CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

HL Deb 02 March 1841 vol 56 cc1206-10

The Earl of Dalhousie

rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given on the preceding evening, to put a question to his noble Friend near him, with respect to a bill introduced to the House by his noble Friend in the last Session, regarding the admission of ministers to the Church of Scotland. That bill had been read a second time, but was not proceeded with further; and he wished to know what were the intentions of his noble Friend with respect to the question to which it related. After the statement made by the noble Viscount opposite, that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure on the subject, it became very desirable that the uneasiness which prevailed in Scotland with respect to the course that was to be taken on this question should, as soon as possible, be relieved. If the measure of his noble Friend had been carried last year, either by the unanimous concurrence of the House, or by a large majority of their Lordships, it would have put an end to the hopes of the extreme party in Scotland, and, he believed, would have been attended by all the beneficial effects that were expected from it, But, since that measure was withdrawn, the clergy had carried their demands much further than before. Instead of calling for the sanction of parliament to a mere veto on the admission of ministers, they now demanded the abolition of patronage altogether. The extreme party had prepared and brought forward a bond which bore on the face of it the character of a solemn covenant. It was headed "An Engagement in defence of the liberty of the Church of Scotland," and by it they engaged in "holy covenant to maintain at all hazards, the principles therein set forth, and on no account to make any sur render or compromise of them." When he saw this feeling he came to the conclusion, that any measure such as that which was brought forward in the last session of Parliament could be attended with no beneficial result, and that the best course would be, as the demands were so extravagant and monstrous, to leave the law as it at present stood, to sec that its provisions were rigorously enforced, and that its authority was vindicated on the heads of those who violated or evaded it. He believed that a vast majority of the people of Scotland who could form an opinion on the subject were opposed to these demands, that a large majority of the clergy objected to them, and the general body of the Dissenters of Scotland had publicly expressed their disapproval of them. If, then, those who insisted on these demands continued to stir up agitation of this description—if they continued to compel Presbyteries to refuse admission to ministers on illegal grounds, the ultimate result would be, that on them the penalty of the law would be inflicted. If, unfortunately, they should so act, they were alone to blame. He begged, in conclusion, to ask the noble Earl whether it was his intention to proceed with the bill, which he had in the last Session of Parliament introduced, regarding the admission of ministers into the church of Scotland, or any other measure to that effect.

The Earl of Aberdeen

was not sorry, he said, to have heard the question which had been just put to him, for he had received communications from numerous parts of Scotland, making similar inquiries. He was therefore glad of the present opportunity of answering the question. In doing so, he would state the course that he intended to pursue, and the reasons of doing so. He was perfectly well aware of the fact, that the subject had lost none of its interest in Scotland since last Session. It had, however, of late, assumed a new feature. It might seem strange that he should not persevere in a measure which had last Session been so dealt with—a measure which a large majority of the House supported—a measure which was responded to by so large a portion of the parochial clergy of Scotland (when he spoke of the parochial clergy, he did not include the chapel ministers)—a measure which was sanctioned by so large a body of the laity of all ranks and conditions. Nevertheless, he could not forget that her Majesty's Government had declined to interfere in it. True it was, that the noble Viscount opposite had abstained from giving any opinion respecting it; and, therefore, the noble Viscount stood perfectly unpledged; but, he (Lord Aberdeen) knew that the noble and learned Lord who presided on the woolsack strongly objected to the bill, considering it a violation of the rights of patronage. The General Assembly also objected to it. They viewed it as incompatible with the interests of the church, and as rivetting the chains of patronage still more; nay, they spoke of it as an attempt to dethrone the REDEEMER from his seat. These objections were forcing the people as under, and whether the bill were liable to both or neither he would not then inquire. He hoped his measure was justly liable to neither, but, if so, he left it to the reason of any man in his senses to decide which might, with the most appearance of reason, be urged, but different as those objections were when they came to be united in practical opposition to the measure, they appeared to him to deprive it of all chance of effecting the only good he had hoped from it, that of restoring peace to the Church, and when that opposition was aided practically by her Majesty's Government, and the dominant party in the Assembly, he was satisfied, that it would prevent the beneficial effect which he had been sanguine enough to anticipate. It was in consequence of this feeling that he did not press his measure through the House. He was not aware, that any change had occurred in either of the parties which objected to his bill, and therefore the same reason would prevent him from pressing it upon the House in the present Session. But there was an additional reason. He had been told last year that the object of the petitioners for non-intrusion was the total abolition of patronage; and though he did not at the time believe it, he had some reason to think that this was the real object at which the party referred to aimed. The measure he introduced was certainly not calculated to satisfy them on this point, and therefore for this and the previous reasons it would be useless to revive it. He understood her Majesty's Government had maturely considered the subject, and that they had come to the determination to preserve the law as it at present stood. He had nothing to quarrel with in that declaration, for, as matters stood at present, he did not see how they could adopt a more judicious course. He lamented the course taken last year, but, no doubt, the noble Viscount acted in a manner which he thought consistent with his duty. But, to make that declaration effectual, it must be honest and sincere. He did not mean to intimate any doubt of the honesty or sincerity of the noble Viscount himself, but that he must take care that the other members of his Government acted and spoke in harmony with him. Unless he did so, the people of Scotland would be misled and deceived. For instance, I he principal law officer there, the Lord Advocate was looked upon (he was sure erroneously) as the principal supporter of the extreme party. In this country they knew how to estimate the dimensions of a Lord Advocate; but in Scotland he was looked upon as a much more important personage than the noble Viscount himself—he was, in fact, the Government. He was happy, however, to find that the Lord Advocate had retreated from the wrong position in which he had placed himself, and that he had declined to attend at a public dinner, on the ground that a public demonstration at that time would not advance their common objects. These objects were the destruction of all patronage, and the stigmatising the judgment of the Supreme Courts in Scotland, and of that House. Such declarations were very injurious, and the dominant party in the Assembly of Scotland had circulated a report that it was his intention, or the intention of a noble Duke, to bring forward a measure of a much more coercive and stringent character. They knew perfectly well that such was not his intention. But it formed a good subject for declamation and abuse, and they were sufficiently unscrupulous to resort to it. There was nothing they desired so much as a little persecution. At present they were the tyrannical and persecuting party, and cruelly they had persecuted their brethren, for no act but their obedience to the law of the land. That was the "head and front of their offending." He could only say, that it never entered into his contemplation to introduce any more stringent measure. No doubt, if temperately and steadily administered, the law would be too strong for these reverend agitators. He begged the noble Viscount to be consistent, and not to imagine that a declaration in the House, un- accompanied by uniformity of conduct in the members of his Government, would produce the results which he was satisfied they all wished and desired.

Subject at an end.