The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-23 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

Lord BROUGHAM said that the directors of these ,
railways had stated that the suns of 0,0001. had been
paid to the Government on account of these railways
with regard to certain branches leading to Windsor.
Ile wished to know whether any account had been ren-
dered of this money, for it was stated that there -was
no record of receipt by. the Government.
The Earl of CARLISLE said that ho had conducted
the negotiations on the part of the Government with re-
gard to the passage of these lines through Windsor ;
that he had appeared before the Committees of both
Houses of Parliament, and been examined during the
passing of that Bill, and that the whole history of the
transaction appeared in the preamble of the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM—Was the sum mentioned?
The Earl of CARLISLE—Either in the preamble or
the clauses.
The Duke of CLEVELAND considered the Great
Western Company had been hardly used.
The subject then dropped.
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SCOTLAND.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Episcopalians of Scotland, and in so doing, he would
abstain from stating his opinion either in favour
or against the petitioners; but it would bo no de-
parture from the rule, if he expressed his opinion
with regard to those who may have conducted theta j
selves rashly in an un-Christian, or illegal manne r.
The petitioners used the liturgy of the Church of
England, which none had a right to alt tr..
In Scotland these members of the .Church of Engl and
wero sectaries and Dissenters. There were other si
ries in Scotland who had taken it into their heads , that
they were less sectaries than the petitioners. The , peti-
tioners subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles, an I used
' without alteration the Liturgy of the Church of , Eng-
land. Not so the others; they used a liturgy (15 Herent,
and in the use of that liturgy the petitioners wt )srld not
concur, because it contained matter to which tb .eyi could
not agree. The Noble and Learned Lord then a great
length traced the history of the Scotch Ep'tstsapalian
Church since the Reformation, which he con'ie7 aded ex-
pressly showed that that Church had never bet 'n recog-
nised by the Anglican Church as an Establislee d Church
professing the same form of religion. Altlu these
Scotch Episcopalians at -first only endeavours :d to make
themselves equal to the other party, they attempted, as
soon as they had succeeded in their prelimins ry point, to
make themselves superior to them. The way in which
they set about this Vras to stigmatise theni as schismatics.
A clergyman of the Established Church of E ngland, who
had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articlers without any
sacred mental reservation, or undisclosed :scruples, had
been denounced at the altar of this Scotch. Church, and
upon the sentence being referred to one of: the judges of
Scotland, that Lem tied Judge said them was an ex-
cess of violent langt age in it, which was quite uncalled
for, and which coup I scarcely be exceed ee'. There was
a difference, indeed, between the Liturgies of the two
countries, but lhost were of a nature to "bow that this
self-styled Episcopa Tian Church was at 'pelt but a body
of sectarians and oil isenters. The petit toners might be
very bad theologiaal a, but it appeared to him sufficiently
clear that they wete • entitled to prefer, if they chose, the
Liturgy of the Chisi ch of England to the Liturgy of the
spurious Church of Scotland. The effect of the distinc-
tion between the two bodies was seen most strongly iu
this particular. When an English clergyman.left Scot-
land to go to a liv irig in some English diocese, the Bishop
of that diocese s equired him to produce a testimonial
from the Scotch Crouch. Now, supposing the clergy-
man to have bel origed to the other party, although he
had used the Liturgy of the Church of Euglaud
during his residence in Scotland, that same Liturgy by
which he would be guided in his new ministry, and
although he Lai ght bring with him a testimonial Prow
a member of tl to religious body in Scotland with whom
ho bad associ: ited himself, still his licence would be
referred. ,He could not refrain from expressing
his regret at I he existence of these differences and aspe-
rities betweet i these two classes of religious men, both of
which he kr Lew to contain members of the most exalted
virtues, and exemplary piety. He was anxious that
these shou'.d disappear as speedily as possible, and that,
a general harmony might again prevail in Scotland, un-
impaired by schism and class animosities. The Noble
and Learned Lord concluded by reading the prayer of
the petition, which was to allow periodical visitations of
English or Irish bishops into Scotland, for the purpose of
seeing that all classes of religious men in that country
enjoyed equal religious rights.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said that ho did not
mean to deny the statements of the Noble and Learned
Lord who had just spoken, with regard to the present
position of the Episcopalian Church in Scotland, but
he did not think it followed, from his explanation of
it, that that Church had no existence which they
could recognise, bet auso it was not endowed, and bad
no jurisdiction in -ecclesiastical affairs. The Church
of Christ did not -exist until the time of Constantine,
in the manner in which the Noble
.Lord seemed
to contend that it ought, in order to be recognised as
such, though the promulgation of its divine maxims, and
their extensive adoption, had taken place some centuries
before. The Epi tcopalian Church of Scotland had been
placed under the ban of the law down to the time of
Queen Anne, on account of the political feelings of
which its membei:s were suspected, bat at that time the
meetings of the community on the Sabbath-day, and the
performance of religious ceremonies according to their
own ideas, were made legal, to that extent, therelore,
this church had a recognised existence. Their Lordships
would be very vrrong were they to suppose that the pea-
' tions brought fe r ward by the Noble and Learned Lord re
presented the g eneral feeling of the people of Scotland on
this subject. 'the question was one which could not but
deeply concerts them as a body of English Bishops. The
Right Rev. P relate referred to the opinions of Bishop
Horseley, setting forth that the Legislature of this
country would be guilty of a direct infringement of the
Act of Union, it it wero to interfere iu this matter
by any but a Legislative proceeding, and if their
Lordships should sanction " visitations" of the Bishops
of the Established Church of England and Ireland to
Scotland, it could be only by Legislative enactment. Ile
believed the Episcopalian Church of Scotland to be well
grounded in all essential principles of the Christian
Church; and while he honoured the Church to which ho
himself belonged, he repeated that their Lordships ought
not to interfere iu this matter unless on strictly legal.
grounds.
After a few words from the Earl of SUFFOLK,
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, who was almost
inaudible in the gallery, confessed that ho felt a rise,_
pathy for those clergymen who were ordained in
,esug„
laud, and be could nut deny that he felt for those e;krgy_
men who, so ordained, found themselves interfose4 with
in the manner complained of in the discharge of their
duties in Scotland. With respect to those clergymen of
the Church of England who had been engagr4 officiating
in Scotland, he should not object to receive them into
the Church of England, provided they brought satis-
factory testimonials as to doctrine and conduct.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of WORCESTER felt himself called upon
to say that he concurredt in the prayer of the petition,
and he considered it to be his duty to state that he, for
one, should always be ready to receive into his diocese
any clergyman ordained in the Church of England, and
bringing with him from Scotland. testimonials properly
authenticated.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM,
The Duke of ARGYLE said that no one could feel
more deeply on this subject than he felt. It was the
right and it was the duty of their Lordships to legiiilate
on the ecclesiastical affairs of the Episcopal Church of
Scotland; and he confessed he thought it was a hardship
of great magnitude that clergymen, on returning to
Englund from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, should
be subjecced to :he great inconvenience of which the pe-
titioners complained, as resulting from certain ecclesi-
astical proceedings in Scotland. • Ile was, however,
delighted to hear the sentiments uttered by the Arch-
• bi-,hop of Canterbury and by the excellent Prelate, the
Bishop of Worcester, on this subject, in relation to their
willingness to receive any clergymen of the Episcopalian
Church of Scotland, bringing with th,!in satisfactory
testimonials, and be istied tliAt thaw bent,.
molts might he generally act, d upon. Su far as the
prayer of the petition went, he considered that it was =-
advisable and inexpedient; hut he
,trtitted that the pe-
titioners would be most effectually defended, and that
they would be treated in the spirit recommended by the
Bishop of Worcester. With respect to the question of
excommunication," he denied the right of anybody to
excommunicate any clergyman who did not belong to his
own Church. It was of utter indifference to him whe-
ther the prayer of the petition was responded to or not
by the Right Reverend Prelates; but this he would say,
that the day was now passed when excommunication was
not so much regarded; and they had heard from a Noble
Lord of ',heir 4orchtips'
Mouse, that day
the was gone