The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-27 00:00:00

IMPER.

AMEN T

by the Scotch Parliament, sanctioned by the English Par-
liament, and there were various Acts confirming to them
the same advantages which the English Church had. It
was not independent, in as far as—and when the Right
Hon. Baronet talked about rendering to Caesar what was
Ctesar's, he should recollect that the Scotch Church came
to that House begging—that they had voted to it at one
time 50,0001., and that they voted annually about 15,0001.
It was, therefore, in some measure maintained out of the
public money, and though the King was not the Head of
the Church in Scotland as he was in England, yet his
Commissioner was.—(Cries of " No.") The King's repre-
sentative superintended and sat during the whole time
of the business, and he apprehended that any Scotch sub-
ject who found himself oppressed, and interfered with by
this religious establishment, and his civil and political duties
interfered with, he thought that if there was any ground of
complaint brought to that House by an English subject
against an English Church, the same ought to hold good
against the Church of Scotland. This gentleman had been
raised by his townsmen to the office of Magistrate—he had,
at their request, presided at a political meeting, and for
this the Presbytery interfered with him. He did not
offend against the discipline of the Church, and lie
I must say that the interference of the Presbytery was an
unconstitutional interference of the vilest kind.—(Hear.)
He considered that the petitioner was perfectly justified in
laying his complaint before that House. If that House
interfered so far with the Church of Scotland as to add to
its strength by supplying it with money—if there were
annual grants to continue that support—he hoped that
when a subject was attempted to be deprived of his
civil rights by a clerical tribunal, he thought it a fit
subject of complaint for the House to entertain. He
hoped that the House that day would not reject his
petition which was worded with great propriety. He sub-
mitted to the House that there was nothing in the petition
to prevent its complaint from being brought before that
House. It would be another question, if the petition
proposed as a remedy that they should interfere with the
Presbytery and Synod—if it stepped out of the way for
the purpose of proposing a remedy against similar effects
in future, that would be a question on which a diffe-
rence of opinion might reasonably exist.—(Hear, hear.)
He hoped that no subject would ever be precluded
from laying his complaint before the House, if it was
couched in respectful language, and he trusted the House
would consider that the petition ought to be received.
Mr. FOX MAULE said that with regard to the
reception of the petition, and its being laid on the
table, that was a question for the consideration of the
House ; but with regard to the interference of-the-HOuse,
he must deny the right of that House to interfere with the
regulations of the Scotch Church. He would put it to
his Honourable and Learned Friend whether, when
the House had no right to interfere in affording a
remedy, he would persist in presenting the petition.
If the Honourable Gentleman's object were to call
the attention of the public to the matter, he thought that
object was already gained, and therefore he would recom-
mend him to withdraw the petition.
' Dr. BOWRING did not think the petition had been
rightly understood ; but, nevertheless, if the Speaker
thought that, under the circumstances of the case, he ought
not to press the petition before the House, he would with-
draw it.
Mr. PRINGLE, as a Scotch Member, could not remain
silent after the confusion of ideas that bad been poured
forth from the opposite side. Circumstances occurred
which had drawn down the reprehension of the Church of
Scotland upon the petitioner. The matter had been inves-
tigated before the only tribunal competent to do so ; and
they were of opinion that he had acted inconsistently with
his spiritual character as an elder. Whether the petitioner
continued to be an elder or an officer of that Church or not,
was not a question with which any external authority
could interfere. In her internal discipline, and the
duty of her officers, and in her spiritual authority
and jurisdiction, the Church of Scotland was per-
fectly independent. That independence bad been re-
cognized by various acts of the Legislature, and as the
King's Commissioner presided over the General Assembly,
he could not interfere with the acts of that body.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON contended that the House had
no power to take the subject matter into consideration, be-
cause they could not afford redress. He would go further,
and say that it was impossible that the petitioner could
have been retained in his situation of elder, which was a
spiritual one, after the conduct of which he had been
guilty. He had presided at a meeting which passed
resolutions, saying that there ought to be no con-
nection between the Church and State ; he concurred in
those views, and therefore, as he wished to destroy the
Church of Scotland, he could not with safety be retained
one of its officers. He did not think, that, under the cir-
cumstances, the petitioner had any grievance to complain of.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The Hon. and Learned Member
had said that this was a spiritual affair, and that therefore
the House could not interfere. If the argument was car-
ried out to its full extent then he fully agreed with it, for
it went to say that the State had nothing to do with the
Church—that was the only ground upon which Hon. Mem-
bers had said that the House could not interfere in this case.
He could comprehend the argument of the Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, and below him, if they would support a separation
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 26.
between the Church and State. All that his friend Bailie A ballot on the Merionet Craig had done, was to advocate the same principle. He
h Election petition was fixed for (Mr. O'Connell) would put the case of a clergyman who
this day, but the petitioners not having entered into the ne-
was deprived of his benefice for being a Tory. Was there
cessary recognizances, the ballot did not take place, and the anything spiritual in being a Tory P—lie thought the least
Speaker took the Chair at the usual hour. in the world.—(Laughter.) Yet would the Hon. Gentle-
LEITH PIER BILL. men then argue as they do now. It was always the case
The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in when a spiritual court took up a temporal case—they let in
a Bill for the purpose of erecting a pier at Leith. the House to jurisdiction. The petitioner presided
Sir G. CLERK would not offer any opposition to the as a magistrate over a public meeting which was held
motion of the Lord Advocate.
by his townsmen ; and for so doing, he was displaced
After a few words from Mr. HUME, leave was given from a situation of honour in his Church. Why, upon the
to bring in the Bill, which was read a first time, same principle, every signer of a petition to that House
the Trinity Harbour Bill.
The LO RD ADVOCATE presented a
petition against would suffer the same punishment, if it was upon the same
SCOTCH CHURCH.
subject. There being such monstrous propositions brought
forward, he should most certainly vote for the laying of the
Dr. BOWRING rose to present a petition of which be petition on the table, though no person was more convinced
had given notice, inasmuch as it contained allegations . than he was that the House ought not to interfere in spi-
against the authorities of the Church of Scotland. It was ritual matters.
from an individual named Hugh Craig, who was an elder of Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that in everything
the Church, and in 1834 was called upon to preside at a connected with Church government in Scotland, the
public meeting, at which the union between Church and oath of the King at his coronation was, that he would
The petitioner had applied to the
State was condemned. Within twenty-four hours he re-
not interfere. ceived notice from the authorities of the Church with
supreme power, and that power had decided against him.
whichder himself
ppealed to had fought, bled, and conquered—(Cheers)—and it would
the Presbytery of Irvine, and to the Synod of Glasgow be hard, indeed, if the House now attempted to deprive
and Ayr, but still he remained deposed, and he complained them of that independence.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and
that in his person the rights of justice had been violated, Learned Member for Kilkenny had talked about the elders
he not having been served with notice of the offence with
which he stood char and youngers—(Hear)—by which, as he (Sir J. Graham)
ged. The petitioner alleged that he thought he intended to cast a slur upon the Scotch
had acted magisterially and ministerially at the meeting in Church.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in answer to that, he would
question. He had not suffered in his political status, as his say that there was nothing the Scotch thought so much of
fellow-citizens of Kilmarnock had again and again elected as their independence in Church Government. He was
him to the office of Bailie. He had, however, been con- for the complete maintenance of that independence in
demned unheard, both in the Presbytery and in the As- Church Government in Scotland ; and if the Hon. Mem-
sembly, so that in his case the great principles ofjustice had ber f
been violated, so that he had been driven from
the Church should be compelled orced the
to vote against question to a division, he
him.
to which he was sincerely attached, as having been brought
Mr. O'NELL could the Right
up in it from his youth. He prayed that the House would ronet that, in CONwhat he had said,assure he meant not theon slight-
afford such redress as they thought fit.
Sir G. CLERK was sorry that it was his duty to o est disrespect to any of the members of the Scotch Church.
oppose Mr. hoped that his Hon. Friend wou not
the reception of this petition. He was anxious to open
the withdraw theHUME petition, but would insist upon its being laid
portals of the House to petitioners as wide as possible ; but on the table.
it would not be for the convenience of the House to receive Mr. POTTER said if the Church of Scotland was co
petitions, to which it was not possible for them to afford any spiritual and so independent, why did it come to the House
redress. But on this occasion he took higher ground—he and ask for grants of money?
denied the authority of the House to do anything in the e of te EXER could
matter at all—he denied that it had any power in the case. notT choncede to the preCHANCELLOR-eminenche of theCHEQ ScotcUh Church
The Church of Scotland did not admit of the interference wheel they chose to misapply their spiritual functions
of any civil power in matters regarding the internal admi- for tire purpose of averting a temporal wrong. In
nistration of the Church. Suc was its claim of right the present case it was admitted that there had been a
granted by William the Third, and such its claim granted spiritual power exercised in a matter in which the House
by the Scotch Parliament in the Act of Union. They ought not to interfere. It was the habit of the House
werell ready to admit the interference of the civil magistrates every day, whether for good or evil purposes, to receive
ma cases where he had the right to interfere ; they were petitions that could lead to no result.—(Hear, hear.)
ready to render to " Caesar the things that were Caesar's It was only the other day they had a long discussion
but they were not ready to allow their right to interfere in upon a petition presented by the Hon. Member for Brid-
awny thing
h connected with the discipline of their Church. port, relative to the Troutbeck property, which petition
h? e would ask, were the more proper judges of the sought to interfere with the decision of a court of law
partiessto hold office in the Church of Scotland than the and he (Mr. Spring Rice) might have objected to it on that
Church itself?.
.He would not enter into the merits of the ground, but if the petition was respectfully worded, it was
case of the petitioner ;he knew nothing of the meeting that the duty of a Member to present it, though the House
had taken place ;but he understood that circumstances had might not have the power to grant the relief it prayed.
taken place there which the Church of Scotland had dis- It was a matter of appeal tot the discretion of the Members
approved of, and which they felt called upon to depre- of the House. The present was perfectly analo-
cate. Now what was the case of the petitioner gous to the case the other day, and as its pre-
Why it was such as the Church of Scotland had provided sentation could lead to no sesult, he would suggest to the Hon.
a remedy for, the petitioner had applied to the tribunal Member the propriety of withdrawing it. If, however, the
that was to grant that remedy, and that tribunal had de- Hon. Member persevered in his motion, he (the Chancellor
tided against him ; he was not satisfied with that, but had of the Exchequer) would feel it his duty to support the
again applied to the General Assembly, who had again petition, it being respectfully worded, and not at variance
decided against him. How, therefore, he would ask, with the rules of the House.
could the House interfere, the petitioner having been de- Sir G. CLERK explained. He should feel it his duty
posed by those persons who were alone entitled to to persevere in his opposition to the reception of the petition.
judge whether he was a competent officer or not. Mr. CLAY, after what had passed, would certainly
This question related entirely to Church discipline ; and recommend his Hon. Friend not to withdraw the petition.
on that ground he would certainly, if he stood alone, resist He contended that Parliament had thepowerto interfere with
the reception of this petition. - the internal discipline and conduct of the Church of Scotland.
Mr. HUME
take these said that the Hon. Baronet would have
Mr. GOULBURN would so far concur with the Chan-
had a right to
objections, if the Church of cellor of the Exchequer. to recommend the Hon... Mem-
Scotland had been like the Catholic Church of Ireland, ber to withdraw the petition. If, however, the petition was
not tinder the laws and regulations of this country. But pressed, he should oppose it, because he thought the prac-
this was not the case ; and therefore the ground on which tier of receiving petitions on which the House could give
the petition respecting the discipline of the Catholic Church no redress was most injudicious.
was rejected did not occur here. They had a right to Dr. BOWRING said that the petitioner's object had
petition against the discipline of the English Church, and now nearly been obtained, and under all the circumstances
the §cotch Church was as much under the protection ofof the case he would withdraw the petition.—( Hear, hear.)
'drat`-use as the English Church. The Right Ho- The Petition was then withdrawn.
' LI 12..._
Otltavie `asurenet (Sir G. Clerk) said they had no BRIGHTON RAILWAY.
,e//,1,,,-kight to,;'?ec.eitie such a petition ; but he asked him Mr. HUME then rose to present a petition from the
nip ether .thentrvh of Scotland had not been agreed to proprietors of Cundy's Line of Railroad to Brighton.
(
....„,:-
..rti
ri• .-.1
71,),-..-

ROUSE OF LORDS, Juzr 26.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at five o'clock.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. BERNAL, and other Members from the House of
Commons, brought up the Court of Exchequer (Scot-
land) Bill, the Established Church Bill, the Stamp
Duties on Newspapers Bill, and the Greenwich Pier Bill,
which were severally read a first time.
LIGHT HOUSES BILL.
Lord DUNCANNON moved the order of the day for
the House resolving itself into a Committee on this Bill.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from the guardians of a minor interested in a Light-house,
praying for compensation if the Bill should pass.
Lord LYNDHURST had a petition to present from
a Gentleman of the name of William Cope, in the
county of Essex, stating that by letters patent, of the
date of the reign of Charles the Second, the light-
house of Teignmouth, in the county of Northumber-
land, was, for the consideration therein mentioned, in-
vested with the privilege of taking certain tolls and dues
granted to the patentees. The present petitioner de-
duced his title from the original grantees, and by an
Act of the 42 Geo. 111. certain alterations were directed
to be made in this light-house, and, in consideration
of the petitioner making the required alterations at
his own expense, certain additional dues were granted to
him as an equivalent for the money he had expended. He
stated, that by this Bill his property in this light-house was
taken away from him without any compensation.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY said that the Bill pro-
vided compensation.
Lord LYNDHURST—By whom is it to be assessed ?
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY—By a jury, in the
usual manner.

Lord DUNCANNON read the clause of the Act,
which provided that when the parties did not agree as
to the amount of compensation, it should be decided by the
award of a jury, summoned in the usual manner.
Lord LYNDHURST suggested the propriety of post-
poning the Bill for the present, until they should have had
an opportunity of seeing what its effect was likely to be.
The Bill was accordingly postponed.
EXCISE LICENSES BILL.
On the motion of Lord DUNCANNON, this Bill was
read a third time.

EDINBURGH POOR RATES.
Lord HATHER.TON moved the second reading of
this Bill.

The Earl of [IA DDINGTON opposed the Bill. It
contemplated a violent invasion of the rights of pro-
perty, without the consent of the parties. It was
unjust and unreasonable, and on these grounds he would
move that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months.

The Earl of MINTO thought that he could ga-
ther, from what had fallen from the Noble Earl, that
the Bill could not be resisted upon principle.
Unless this Bill passed there would be no fund available as
a provision for the poor of Edinburgh, except what was ob-
tained by voluntary contributions. He hoped that this
Bill, which was both just and reasonable, would be read a
second time.

The Earl of ROSSLYN thought the Bill was a most
ucjustifiable interference with private property, and he
would therefore oppose it. He hoped the Noble Lord
(Hatherton) would consent to postpone it till next Session.
Lord H ATHERTON said that he thought it a
moilstrous' injustice that the College of Justice of Edin-
burgh, which comprised one-fourth of the property of that
town, should be exempt from the floor rates. As, however,
he saw no chance of carrying the Bill against the opposition
of the Noble Lords opposite, he would let it rest till next
Session.

The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time this
day three months.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
On the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, this Bill was
read a.first time, and ordered to be real a second time on
Friday next.

CHURCH RATES.
Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Chatham against Church-rates.
FOREIGN CONSULS.
Lord MELBOURNE rose to move the second read-
ing of the Bill, which had come up from the other
House, for the better regulation of our Consular
establishments in the Ottoman dominions and the Levant.
The Bill was founded upon the recommendations of a Se-
lect Committee of the other House of Parliament, which
reported that our present system for the regulation of fo-
reign Consulships was in many respects defective.
After some observations from the Duke of WELLING-
TON, the Bill was read a second time.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the Report
of the Committee on this Bill.

The Third readint, of the Irish Tithe Bill was fixed on
Thursday next, on the motion of Lord LYNDHURST.
The Insolvent Debtor's Bill went through Committee,
and the other Bills having been advanced a stage, the
House adjourned.

ads.