FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

HL Deb 10 July 1845 vol 82 cc307-12

The Marquess of Breadalbane

presented petitions from the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, the Inhabitants of Wick, and of the Free Church congregation at Peebles, complaining of the conduct of certain landowners in Scotland, who peremptorily refuse to grant sites for the erection of churches for the use of congregations of the Free Church of Scotland; also a petition from the Presbytery of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in connexion with the Presbyterian Church in England, praying that "the law of property may be so far modified as to admit of the purchase of sites for churches and chapels for the use of members of the Free Church." The noble Marquess stated, that great dissatisfaction had been caused by the refusal of landed proprietors to grant sites among the community of the Free Church. That community embraced 800 congregations, with 620 ministers. The amount subscribed for the use of the Free Church since the disruption, was 776,000l., of which 320,000l. had been applied in the erection of churches. He hoped that the prayer of the petitioners, which was confined to obtaining the accommodation indispensable for the free exercise of their worship, would be acceded to; and that their Lordships' would pronounce by an authoritative declaration that men who were good citizens and obedient to the laws, although dissenting from the Established Church, should not be precluded from that free exercise of their religion which was guaranteed to the professors of all forms of Christianity by the great principle of toleration inseparable from the British Constitution. If large proprietors were to exercise their rights of property in direct contradiction to that principle, we might say that we had a theory of religious liberty, but that our practice would be totally at variance with it.

The Earl of Cawdor

denied, that in the Conduct which he had observed with regard to the adherents of the Free Church, he had been actuated by the harsh and oppressive motives attributed to him by the Rev. Mr. Begg and others, or that he had wished to exercise an extreme right in order to obstruct the enjoyment of religious liberty. He had, in the first instance, objected to the erection by them of a permanent place of worship, because he had some reason then for believing that the delusion would be but temporary, and that the people would return to the Establishment; but he had given consent for the erection of a temporary building, on the condition that it should be removable at six months' notice, which he thought a perfectly reasonable one. He was only anxious to promote the permanent interest of the country. The question between his tenantry and him, was not one of principle but of time, and he trusted that in the end all differences would be amicably adjusted.

The Duke of Buccleuch

said, he should not have troubled their Lordships with any observations, had it not been that his name was mentioned in the petition as one of those who objected to and took means to prevent the building of a Free Church; and he also wished to take notice of the extraordinary zeal and diligence with which some people laboured to put forward the seceding party, as if they were the great body of the Church of Scotland. For his own part, he thought, instead of any complaints being made against him, that he, on the contrary, had great right to complain of the treatment that he had received, and of the conduct of many persons connected with the seceding body, in the part of the country with which he was more immediately connected. In those districts, every species of agitation was resorted to, and no pains spared to excite the worst passions of the people. The agitators talked of toleration—it would be well if they only practised a little of that toleration themselves which they so loudly demanded from others. They had described him as a godless tyrant, who would trample down their rights; and this description of him had been given to one of the congregations during that most solemn period of divine service, the administration of the sacrament, and that language was applied to him by the person officiating. Though the worst feeling was thus exhibited against him, he hoped that he had preserved his own mind free from the influence of any angry sentiments. As he had so far occupied their Lordships' attention, he should just add, that having heard it was intended to perform divine service and administer the sacrament in one of the parishes with which he was connected, literally on the roadside, he wrote in order to have arrangements made for preventing this; it did, however, take place within a field at no considerable distance. But it was not alone the congregation of one parish which met there; it was a vast concourse of people assembled from all the adjacent parishes. What he said at that time was, that he saw no reason why the parties, whose case was now under consideration, could not do as other Dissenters did—why, for example, they might not go to the next town. Then he had been accused of dismissing servants of his for joining the Free Church. So far from that being the fact, he had not interfered with overseers of his who had exercised their influence with the labourers in his employment to induce them to join the Free Church. He had not been actuated by any illwill towards the Free Church of Scotland; and he might state that he had in his employment persons who had become members of that Church, and in whom he placed the most entire confidence. A great number of his tenants in different parts of the country had also become members of the Free Church, but with them he had had no difference. He believed that not one quarter of the discontent to which the noble Marquess had referred would have been manifested but for the itinerant agitators who had gone about the country, and who, instead of inculcating charitable feelings, had excited feelings of hostility against the Established Church and the landed proprietors. They had, in effect, used the language of a rev. gentleman who had taken a prominent part in that movement, that "the Establishment was a great moral nuisance, which ought to be swept from the face of the earth."

Lord Campbell

said, he did not wish to throw any blame upon the noble Duke (Buccleuch), or the noble Earl (Cawdor), but he was anxious to state generally his sentiments upon a subject so interesting to his native country. He considered the noble Earl (Cawdor) was fully justified in doing everything in his power to prevent the disruption of the Church of Scotland; for in his (Lord Campbell's) opinion the disruption of that Church would be a tremendous national calamity. He thought that the Church of Scotland, for which he entertained the highest respect and reverence, had, for many generations conferred the greatest benefits upon that country. But he must say, that any great proprietor in a county or parish, who would endeavour to persecute those who had left the Established Church, by refusing them the means of erecting places of worship, abused the rights of property, and placed those rights in great jeopardy. Though he did not agree in the principles upon which the recent secession had taken place, it was impossible not to admire and respect the motives by which the seceding members of the Church had been actuated—they had acted in a most noble and disinterested manner, and had sacrificed all prospects of worldly advantage for conscience' sake. It could not be said that the Free Church did not inculcate sound doctrine and pure morality; but he regretted, with the noble Earl opposite the intolerance manifested by some of its members. He thought, that while not a few of them would resist persecution themselves, they would not be slow to persecute others; but he considered that the conduct of great landed proprietors, who, after the disruption had taken place, endeavoured to embarrass and harass the members of the Free Church, by preventing them from purchasing sites in localities where a place of worship was needed, was greatly to be deprecated. He believed there was no proprietor in Ireland, who, however strong his Protestantism might be, and however he might disapprove of the Popish religion, would not allow a site for the erection of a Roman Catholic Chapel. The law, as it now stood, was certainly in favour of those who refused such grants The petition presented by his noble Friend prayed that the law might be altered, and he considered that if these refusals were persisted in, some alteration would be necessary. In the case of the railroads their Lordships had interfered with the rights of private property in a manner which called forth the nightly vituperation of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who had left the House. Having done this, he did not see why, if it became indispensably necessary, it would be any violation of the just rights of property, if, under certain restrictions, they should provide, that on reasonable compensation being given to a proprietor, sites should be granted for the erection of places of worship in connexion with the Free Church. This might be done by appeal to the Court of Session, or some other tribunal. He hoped, however, that such a step would not be necessary, and that if a reconciliation between the Established Church and the Free Church was hopeless, both parties would remember that they were Christians.

The Marquess of Breadalbane

replied. He thought the charge of intolerance imputed to the Free Church somewhat misapplied. He believed they were ready to act on the principle of giving toleration to all religious persuasions — amongst others, to the Roman Catholic. This was the description given of one of these meetings by the clergyman who officiated:— I too, Sir, have been at Canobie; and never shall I forget the scene that was there presented to my sight. I went to Canobie amid snow and storm, and had formed the resolution within myself not to speak to them of the privations and sufferings they were undergoing. I was glad, Sir, that I had formed this resolution, for I could not have trusted myself to speak to them of the wrongs they were called to endure. When I went from Langholm on Sabbath morning to the place where I was to preach, the roads were covered with the melting snow, the wind was biting cold, the Esk was roaring in full flood, and a more bleak and wintry prospect it is impossible to conceive. On turning a point in the road, I suddenly came upon 500 people collected together to hear the Gospel; and so sudden, impressive, and desolate was the whole scene, that when it broke upon our view, the man who drove me to the spot looked in my face, and burst into tears. I never saw such a scene before; God grant that I may never see such a scene again! Had the Duke of Buccleuch been there, he could not have withheld his tears at the sight. The hardest heart must have melted to see so many, young and old, assembled on that open road for the worship of the God of their fathers. A tent was erected for me under the leafless branches of a tree, which, in truth, afforded little protection to me or to them: but, Sir, I found I could not preach in that tent, It may seem to some an unaccountable kind of feeling in me; but you can understand it. I felt as if I could not preach in that tent while those poor people stood shivering round me. I have been much struck to find that, in very similar circumstances, when preaching on a bleak moor, Richard Cameron, in his wanderings, was accommodated with a tent; but he felt that, while the people stood unprotected around him, he could not preach in it. It was with the same feeling that, upon this occasion, I could not preach to those people from the tent. I left it and took up my place upon the ground. Before I was half through with the sermon, lashing torrents of rain came down upon me, and soon I was almost as wet as if I had been dragged through the river that rolled by us in winter floods. On the conclusion of the service—while the rain fell heavy—I said to some gentlemen who were present, that it would be cruelty to ask these people to come back again; but with one voice, they protested against my resolution, and said, with an earnestness which bespoke the earnestness of their hearts, that if I would remain to preach, they would come back, and remain to hear me if it were till midnight. Were not such things enough to excite the feelings of the people? As toleration was, in theory, a part of the Constitution, it ought to be observed in every part of the country.

Petitions read, and ordered to lie on the Table.