply these. In 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed an act, which was known as the Veto Act, by which the Presbyteries were compelled, if the majority of the male communicants of a parish objected to the settlement of a presentee, to reject that presentee without assigning any reason for that rejection. That Act was passed in 1834, and some time afterwards a vacancy took place, in one of the parishes comprised in the Presbytery of Strathbogie. To that vacant parish the patron presented Mr. Edwards; but the Presbytery not being political churchmen, took it for granted that the General Assembly were warranted by the law of the land in passing the Veto Act, and a majority of the male communicants having dissented to the choice made by the patron, they acted on the law of the Assembly, and rejected Mr. Edwards with-out assigning any reason for that rejection. Some time afterwards, however, a person who had been placed in a position similar to that in which Mr. Edwards found himself, brought an action in the Court of Session against the Presbytery by which he had been rejected, and the Court found that that Presbytery by rejecting the presentee without assigning any reason for such a course, had exceeded their powers and acted illegally. Their Lordships had afterwards affirmed the decision of the Court of Session. On that decision being given, Mr. Edwards, who had been rejected by the presbytery of Strathbogie, raised an action against the petitioners, and obtained from the Court of Session a decree enjoining the Presbytery to take him upon his trial and to proceed to his settlement. On receiving that decree, the petitioners, after the most mature consideration, expressed their intention to obey the decision of the court, and to act in accordance with what that court had determined to be the law of the land. On their expressing that determination, however, the commission of the General Assembly proceeded by decree to suspend
1296
the petitioners from the exercise of all the functions of their offices as ministers of the Church of Scotland, on the grounds that they had placed themselves in a state of contumacy towards the General Assembly by their expressed resolution to obey the law of the land. Against the proceedings of the commission, the petitioners determined to appeal to the General Assembly on its meeting, and in the meantime they obtained an interdict from the Court of Session suspending the execution of the decree of the commissioners. At the meeting of the General Assembly, the petitioners complained to that body of the decree which had been issued against them by the commission; but the Assembly affirmed the decree of the commission, and held that the commission had acted properly in suspending the petitioners. And now let him say a few words with respect to this commission before proceeding farther. Their Lordships were aware that the General Assembly sat but for a few days in each year, and formerly this commission consisted of a few members of that body, who sat to complete the business left unfinished by the Assembly. The commission, however, never entered upon the consideration of any new question, and its powers were of a very limited kind. In the present case, the commission had acted with all the powers exercised by the Assembly itself, and in fact, it was to be considered as nothing else than the Assembly making its sittings permanent. It was, therefore, for their Lordships to consider whether, in a constitutional point of view, such a body was to be allowed to assemble, and to act at times when every one of their Lordships understood the sittings of the Assembly to be terminated. This commission; as it was called, was not recognized by any law. In no statute was there any reference to such a body as existing under the law, and he had, therefore, referred to the proceedings of this commission simply as an indication of what their Lordships would have to contend with if it was not now dealt with in a timely manner. After the sentence of the commission had been pronounced against the petitioners, numbers of persons invaded their respective parishes, and were directed to perform the duties of the suspended ministers. But those persons were of a violent character in the Church, and had recourse in their preaching and in their addresses to the parish.

1297
ioners to topics calculated to inflame and irritate the people, and to alienate them from their established ministers. Though at first those persons met with congregations devotedly attached to their ministers, yet it was not to be wondered at, if, after successive attempts, considerable effect was in the end produced by their violent language and proceedings. Accordingly, feelings were excited in the district of Strathbogie, of the most painful description. Family was opposed to family, and even the members of the same family were hostile to each other, some taking the part of the suspended ministers, and others siding with the commission of the General Assembly. Every means was used to embitter those feelings, and the state of things which was at last produced, was almost incredible in a country so civilized as this. Placards, hand bills, and addresses were circulated in great numbers, proclaiming the petitioners not only suspended for contumacy, but declaring at the same time, that the rites performed by them, such as baptism and marriage, were invalid and illegal. In short, the greatest excitements prevailed in the district, which contained a population of from 18,000 to 20,000 persons. Now, let their Lordships remember, that every act which those unfortunate suspended ministers had performed was recognised by the law, and yet such was the state to which they had been reduced, and such was the condition in which the district of Strathbogie had been kept since December. He believed no ministers of any church could have performed their duty more faithfully or zealously, or, with more moderation, than the petitioners. As he had before said, the petitioners had complained of their suspension to the General Assembly, and said, that body had pronounced, that they had been properly suspended, on the ground of contumacy. The Assembly, however, had appointed a committee of their number to confer with the suspended ministers, and to deal with them according to what they might consider right. The committee accordingly met the petitioners on several occasions, and at last agreed to a report, which they delivered in to the General Assembly. In that report it was stated, that the committee had had numerous and long conversations with the suspended ministers, and had received from them satisfactory explanations as to minor points, The committee added,
1298
that upon the whole, those conversations had left a deep impression upon their minds, that the suspended ministers, in acting as they had done, had not intended any disrespect to the Church judicatures, but were solely influenced by the conviction, that they were bound to submit to the decision of the civil courts. At the conference with the committee, the petitioners gave in a written statement, which was embodied in the petition, and which, although he should not trouble their Lordships by reading it at length, was, he could assure them, well deserving of their attention. The committee, at the nomination of their report, stated, that they could not conclude without expressing their gratification at the frankness and candour with which they had been received by the suspended ministers, and they added, that they would not abandon the hope that they might yet be brought to submit to the authority of the Assembly. The chairman of the committee also spoke in the highest terms of the petitioners, but, notwithstanding all these testimonies in their favour, the Assembly proceeded not only to continue their suspension, but to order the commission, if the petitioners did not retract and declare their intention within a specified time to disobey the law, to proceed to depose the petitioners. On these proceedings, the reflections of the petitioners would, he was sure, come home to the feelings of their Lordships.
"Your petitioners," they said, and the noble Earl read the following extracts from the petition, "find that they are actually suspended, and may be deprived of legal offices, established by law, because there is a judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced against them, which they are willing and ready to obey. They find that they are not only to be prevented from obeying this judgment, buttobe punished and deprived of their rights, status, and functions, as ministers and members of the presbytery, because, under their oaths of allegiance, and as subjects of her Majesty, they desire to obey a judgment pronounced against them in that very character of ministers and members of Presbytery, and because, in the exercise of their rights as subjects, they applied for redress to the Supreme Court, which, found the sentence of the commission to be unconstitutional and illegal.
?Your petitioners humbly trust that they will not be exposed to consequences and to punishments so severe and deplorable, because they are willing to obey the law. If they thought that their vows of obedience to the Established Church, and. their duty as mi-

1299
nisters and members of the same, were inconsistent with their duty as subjects, they would at once withdraw from the Church of their fathers; for, as ministers of the gospel, they could not place themselves in rebellion against the law. But they cannot understand how obedience to a judgment of the House of Lords and of the supreme tribunals of the country can be inconsistent with their duty as members of the Church established by law, or can be contumacy against a Church whose authority in regard to the settlement of ministers in the parishes of the establishment is that which statutes have recognised and ratified,
"Your petitioners submit, that this state of things, which may also soon occur in many other cases, requires the interposition of the Legislature, by whose statutes the duties on presbyteries of the Established Church of Scotland are imposed. The highest judicial tribunal of the country has decided what is the meaning, import, and effect of these statutes. The Supreme Court of Scotland has found that your petitioners are bound to perform the duty so declared, and have found that your petitioners, as ministers of parishes and members of presbytery, must enter upon the discharge of that duty. Your petitioners have done so. They will not resist and disobey the judgment of the Supreme Court. They submit that no body in the country can competently require them to set the law at defiance. But the General Assembly has found that the desire and attempt to obey the law is an offence against a Church established by the very same statutes which impose the duty above referred to. The General Assembly has tried to prevent your petitioners giving effect to the law, by suspending them from their offices, and have directed them to be accused of contumacy with a view to deposition, if your petitioners shall persist in obeying the law. Such proceedings bring before Parliament a state of matters which calls for immediate interposition and instant protection to your petitioners as dutiful subjects of her Majesty holding offices established by law.
"May it therefore please your honourable House to take the premises into consideration—to apply such legislative remedy as the nature of the case requires, and to pass some statute by which your petitioners, who are acting in obedience to a decree of the Supreme Court, may be protected in the discharge of their statutory duty, and the Church courts be restrained from punishing or depriving parties of offices held under the laws of the country for obeying the decree of the Supreme Court, which gives effect to the statutes of the realm."
This was a state of things which he thought justified their Lordships and the country in looking to her Majesty's Government for some interference or redress. But no, his noble Friend opposite, at the head
1300
of the Government, was alarmed at the notion of doing any thing, the dolce far niènte was much more congenial to his noble Friend's disposition. It might be said to those Gentlemen who came to that House as petitioners, "You have the decree of the court in your favour, and the law will protect you." But if their Lordships gave such advice to those Gentlemen, what was the course which they should resort to? They should make an application to the court, and the court would no doubt take measures to punish those who would intrude ministers into their parishes, as well as any minister who should illegally perform the duty which these gentlemen had bound themselves to perform. And if the imprisonment of those ministers were to be the result of that proceeding, others would be found to follow their example, and forthwith would be the scandal of having the prisons filled with the ordained ministers of the gospel. The petitioners, however, feeling as ministers of the gospel and of peace, would not be instrumental in having recourse to such proceedings, which would have the effect of making the present state of things still worse. They had hitherto abstained from taking any strong measures, and, he believed, there was no likelihood of their being influenced to adopt them. He was convinced that the bill which their Lordships had lately read a second time would remedy the evil, and he believed that the petitioners themselves, aggravated as the grievance was of which they complained, would be satisfied with it as a remedy. He had little doubt, whatever might have been the violent language of the General Assembly, that it would be wrong to attribute violent motives to the clergy of the Church, or to suppose that they were the cause of the evil. The fact was, the General Assembly was governed by a few ambitious lawyers—and he had no doubt, if the measure to which he alluded were allowed to pass, that the great body of the clergy would acquiesce in its provisions. The opposition of the noble Viscount, to that measure, although made without any statement of the noble Viscount's reasons for opposing it, certainly altered his expectation as to its ultimate success. The noble Viscount could not deny, that the present state of things required that something should be done. Feeling that the bill then before their Lordships' House would put an end

1301
to the dispute, he should never cease to regret that the noble Viscount, without showing that he had any great objection to the bill, or that he took a warm interest in the subject generally, should not have considered it consistent with his duty to have given the bill his support. He might conjecture what his noble Friend's reasons were for withholding that support, but he would not detain their Lordships by stating what he felt upon that point. He could only say, that he believed those reasons were intimately connected with the petition he was presenting. If the noble Viscount declined to adopt the remedy which he proposed for a state of things which their Lordships must agree was monstrous and disgraceful to the country; he thought the noble Viscount was bound to come forward with some measure of his own unless he were satisfied to allow matters to remain as they were. He should conclude with no motion. He should merely present this petition, feeling persuaded that their Lordships would regard the case as he had thus shortly and simply endeavoured to state it.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that, being connected with four of the parishes in which the ministers were suspended, and having been called upon by the noble Earl to bear his testimony to the character of the petitioners, he felt he should be deserting his duty if he did not assure their Lordships that, since he had become connected with that part of the country, he had had many opportunities of witnessing the zealous and efficient manner in which the petitioners had performed the arduous duties of the sacred office to which they had devoted themselves. Their Lordships might not be aware that those were not men who had been lately presented to the parishes, and of whom the parishioners were entirely ignorant. The first of those gentlemen whose names were signed to the petition presented by the noble Earl had been forty years a parish minister, the next twelve years, the next fifteen, the next seventeen, the next fourteen, and the last only two years. Their Lordships could, therefore, easily understand that great inconvenience must have arisen from the circumstance of ministers going to those parishes with the order of the commission of the General Assembly, and suspending these men with whom they had been so long intimately acquainted. The ministers who had been so sent by the General Assembly, had not,
1302
as his noble Friend had truly said, contented themselves with discharging their duty, but had harangued the people from the inns, and posted placards in every part of the parishes, containing reflections upon the suspended clergymen. He felt that the General Assembly, in directing and authorizing this, had exceeded their powers, and he could not understand how the Government could refuse to take it into their most serious consideration. He had taken the trouble to inquire into the nature of the Veto Act which had led to the present slate of things, and he had come to the decision that it owed its origin to a resolution of the General Assembly, passed in 1833, whereby they increased their numbers. So far as the petitioners were concerned he felt convinced, from information he had received from tenants of his own, as well as from public meetings which had been held in the different parishes for the purpose of recording the sympathy of the people towards those gentlemen, that their suspension could not have taken place in consequence of anything that could be alleged against their conduct or character.
The Marquess of Breadalbaneobserved that the General Assembly, considering itself by law to be the supreme ecclesiastical court, felt that, in the exercise of its supremacy, it was bound to see that its decrees were obeyed by the inferior courts. That was in fact the whole question. Under the present circumstances of the case, it would be premature just now to call upon their Lordships to take any proceedings. The parties were in the hands of the courts, and the proper mode would be to let the courts decide upon the question according to the law.
The Earl of Haddingtondeeply sympathized with gentlemen who were placed in so unfortunate a position as that of which the petitioners complained. With respect to what had been said as to leaving this question to the courts, it should be remembered that the courts were no parties to the transaction, except for the purpose of expounding the law. In that exposition the courts might be right or they might be wrong; but if their exposition of the law were found to be wrong, an appeal against their decision could be made to their Lordships. The present petitioners had acted with the utmost caution, and to the best of their judgment, under circumstances of pe-

1303
culiar difficulty. If they had not acted in close accordance with technicalities, it was not much to be wondered at. If the bill of his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) were passed, it would set the matter at rest, and put an end to the scandalous scenes which had already taken place, and which were still likely to continue in that devoted district. If the bill passed into a law, it was not at all likely that the General Assembly would proceed to the extent of suspending or dispersing those gentlemen for voting in accordance with what was the declared law of the land. He would go as far as any one of their Lordships in endeavouring to maintain the spiritual independence of the church of Scotland, but he could not bring himself to think that any matters, merely civil in their nature, were included in that term. The petitioners were very severe sufferers through the course which had been pursued towards them, and their parishioners were also sufferers in being deprived of their ministry. He would not further trespass on their Lordships than to express his hope that his noble Friend would see such a chance for the passing of his bill into a law, as might induce him to persevere in pressing it through Parliament.
Lord Broughamwas desirous of avoiding any of the points connected with this question which might be likely to come before their Lordships in their judicial capacity. With respect to the petitioners, their case was an exceedingly hard one, and there was no foundation whatsoever upon which to allege that they had gone out of their way or done anything unnecessary, for it had not been denied that they were bound by law, not only to do what they had done but even to go beyond it at some time or other. He should like to know how it was that the conduct of the petitioners, in the course which they had so cautiously and so unwillingly pursued, could be pronounced premature and unnecessary. Had they abstained from obeying the commands of the court of law, they would have been punished for contumacy, but so far from going out of their way or acting prematurely, they had on the contrary stopped short of their obedience to the court. So far from acting prematurely, they had performed that which was their duty in rather a confined and qualified manner. For this obedience to the law, they had been visited with the
1304
punishment of suspension by the Ecclesiastical Court, and they are suspended for a contumacious violation of the sentence of the Assembly, and that suspension was to continue until they expressed regret for having rendered obedience to the law of the land. He abstained from saying more on the present occasion, for he believed there did not exist either in that or the other House of Parliament a single individual who could say he conscientiously thought that those proceedings were either legal or justifiable.
Viscount Melbourneentirely agreed in the feelings expressed by all noble Lords that had spoken upon the hardship upon these petitioners. They were deprived of the power of doing good, though they were still in possession of their temporalities. They were, however, suspended in the performance of their spiritual duties, and it was impossible not deeply to lament those circumstances. With respect to any redress which it was possible for this House to afford, it could only be done by a legislative measure; therefore, the question now before the House was reduced to the same question as had already been discussed, and the difficulties were the same as then existed. It was the question, whether or not they should pass his noble Friend's bill or some other bill on the subject. His noble Friend complained that he had not brought forward any measure, and seemed to intimate that it arose from his habitual, his constant indulgence in the dolce far niènte. Now he had lived long enough in the world to know, and had sufficient experience in public life to be fully aware, that the far niènte was not always the dolce, and that it was sometimes less irksome, less painful, and less troublesome, to act or bring forward measures than to abstain from doing so. He felt strongly the situation of these petitioners, and also all the evils which had arisen from the present state of things, but he did not see how the House could give redress in the manner suggested.
The Earl of Aberdeenheld it to be the first duty of the Government to maintain the peace of society; and, looking to the state of Scotland, arising from this agitation, he thought the Government had been guilty of an abandonment of duty in not having, at least, made some attempt at a remedy.
Petition laid on the table.