The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-01 00:00:00

NEW SOUTH WALES.

On our admis.ion into the gallery we found
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving for leave to bring
in tr Bill to make provision for the Government of New
South Wales for 10 years. He did not propose to ex-
tend its provisions to Van Diemen's Land.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
In answer to aquestion from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL stated that it was not his inten-
tion to proceed with the Civil Contingencies, in the Com-
mittee of Supply on Friday, but he should proceed with
the Ecclesiastical Bill on that day.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that whenever the Civil Con-
tingencies should be brought on, he should bring forward
the motion of which he hnd given notice relative to Dr,
Bowring's report.
GRAMMAR SCHOOLS BILL.
The Grammar Schools Bill then passed through Com-
mittee.

SUDBURY ELECTION.
The SPEAKER, on resuming the Chair, informed
the House that he had that day received a letter from Mr.
Tomline, the Sitting Member for Sudbury, against whose
return a petition had beer. presented to the House, stating
that it was not his intention to defend his return.
The wher Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half past One o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 30.
The Losu CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at Five o'Clock.
The Glass Duties Bill was read a second time.
The Glasgow AS4CSSMCHt Bill was read a third time and
pass.d.
The Earl of ERROL presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Aberdeen, in public meeting assembled, in
favour of the Earl of Aberdeen's Bill for removing doubts
as to the admission of ministers into benefices in th•

Church of Scotland.
The Marquis of NORMANBY moved the second
reading of the Poor Rate's Amendment Bill. The Bill
was accordingly read a second time.
The Bishop of LLANDAEF presented a petition
from a place in his own diocese in favour of Church Ex-
tension in that district. He could bear testin-.ony to the
great extent of religious destitution, and he lamented to
observe petitions on this subject were received with so
much indifference, if not antagonism.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a peti-
tion from Bristol in favour of Church Extension.
THE CANADAS.
Earl GOSFORD presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of the diocese of Montreal, against the union of
the two Canadas. The No3le Earl then presented a peti-
tion to the same effect, signed by 40,000 inhabitants of
Lower Canada.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE rose to present
the following petition, of which he had given notice, on
the subject of the divisions now prevailing in the Church

of Scotland :
"To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, in Parliament assembled,
" The Humble Petition of the Persons whose names
are hereunto subscribed, being the Convenor, the
Secretary, and other Members of a Committee
appointed by the late General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, to watch over the progress of
a Bill recently introduced into your Lordship's
House, ir,tituled, An Act to remove doubts TO-
specting the admission of Ministers into Beneficed
in that part of the United Kingdom called Scot-
land,' or any Bill relative to that subject,
" Sheweth—
" That your Petitioners have been deputed by the
above-named Committee of the General Assembly, with

instructions to use all competent means for opposing the
above-mentioned Bill is its present form ; and your Peti-
tioners beg leave to state shortly the circumstances in
which they aro called upon to address your Lordships.
" That in the year 1712, on the Bth day of April, a Bill
was introduced into your Lordships' Hou,e,intituled, ' An
Act to restore Patrons to their ancient rights of present-
ing Ministers in that part of Great Britain called Scot-
land ;" that on the same day, a petition was presented
from the Commission of the General Assembly •of the
Church of Scotland, praying ' that they might be heard
by their counsel as to what they had to represent concern-
ing the Bill;' and on a subsequent day, the 11th of April,
a petition to the same effect was presented from William
Carstairs, Thomas Blackwell, and Robert Mollie, minis-
ters of the Church of Scotland, ' appointed by the Corn
mission of the General Assembly of the aforesaid Church,
to use all proper and legal :measures for preserving the
rights and privileges thereof.'
" That the former of these two petitions having been
withdrawn, on the ground of an informality, the latter
was entertained, and the prayer of it was granted; and
accordingly, the above-named ministers were heard by
their counsel, upon the said Bill, on the 12th day of
April, 1712.
" That the petition of the Commission of the General
Assembly, and of the Ministers appointed as aforesaid, set
forth the opposition of the Church of Scotland to the said
Bill ' for restoring patrons to their ancient rights of pre-
senting ministers,' on the following among other grounds ;
viz., that the rale concerning the nomination and admis-
sion of ministers had been settled at the revolution and
confirmed by the Treaty of Ceion, and formed part of the
constitution of the Church and kingdom, as inalienably
ratified at those eras ; that the patrons, under the revolu-
tion settlement, had received a compensatiox for their
rights of patronage, in the title then conferred upon
them, to dispose of the vacant stipends, and to
appropriate the unexhausted teinds ; that to re-
store them to their ancient rights, was to give them
both the price sod the purchase ; and, above all,
that the exercise of patronage had always been contrary to
the genius and spirit of the reformed Church of Scotland,
had been successfully resisted in the best periods of her
history, and was inconsistent with the happy footing on
which her government and discipline had, after long strug-
gles, been finally established.
" That notwithstanding this opposition, the Bill passed
your Lordship's House on the very day on which counsel
was heard against it ; it being read a second time, com-
mitted, and road a third time, on one and the same day ;
aid the rights of patronage were thus by law restored to
the ancient patrons.
" That the Church of Scotland, although continuing to
protest against the statute restoring patronage, as an inva-
sion of her sacred privileges and liberties, and a violation
of her rights under the constitution of the country, was
nevertheless willing, from a regard to the inestimable ad-
vantages of a national establishment of religion, and to
avoid the evils of schism or separation—to conform to the
provisions of the said statute, in her ecclesiastical proce-
dure, relative to the settlement of ministers.
" But while the Church, in conformity with the said
statute, recognised the nomination of the lawful patron,
she uniformly and invariably asserted her absolute right to
deal with the presentee of the patron, according to her
own principles end rules, relative to the trial and ordina-
tion of ministers ; and in particular the Church continued
to claim and exercise the power of determinieg what
measure of call or concurrence on the part of the people,
was sufficient to warrant her in proceeding to the settle-
ment of a pastor among them.
" That on any other understanding of the said statute re-
storing patronage, and of the rights of patrons and pre-
sentees under it, the Church, as is evident from history
and from all that is known cf the views of her leading
men—never could have submitted to that statute, even to
the extent that she did, consistently wish her avowed doc-
trine on the subject of ordination, and with the funda-
mental and essential principles of her constitution ; and
whatever laxity may have been introduced into the prac-
tice of the Church Courts in estimating the amount of
concurrence on the part of the people, it is undeniably
certain that the Church never, at any time, renounced the
right of judging on the sufficiency of the call, as well as
on all other questions affecting the trial and ordination of
her ministers. The Church Courts continued, in every in
stance, to pronounce a judgit ent on the call, and repeat-
edly exercised their right, to the exclusion of the pre-
sentee: and the Civil Courts, so far front interfering,
;bone'n called ueon, expressly refused, on the ground that
they had no jarieliction in that manner. On this footing
alone a large proportion of the most worthy office-bearers
and members of the Church, during the whole of the last
and of the present century, were enabled to remain in her
communion.
" That, in accordance with these views of the law of
patronage, and of her own Eatrcers, the Church did, in the
year 1534, lay down rules and regulations. for the guidance
of the Church Courts in judging of the call or concur-
rence of the people ; giving effect to her fundamental
principles in the form which seemed to her, at the time, to
be the most salutary and the most expedicet for all parties.
" That certain decisi;ine, since pronounced by the Civil
Courts, he.ve put a construction upon the said statute re-
storing patronage, incompatible with the views and princi-
ples of the Church ; inasmuch as it would prevent the
Church from giving eff e2t to her own convictions of duty
when judging of the call of tile people, as an essential ele-
ment in the settlement of ministers.
" That not only have these decisions of the Civil,Courts
for the first time put a construction on the statute restor-
ing patronage, which would render that statute much more
inconsistent than it was ei et- before thought to be, with
the principles of the Church, but, still more recently, the
Court of Session, p-oceeding upon that construction, and
going beyond the determination of the civil matters affect-
ed by it, has adopted, in several instances, a course of direct
interference and coercion towards the Church Courts, in
the exercise of their spiritual functions relative to the
trial and ordination of ministers ; thereby making an-
other and much more fatal encroachment on the constitu-
tion of the Church and Kingdom, as finally settled at the
Revolution, and secured by the Treaty of Union.
" That these proceedings of the Civil Courts have bad
the effect of planing the Church in a new and most ern-
barrussing position. Not only is it thereby fixed, that
when the Church acts in any case according to her funda-
mental principles in the trial and ordination of ministers,
the Civ 1 Courts may refuse to acknowledge her judgments,
as regulating the disposal of the fruits of the benefice—
the only question which the Church submitted to legal de-
termination, and in ri gard to which she has bowed to that
determination ; but a far more serious evil is found to im-
pend over the Church. She is exposed to the hazard of
receiving, and has actually received orders aril injunc-
tions from the Civil Courts, to which neither her
conscientious convictions of duty, nor her consti-
tutional standing in the country, permit her to yield
obedience. And from these moat painful difficulties,—the
most painful in which a Christian Church earl be placed,
the Church, as m -,ttetti stand, cthnot extricate herself by
any change in the plan of procedure adopted in 1834,
withaut either abandoning principles which she holds sa
cred, or being equally liable, as at present, to the danger
of the Civil Courts interfering with any other method
which she might devise for carrying these principles into

effect.
" That the Bill now before your Lordships' House does
not profess to alter or modify the law•, as thus interpreted
by the Civil Courts; that while it is intended to remove
doubts, it does not satisfactorily declare to what extent the
jurisdiction of the Cnui ch, in the matter of the settlement of
presentees is .to be recognised as exclu,ivo ; and that, in
particular, so far from allowing to the Church courts a
full and absolute discretion in disposing of all questions

regarding the trial and ordination of ministers, it ex- I
pressly precludes them from giving that considera-
tion which the Church holds that they are bound to

.. _
give to the dissent or non-concurrence of the com-
municants. For the Church, viewing the consent of
parties, expressed or implied. as an element essential
to the right perfo:mancc of that solemn act of ordination by
which she ratifies and sanctions a relation, founded en the

mutual agreement of the pastor and the people to under-
take towards one another its weighty duties and responsi-
bilities,--cannot, in any circumstances, r,linquish her
power to refuse ordination when that element seems to her
to be wanting ; and therefore she cannot now submit, as
she never could have submitted, to any law which would
limit her jurisdiction in that particular, or which might im-
pose upon her, i❑ any instance, the obligation of settling a
presentee contrary to the will of the people.
" That this Bill, if passed into a law, giving the sanction
of the Legislature to the interpretation now for the first
time put on the law of patronage by the Civil Courts,
would fully realise the worst fears entertained by the
I Church when that law was originally passed : that it

would fatally abridge or destroy the liberties which were
understold to be left to the Church even under
that law, and which rendered it compatible with
her sense of duty to conform to it; that it would

not only interfere with the privileges of the Christian
people, and their responsible position as members of the
Church, but would grievously offend the conscicncies of
ministers, and would impose upon them a rule on which
they could not act ; and that, in short it would involve an
enforcing of the rights of pa ronage, in opposition to the
constitution of the Church, to an extent and in a way
never hitherto attempted since the era of the Revolution.
" That while the Church deeply deplores the evils ar
ing from the exiting state of the law, as interpreted by
the Civil Courts, and is most anxious to obtain a new
declaration or modification of the law, to which, without
doing violence to the conscientious conviction of her
office-bearers and the religious liberties of her people,
ehe may accommo.late her procedure in the settlement
of ministers ; and while with this view she is willing
to alter her own regulations, in conformity with any plan
which the Legislature may adopt, consistent with the prin-
ciples of her constitution ; the measure now proposed,
being inconsistent with these principles, cannot satisfy
either the Church or the country, but mast inevitably ag-
gravate the disorder end danger attendant upon the pre
sent positiot of affairs.
" That on all these grounds the Church is constrained

to offer strenuous and —uncompromising epposbion to the
Bill now before your Lordships' House, in its present
form: and your petitioners, having accordingly been com-
missioned by the Church to use all proper and constitu-
tional measures for that end, arc advised to make this ap-
plication, with a view to their being allowed to state more
fully to your Lordships what they have to represent con-
cerning the said Bill.
" That your petitioners beg leave to refer your Lord-
ships to the precedent already cited, which stands upon
the records of your. Lordships' House, and which has im-
mediate reference to the subject now brought under the
consideration of your Lordships, And considering that
the Bill now before your Lordships, places the Church in
a position simil.ar to that which she occupied when the law
restoring patronage was originally proposed, bill much
more critical, inasmuch as it threatens to destroy that
element of freedom which alone made it consistent with
her constitution to admit of patronage at all, your peti-
tioners are desirous of being heard by Counsel, at your
Lordships bar, as their predecessors, in like circumstances,
were heard, upwards of a century ago, in behalf of the just
and constitutional liberties of the Church and people of
Scotland.

" Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the
said Bill may not pass into a law, and that they
may be heard against the same, and such parts
thereof as affect their rights, by themselves or
their counsel, at the bar of your Lordships' House,
at such stage of the said Bill as may suit your Lord-
ships' forms and convenience.
" And your petitioners will ever pray.
(Signed) ANGUS MAKELLAR, Convenor.
DAVID WELSH.
ROB. S. CANDLISH.
J. HAMILTON, Secretary.
The Earl of ABERDEEN stated that it was his in-
tention to move that the House should go into Committee

on the Bill on the evening after to-morrow, that is, on
Thursday evening.• With respect to the prayer of the
petition, he must say, that although it was not usual to
hear counsel against a Bill, in the stage in which this Bi'l
was, yet he thought that the arguments which would bo
offered by Counsel at the bar, in support of the opinions
of the petitioners would be the strongest recom-
mendation in favour of the Bill. Ile, for one,

should not object to their being so heard. A great part
of the petition complained of the law of patronage, as it
was settled by the Act of Queen Anne ; the rest was
mainly directed rgainst the judgment of that House, in
declaring and enforcing that law, and the objection
to the Bill which he (Lord Aberdeen) had brought
in was only made because it recognised the judg-
ment of the House in declaring the law.—( Hear, hear.)
But he was quite sure that unless their Lordships heard
those parties by Counsel at the bar, they would never hear
the arguments against the Bill from within the bar.
Lord BROUGHAM said that although ho differed from
the Noble Earl in his general views of this question,
yet he agreed with him in thinking, that if the usages of
the House allowed it, it was desirable t• hear those parties
at the bar, and he thought the more their opinions and
wishes were beard, the stronger would be the impression
of their Lordships in favour of the judgment which they
had pronounced.—(Hear, hear.) Ho hoped and trusted
that during the residence of those reverend gentlemen in
London, those who communicated with them would have
the honesty to tell them how little—little support was given
in this or in the other House of Parliament, or in the
country at large—(Hear, hear)—to those who were the
authors of those events which all deplored, if he should
not say disapproved.—( Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of BREADALBANE said that the pe-
titioners were the representatives of the General Assem-
bly, by which body they were deputed to watch over the
progress of the Bill. With respect to the observation of
the Noble and Learned Lord below hint, that the peti-
tioners had no support in Parliament, or in the country,
he must say that they had the support of the people of
Scotland.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he had intended to say
that they had not the support of the people of Scotland.
Lord C A NIP ERDO NV N expressed his concurrence in
the opinions of Lord Brougham, in respect to the conduct
of the petitioners, and the opinions of the people of Scot-
land in relation to this quc,tion.
CANADA GOVERNMENT BILL.

Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from sub-
jects of her Majesty residing in and near Quebec, entirely
contradicting the allegations of the petition which had
been just presented by the Noble Lord opposite ( Lord
Gosford) respecting the measure for the union of the pro •
vinces, and the Government of the colony of Canada.
The petition having been laid on the table, and the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Bill having been
read,
The NOBLE VISCOUNT said, it was now his duty to sub-
mit to their Lordships' impartial consideration the Bill for
uniting the Governments of the two provinces of Upper
and Lower Canada. That Bill came to their Lordships
recommended by the House of Assembly of Upper
Canada—by a large number of petitions from the inhabi-
tants of both the provinces—by the late and present re-
presentatives of her Majesty in the Government of those
colonies—and by the other House of Parliament.
Although in that House (the House of Commons) the Bill
did not pass altogether w;thout objection and resistance, yet
it passed with so little of either, that, although he could
not state that it had received the unanimous, he thought
he could say that it received the general consent of that
body. On that ground he submitted the Bill confidently to
the consideration of their Lordships, and he would not waste
a moment in impressing upou them its great importance.
( Hear.) It involved great commercial interests of the colony
sad of the mother country—it involved the honour and cha-
racter of England—but, above all, it was important to the
future welfare and happiness of the great body of our
fellow subjects, who were the inhabitants of the colony.—
( Hear, hear ) Under these circumstances i• was unneces-
sary for him to say that the foreign and colonial depen-
dencies of the country were of the greatest importance.
Ever since she had raised her head amen,: nations and had
been united under one monarchy, she had spread herself
far beyond her own limits, and either by accident or
circumstances. had possessed herself of large external
territories. But when the great struggle in which
that country was engaged in 1450, had termi-
nated, those great passes ions which she had gained
by marr-age or by contract were lest to h•r. The di.-
aovery of what was not inappropriately called the New
World, opened a new field for the energy of Great Bri-
tain, and then were founded those great territories in
North America, which now belonged to this country, and
which remained faithful to it after the United States had
asserted their independence. He would beg leave to re-
mind their Lordships that the reason why they had lost
both France and America was not the energy of the ene-
mir.:s they had to contend with, but their own internal dis.
cords and dissensions, which unques:ionably precipitated
those events; and therefore he begged leave mist earnestly
to recommend the present state of these colonies aed the
Bill before them to their earnest, to their c-dm, to th .ir
attentive, to their impartial, to their general, and to their
peculiar consideration. It was unnecessary for him to
recapitulate the various events which had led to the posi-
tion is which they then stood as regarded the territories
for which the 8.11 had been introduced. It was unneces-
sary for him to recapitulate the manner in which
those countries had been originally acquired, or
to point out the object of the first measure introduced,
namely, the Act of 1774 and the Act of 1791, nor need
he remind the House of the fidelity of those counties
during the two great crises oftheir contests with the Ame-
rican States. He need not remind their Lordships how,
in later times, the spirit of alicna•ion spran• up among
them, and the various contests between thy• diffarent Go-
vernors and the House of Assembly, utianttely leading to
diff-renees that terminated in that outbreak and an insurrec-
tion which occasioned their Lordships to pass in the year 1838
an Act to suspend the Constitutional Act of 1791, and esta-
blish in Lower Canada Governm nt by a G ivereor and Sp --
cial Council. These matters had been so fully discussed and
stated in the Papers which hind been laid on their Lord-
ships' table, and their attention had been so repeateely
and forcibly called to them, that their Lordships were per-
fectly aware oftt•e position in which they were now placed
with regard to those colonies. It seas generaly admitted
the Act of 1838 was but provisional. It was the duty of
the Executive Government in both countries to consider
the speediest means of putting an end to the provisions of
that Act. They had been accused of tardiness for not
having done it before, and it seemed to be generally
admitted that the present state of things could not continue,
and that it was absolutely incumbent upon them to provide
another mode of government fur these colonies. This was
the position in a hick they were placed, and in order to
provide for a fair and wise government in that country,
the Bill had been sent up to their Lordships, the contents
of which he would now proceed to lay before them. It
empowered her Majesty to authorise the Governor of
Lower Canada to declare the union of those provinces
which had been separated by the Act of 179], which se.-