§ The Earl of Aberdeenrose to call the attention of the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's government to certain circumstances which he confessed had filled him with astonishment, and which he was willing to hope had produced no less an effect on the noble Viscount himself. Not many days ago he had occasion to remind the noble viscount of the declaration which he had made in that House, at the opening of the Session, in regard to the distracted state in which the affairs of the Church of Scotland had been, and still continued to be. The noble Viscount then said, that her Majesty's Government had maturely considered the subject, and that they had come to the determination that no alteration in the state of the law ought to be proposed—that it would be executed against those persons violating it, and that those who obeyed it would be protected. The noble Viscount must admit that he had not treated such a declaration in a captious manner, for, however much he lamented the course which Government had thought proper to pursue last year, in regard to the bill which he had introduced, be thought that it would be unwise to throw away any chance of terminating the difficulties which now existed. He held the noble Viscount and his colleagues responsible for the peace and good order of society in Scotland, and it was in consequence of the difficulties in which Government were placed, that he had expressed a disposition to acquiesce in the determination which had been come to 66 by Government; but he told the noble Viscount that, before the declaration which he had made could be either intelligible or useful, it must be honest and sincere. He told the noble Viscount that it was indispensably necessary to bring the subordinate officers of his Government into harmony with himself—that he ought not to permit; the declaration which he had made in that House to be contradicted and counteracted by a member of his Government in another place. As the noble Viscount had not dissented from anything which he had said on that occasion, he would now state the circumstances which had occasioned him so much surprise, and to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. A few years ago, the commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Scotch universities recommended in their report, that a professorship of biblical criticism should be established in the University of Edinburgh a recommendation against which he had nothing to say, having had the honour to belong to the commission, and having concurred in the report. The establishment of such a professorship, he conceived, would be highly useful; but what he objected to at the present time was, that he believed it had been conferred on a person who had been forward in resisting the law [The Marquess of Normanby—No.] He was happy to think that there were doubts on the subject; but it had been announced in every quarter of Scotland—in all the organs of the party to which the Gentleman whose name he was about to mention (the Rev. Mr. Candlish) belonged—that the new professorship was to be conferred on that individual. This fact was trumpeted forth as a proof that the Government had espoused the opinions of that party in regard to the abolition of patronage; and if such was the case, he knew not how to reconcile it with the declaration made by the noble Viscount. To the proposed professorship one of the deaneries of the Chapel Royal was to be attached; and if it had been conferred on the rev. Mr. Candlish, they had given the chair to one of the most active and persevering of those agitators who had taken part in the dissensions of the last three years—a gentleman who, in his own person, had frequently Violated the law, and who, times oat of number, in his speeches, had stigmatized the sentence of the Court of Session, and of their Lordships' House, as being unholy, un-Christain, and unjust in every point of view. He admitted that he thought the establishment 67 of such a professorship highly proper, but he thought he could show that it was not necessary to select this person to fill it. Whatever that Gentleman's qualifications might be for the platform, nobody would ever pretend that he was particularly celebrated for his acquirements as a scholar; whereas Principal Lee was unquestionably the most learned man in the Church of Scotland, and had, moreover, undertaken to deliver a course of lectures on biblical criticism. It was not, therefore, for want of a person sufficiently qualified to expound that branch of knowledge that they had selected Mr. Candlish for the professorship. In his opinion, Government ought to have adopted the same course in the Edinburgh University that had been pursued by a more northern one, and attached the appointment to the Principalship, for he was convinced, considering the acquirements of Dr. Lee, that he was the person best qualified to fill the chair. He had informed their Lordships of the qualifications possessed by Dr. Lee. He would now state his objections to the appointment being conferred on the Rev. Mr. Candlish: that Gentleman had very recently—within, he believed, the last fortnight or three weeks—committed a flagrant violation of the law, and this appointment could not be viewed by the people of Scotland in any other light, except as a reward for his having done so. Their Lordships were well aware of the situation in which the unfortunate presbytery of Strathbogie was placed. They had fallen under the censure of the church courts for yielding obedience to the sentence of the Court of Session, and for following out the judgment pronounced by their Lordships. The clergymen who had been suspended by the church courts had submitted patiently, for many months, to all the inconveniencies arising from their perplexed situation. A deputation from these gentlemen had waited upon the noble Viscount, who had received them with his usual kindness and courtesy. He sympathized with their condition, and admitted the hardship of their case; but he told them that they had the law on their side, that he could do nothing for them, beyond enforcing the due course of law, and that until the law was found to be unavailing, he thought Parliament ought not to interfere. The deputation had also waited on him; and although he told them, that he was quite ready to present their petition and to state their case, he yet advised them not to have recourse to the strong arm of 68 the law, but to wait, as he felt certain that justice would at last be done to them by Parliament. He told them, that if they proceeded to punish those individuals who had disregarded the interdicts of the Court of Session, they would only create a greater sympathy for them on the part of the public, who entertained the same views, and who would be too apt to forget the justice in their contemplation of the nature of the punishment. On that advice these gentlemen had acted for many months, and would have continued to act in the same spirit of submission, had not a case occurred in which one of the gentlemen had thought proper to claim the protection of the law. It seemed, that a new church had been recently built in the parish of Huntly, within a few hundred yards of the parish church. He understood, that for this purpose a gross misappropriation of the funds collected for the purpose of church extension had taken place, and had been turned away from districts in which spiritual destitution did really prevail. Be that as it might, this Mr. Candlish had advertised, fourteen days beforehand, that he would on a particular day attend at Huntly, and open the new church. At the same time, he requested all those parents who had children to be baptised, to bring them to him for that purpose. He wished that the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), who generally took his seat on the cross benches, had been present, because he would have borne testimony to the high character and exemplary life of the present minister of Huntly. This gentleman had thought it necessary to prevent an invasion of his parish, and had had accordingly served an interdict on Mr. Candlish before he left Edinburgh, prohibiting his intrusion in the parish of Huntly; that interdict had been treated with the utmost contempt. Mr. Candlish went to Huntly; he preached at the opening of the new church or conventicle; he baptised several children, and took upon himself all the functions which by law belonged to the established minister of the parish. Notwithstanding this illegal interference with his lawful authority, the present minister of Huntly, he believed, retained extensively the affections of his congregation; but it was impossible to deny, that a considerable part of the population had been led to side with those agitating incendiaries, and had been more or less detached from their established minister. Violent animosities and dissensions 69 among many families had been produced by the agitation of these persons, a state of things for which, as he had before stated, the noble Viscount and his colleagues were responsible. The minister of Huntly having served the interdict on Mr. Candlish wag now prepared to follow it up by petition to the Court of Session, praying for punishment on the individual who had infringed the injunction; and if the court granted the prayer of the petition, the rev. Mr. Candlish would inevitably be sent to prison, where he would have leisure to compose the syllabus of his lectures for that professorship which it was said the noble Viscount intended to bestow on him. What were the people of Scotland to think? What meaning were they to attach to the declaration of the noble Viscount? Of course it could not mean that the law, while it remained as at present, was not to be duly executed for the protection of those who obeyed it. It could not mean that those who violated the law were to be rewarded. If the report which prevailed in Scotland of Mr. Candlish's appointment were true, how was it possible to reconcile an act so inconsistent with the statement of the noble Viscount? How could any credit be given, either by their Lordships or any other persons, to the declaration made by the noble Viscount, if acts so incompatible with such a declaration were done by the Government? If his intention had been to stultify the country, the noble Viscount, could pot have acted differently. He acquitted him of any such intention. He believed, that the noble Viscount meant honestly; but he would ask him if what had taken place was at all consistent with such a declaration? He had heard the noble Viscount accused of yielding unduly to the influence of an hon. and learned Gentleman in the other House, who was supposed to control the better judgment of the noble Viscount. Whether this were true or not, he would not stop to inguire: but this he would say, that he did not know any accusation which could more affect the character and capacity of the noble Viscount. With regard to the present case, be confessed he was unable to explain the inconsistency of the acts of the noble Viscount with the declaration which he bad made, and he therefore wished to ask the noble Viscount whether he was aware of the circumstances which he had Staged. [Viscount Melbourne: What circumstances?] Whether the professorship alluded to had been conferred on Mr. 70 Candlish—a person who had violated the interdict of the Court of Session by exercising the ministerial functions in a parish from which he had been prohibited by the law of the land.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, that perhaps he was not able to answer the noble Earl in so satisfactory a manner as the noble Marquess near him, who would have saved the noble Earl the trouble of making a long speech if he had been permitted to answer the noble Earl yesterday, when the noble Earl gave notice of his motion. The noble Earl had certainly stated accurately enough the substance of the declaration made by him at the opening of the Session. He did state that he did not think it prudent or expedient for the Government to introduce any new enactment under the present circumstances, and that the law of the land would be allowed to take its course against those who had violated it.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenasked whether Government meant to protect those who had been exposed to inconvenience and injury from obeying the law?
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, such a question was quite superfluous when addressed to any government, more particularly when addressed to a government like the present. The question, he thought, answered itself. He would not enter into an argument whether, supposing the appointment alluded to by the noble Earl had been made, there would have been in that case any violation of the declaration which he had made. Reference had been made to his having promoted persons to political situations in Ireland who had held opinions opposed to his own. Undoubtedly this might be true; but he could not see how it affected the present case, because no such appointment as that alluded to by the noble Earl had been made. It had been notified to the town council of Edinburgh that it was intended to follow out the recommendations contained in the report, and to establish in the University of that city a professorship of biblical criticism, but no appointment to the chair had as yet taken place.
§ The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that there was a great difference between bestowing the patronage of government on persons who had taken part in the agitation of Irish affairs, and on persons in the situation of Mr. Candlish. The Irish agitators had not violated the law; however much he might disapprove of the agitation for the repeal of the Union, he did 71 not think there was anything illegal in it; but the clerical agitators in Scotland acted in opposition to the law of the land, and set at defiance the sentence of the supreme court. He trusted that, if the noble Viscount's observations meant anything, they meant that those persons who violated the law should not be rewarded.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, if the noble Earl had not taken the unusual course of Refusing to receive the information that was offered to him on the preceding evening, the present discussion would have been unnecessary. The information which he had received with respect to the merits of Mr. Candlish was very different from that which had been supplied to the noble Earl. As to the professorship, the fact was, that although on the recommendation of the commissioners, her Majesty's Government had agreed upon founding a Professorship of Biblical Criticism, the office had not yet been established, and, of course, no professor had been installed. In consequence of many recommendations in favour of Mr. Candlish, her Majesty's Government had been disposed to give him the appointment, but no communication had as yet been made to him of such intention; and the moment they heard that he had placed himself in opposition to the law, they at once put an end to all further proceedings upon the subject. There was no difference of opinion among the Members of her Majesty's Government as to supporting those who obeyed the laws, and discouraging those who violated them. The noble Earl had taken a most unusual course on this occasion. He not only declared who ought not to be professor, but he also suggested who should fill that situation. So far, however, were Ministers from passing over the merits of Dr. Lee, that they had determined upon giving him one of the vacant deaneries of the Chapel Royal of Edinburgh, in connexion with his situation as principal of the university. It was unnecessary for him to defend the intention which existed to create the professorship, for his noble Friend opposite had been on the commission, and had signed the recommendation that it should be established. He (the Marquess of Normanby) would gladly confer one of the deaneries of the Chapel Royal in Scotland, which had formerly been sinecures, upon the individual who might be appointed to the new professorship. The case, however, at the present moment stood thus—the professorship had not yet been created, though 72 an intention to establish it had been notified; claim of this gentleman had with others been under consideration, and of his fitness for the office he had heard so much that he should have thought him a proper individual to be appointed, not on account of his non-intrusion principles, but because he thought there should be no absolute exclusion on account of feelings and opinions, so long as those opinions came within the law. An objection, however, had been taken, that Mr. Candlish had violated the law, that objection had been taken into consideration, and the result had been that no appointment had been made.
§ Adjourned.