The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, MAziciz 5.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.

The Scotch Vagrancy Bill passed through a Com-
mittee and was reported.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH presented a petition
from the Smithfield and St. Bartholomew Temperance
School, Tower Hamlets, against the opium trade with.
China. We understood the Noble Lord to say that he
entirely disagreed with the prayer.
Captain PECHELL and others, from the Commons,
brought up the Brighton Small Debts' Bill, the Brigh-
ton Sewers' Bill, and other Bills, which were read a first
time.

CORN LAWS.
The Earl of WARWICK presented 203 petitions
from Warwickshire against any alteration in the Corn-
laws. He supported the petitions, and denounced the
agitation upon that subject as mischievous, and cal-
culated to set the farmers against their landlords.
The Duke of RICHMOND was delighted to find
that the farmers of Warwickshire were doing their
duty. He hoped that their petitions would be an index
to the farmers throughout the country—( Hear, hear)—
and that farmers would not allow themselves to be
deluded by a parcel of agitators, who were going about
the country disseminating doctrines that would be
ruinous to the farmers, and to the labourers that obtained
a living under them. The Noble Duke presented a
petition from Gillingham (Sussex), to the same effect.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a similar peti-
tion from another parish in Sussex, and a petition from
the Corporation of Leeds for a better mode for the re-
gistration of burgesses.
The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented a peti-
tion for the abolition of the Corn•laws from a place in
the county of Sutherland.
RATING OF WORKHOUSES.
Lord REDESD ALE presented a petition against
the rating of workhouses.
CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from
a place in Scotland complaining of the conduct of the
General Assembly, and in favour of the existing law of
patronage.
The Duke of SUTHERLAND presented several
petitions from parishes in the counties of Sutherland,
Perth, Roxburgh, sad Ayr, against the existing law.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a similar peti-
tion from the parish of Huntly. As a landed proprietor
in Scotland, and a dissenter from the Established Church
in that country, he did not think it became him to give
any opinion on the subject. He could only repeat
what he had said OR a previous evening, that he hoped
the Government would introduce some measure to allay
the ill feeling that prevailed. When such a measure
was brought in he would perform his duty
as an independent Peer of Parliament. Also
from Clatt in Aberdeenshire, from Glass in Banff-
shire, and from Brachaden in the Presbytery of Skye,
to the same effect.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said he had several peti-
tions to present on this subject, all with the same prayer,
and yet all meant something different from each other.
Their Lordships had recently heard a great deal OR
the subject of nondntrusion, and were probably destined
to hear a great deal more. He thought that in five
minutes he could explain to their Lordships what were
the views of the several portions of the Church of
Scotland on this subject. There existed in the Church
of Scotland a numerous body of persons who regarded the
very existence of patronage as a grievance, an abomin-
ation, a cursed thing, a hateful thing, which ought to
be abolished. With this class non-intrusion meant the
total abolition of patronage. The next division com-
prised those who did not advocate the abolition of pa-
tronage, but who insisted upon the right of the people
to an absolute veto on the presentation of any Minister,
without assigning any reason for their rejection of him.
That was the language of the Veto Act of 1834, which
their Lordships had, however, declared tobe illegal. That
was an opinion held by many Members of the Church
of Scotland, by the General Assembly of that Church,
and by the majority of the Presbyteries. With this
class non.intrusion meant the right of the people to re-
ject any presentee who might be disagreeable to thorn,
absolutely, and without assigning any reason for such
rejection.—(Hear, hear.) The third class consisted
of those who agreed that the people had a right
to make any objection they might think proper
to a presentee, either with regard to his character or
his acquirements, or to make any objection, such as that
they were of opinion that they could not be edified by
his ministry, which they might think proper to make, and
that the Church Court had a right of deciding arbi-
trarily on those objections, and of rejecting the pre-
sentee, even although the objections did not in any degree
affect either his character or his acquirements. This class
also constituted a large proportion of the Church of Scot-
land. They were not praying that the Veto Act should
be legalised, but that the people should be qualified to
reject for any reason which they might think proper,
or even if they were of opinion that they wore not likely
to be edified, and that the Church Courts should be able
to give effect to these reasons ; these constituted the third
class. These were the four great divisions into which the
Church was divided upon the subject, although there
might be other shades of difference. When he men-
tioned that division which prayed for the abolition of
patronage, he ought to mention that they did not wish
the people generally to have the election of the mi-
nister—they limited that election to the persons
who were in full communion with the Church—
any, not even so far did they pray for, for their
prayer limited the election to the heads of families
in full communion with the Church. That was an
arbitrary limitation, the reason for which he could
not account for ; he saw no good reaasoa why the
communicants, not heads of families, should be de-
prived of the right. The manner of dispensing the
Holy Sacrament was different in Scotland to what it
was in England—the people there were not allowed to
go up to the table indiscriminately—only those were
admitted who were considered qualified to partake of
the Holy rite, and that after examination by the
minister and elders ; therefore, to a considerable ex-
tent, that gave a certain guarantee of the cha-
racter, the feeling, and disposition of the per.
sons called upon to exercise the privilege.
—(Hear.) The petitions he had to present were all
in favour of the principles of non-intrusion, but one
was in favour of the abolition of patronage, and ought
to have prayed for it, inasmuch as it proceeded upon
the allegation of the great grievance of patronage ; an-
other ought to pray for the legalising of the Veto Act,
because it proceeded upon the excellency of that Act ;
and the third was a general petition in favour of the
principle of non-intrusion. While he was on his legs
he had a word to offer to the Noble Viscount oppo-
site. He knew that the Noble Viscount was
much pressed from many quarters to bring for-
ward a measure upon the subject, and that the
Government were much blamed for the delay which had
taken place. He was more afraid of hesitation than of
delay. He earnestly called upon the Noble Viscount
to consider the question most calmly—to deliberate ma-
turely upon the nature of the measure he proposed to
bring forward. No Government ever had a more
difficult subject under consideration—( Hear, hear)
—or one deserving and demanding more calm deli-
beration. Above all, it required honesty of purpose.
The measure to be proposed by the Noble Viscount
might not be a wise one, but he did believe it
would be an honest one. From what he saw passing upon
the subject, he was perfectly aware of the immense
difficulty of the question, and he most earnestly called
upon the Noble Viscount not to bring in the proposed
Bill, until it was fully and deliberately considered
and carefully prepared. The Noble Earl then pre-
sented three petitions from places in the county of
Forfar in favour of the non-intrusion of ministers.
CASES OF FROST, JONES, AND
WILLIAMS.