The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-07 00:00:00

SCOTCH ENTAILS

On the motion of the Earl of ItOSEBEI: I', the En-
tailed Estates (Scotland) Amendment Bi!I was read a
second time.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Duke of ARGYLL brought in a Bill for the hitter
regulation of Church Patronage in Scotland. The Noble
Lord read the details of the Bill at length, but in so low a
tone that no port of them could be heard in the gallery.
The Noble Duke would not press the second reading of
the Bill until after the General Assembly had had time tro
consider its details.

The Earl of ABERDEEN could almost undertake to
state what the opinion of that House would le upon the
Dill of the Noble Duke. He could not hut he surprised
at such a Bill proceeding from the Noble Duke. The
only fault that had ever been found with his Bill upon
the lame subject was, that he had made too great concuss
lion to the dominant party in the Church. But the Bill of
the Noble Duke was neither more nor leas than one to le-
galize the Veto Law, and that in a manner more odbus
than the original Law of the Church. He objected to the
recognition in any Act of Parliament of " Moderating a
Call." The existence of the ° Call" on the part of the
people was not recognized in any Act of Parliament that
had pasted heretofore, and be objected stroirgly to its
being so now. By the Bill it was made compul-
sory on the Presbytery to rej'ct the presentee if they
could not by any means reduce the dissents to less
than a majority, there was the unmitigated veto. MO
second clause limited the voters to the 'nabs beads of
families in communion with the Church; he knew one
case lately wherein there were only eight or nice heads
of families—surely that was too limited a constituency in
a populous parish of 2,000 inhabitants. According to the
Bill, so far from being popular election he did not know
but what the voters might ho a body packed for the pur-
poses of election, for the clause gave the Church power to
make rules and laws as to who should be considered male
heads of families who should have votes. Mani• persons
in Scotland objected to any minister taking the oath of
allegiance as such—The majority of male heads in a
parish might be of that opinion, and a presentee might be
rejected because he had taken the oath of allegiance to
her Mi,jesty, He did not mean to speak offensively, but
anything more preposterous he had seldom seen offered to
the House. Tho Noble Duke said there was no desire
for the abolition of patronage. Now that he thought
was enough to make the House cautious; f,r the only
prayer of all the petitions presented from Scotland was
for the speedy aid entire abolition of patronage.
The Noble Duke had given him the names
of two gentlemen who did not desire that measure—one
was the proximate Moderator, and the other the Professor
that was to have been (Mr. Candlish). These were the
two gentlemen who it was said did not desire the aboli j in
of patronage ; yet a petition had beenpresentecrthat Session
attributing all the present evils of the Church and its diffi-
culties to patronage, and desiring'—earnestly desiring—its
speedy and entire abolition, and it was signed by both of

these gentlemen. Now what was to be done with such
men ? A great anti-patronage covenant, was entered into
and from the Central Committee in Edinburgh all these
anti.patronage petitions had emanated. There were in-
structions issued for the general getting up of these peti-
tions, and specimens of petitions were given, as it was
stated that it was desirable the form of the petitions should
vary, tut that all should pray for ill., abolition of patrou-
age. Petitions got up in that way and carried about from
house to house could not be considered a spontaneous ema-
nation from the people. He thought that those who were
conscientiously opposed to patronage would not be content
with tbe,power of electing their ministers without having
the power of dismissing them also. This was not an ngita-

tion'on the part of the people, it was purely a clerical agi-
tation. They hoped that by declaring agitiost patronage
they might conciliate the Dissenters; and, as a member of
the Church of Scotland, it was with indignation that
he hal read some of the appeals to the Dissenters. The
Church of Scotland never had deserved the reproaches
cast upon her by her apostr.to sons, in these base attempts
to conciliate the support of the Dissenters to the anti-pa-
tronage party. These gentlemen by their conduct had
deserved to meet with the same treatment which the Most
Reverend Father Eacubao and other., his coadjutors, had
met with at the hands of Pascal. This measure would be
a moat mischievous provision, no it related to the Church
itself, and would not conciliate those who sought fori ti
d
abolition of patronage, but would mealy be
"'leaerc
ei:h! he
an instalment. It was not to be borne that theyr
n s
byt
i a
permitted to attempt to coerce and frighten l'i!r
these anti-patronage petitions. lie trusted their, d
clogs
would not listen to these preposterous claims. llt
with a good grace or not, they must retire de
ecr tbe field.
The Earl of ROSE BE R Y had ohj to the woe-
etire
had taken up a wrong position, and, whether they
last
sure brought forward by the Noble Ea.'
, iii).ear. because
the object.
he believed it totally inefficient to semen; h
d no two Preshy..
he had in view, and, had it been adopted. no
considered a
dc°,fiueakition‘s proposed. to
the veto by the measures of thea:l
justte e s
cause l do
hose
ate agreed
exception. as
lt'eh ew let
Noble
Duke acre by no
been represented. Itio
means so inconsiderable xs
considered it extremely
this nature before it
impossibleand were not that the case, it
N E was anxious
tthotohauragrteiristetsitiuhl::paornoldi
I 'i
to keep:
up the agita-
tion ; the majority of the people.
(vgiuit,l.!tiitosnpwrtaivsisions. exclusivelyl
Noble
denied that
stwihooaitilleoodrrlidhitanih,),,teti:lbelsiiirii;liii:iei:
gbiriienci `,:fili,ooleit,Saviciro:tnltiritan:tir:ttlii;eleeYsurnubioijit`wlos'eurfloidtriuisi:e:ib. He did not
th
he could Drug ts
ei sn nwshe coilcuhe nt
pce Rairviesheits, his sup
C.) port.
n ni There
tod,
might make proper elections, but he believed that abuses
would gradually creep into the system, and that wand':
sous agitation
would ensue. The present arrangewent
for the appointment of ministers appeared to him both
wise and equitable, and he did not wish to see it altered.
The Marquis of BR EADALBANE said that the p'.ln-
' ciples of the Scottish Church were essentially repres,onts-
tive, and the present agitation was not confined, as seemed
to be supposed by some, to the clergy, but equally ex-
tended to the people. He approved to a great ext-nt of
the Bill, as it made at all events n large concession to
public feeling. It did not certainly go so far cs many of
the most attached and most pure-minded ministers of the
Scottish Church might desire, but he believed that so
anxious were they for a settlement of the question that
the Bill, if revised and modified, would teceive their
approval and support. It had been, urged that
their claims worn unheard of and contrary to law
but on the contrary, they were perfectly con-
sistent with the practice and constitution of the Church.
He entreated the House to lay aside all prejudices, and to.
consider the question on Prestmerian grounds. Ho ea.
treated them to weigh well the deep interest
to be tra
stthepeopnlreoleod
upon f
Scotland took in this question, for he assured them limy
would
winthinlaw:tiurfleOsf ia ristlthenAi:DereligiousThe
principles
el'ON concurred with his.
Noble Friend that this should be considered as a Scotch.