The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-17 00:00:00

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. SINCLAIR said that, in pursuance of his notice,
he now moved for leave to bring in a Bill for emancipat-
ing the Church of Scotland from the thraldom of patron-
age which had so long deformed its beauty, impaired its
usefulness, and grieved the hearts and consciences of its
most attached and zealous friends. The length of his
observations should be precisely proportioned "to the mag-
nitude of the question to which they referred. At so
late an hour of the night—at so advanced a period of the
session—and after such a series of complicated and multi-
farious discussions—he felt that any lengthened discussion
of a new subject could not lead to any practical result.
But he thought it necessary to introduce the question—
first, that he 'night account to the people of Sound for

I the delay which had intervened between the announce-
ment and the introduction of this motion. His Honour-
able Friend the Member for Montrose had given notice
of his intention to bring this subject before the
House on the very first day of the Session ; but
having learnt that another individual had been devoting
much attention to the cause, be, with the greatest cour-
tesy and kindness, not only consented, but requested that
he (Mr. Sinclair) should bring it before the House. It
had been deemed expedient by the Scotch Members to
postpone the discussion until after the meeting of the
General Assembly, for the purpose of enabling his Ma-
jesty's Ministers to mature their views upon a subject so
deeply interesting to the people of Scotland. That object
had now been attained, and he must conf,sa that he
contemplated the decisions of that venerable body with
feelings of regret and dissappointment. He hoped, indeed,
that the passing of the Burgh Reform Bill, as well as the
general manifestation of public feeling, might materially
influence the returns to future General Assemblies, and
the consequent tenor of their proceedings. But they
seemed at present to be actuate I by an error, which had
often been fatal to ecclesiastical and civil rulers—that
of deferring concessions until they came too late—until
they were tendered with no grace, and received with no gra-
titude, because they were extorted from their fears, and not
volunteered by their good will. Nor was it less dangerous
to imagine, that the quantum of sacrifice, which would
content the people at one time, would, under altered cir-
cumstances, prove equally satisfactory. Some arrange-
ments as to the call might, some years ago, have been
hailed with thankfulness ; but such were the tone and
temper of the times, that he thought the people would
never be satisfied until p itronage was consigned to
Schedule A ; indemnifying, as in the case of the heritable
jurisdictions, those who had acquired this right by pur-
chase or hereditary descent. He should not enter largely
into the anomalies which patronage presented : but his
own opinion was, that the privilege of choosing a pastor
partook largely of a spiritual character, and should be con-
nected with church member's rights. He should move
for the repeal of the Act of Anne, that he might remove
an impediment which stood in the way of the General
Assembly ; and by proposing that the repeal should take
effect two years after the passing of the Bill, which he
wishe I to introduce, full time would be given, to the
General Assembly, in concurrence with all the true
friends of the Church, to adopt, if needful, with the aid of
legislatures, such arrangements for conferring the right of
suffrage on the Church Members in the various parishes,
as would gratify the feelings of the people, induce and
enable Dissenters to return to the communion of the
Church, and promote the prosperity and the permanence
of the establishment. At present, a religious congrega-
tion was, in a great measure, at the mercy of a patron,
who might be an infidel, or an enemy to the peculiar doc•
trines of our standards ; nd unless we did away the law
of patronage—the original ground of dissent—introduced
by an obnoxious administration, and protested against for
70 years by the successive General Assemblies, the Volun-
tary Church principles would become more and more pre-
dominant, and the safety of that Establishment endangered,
on which the national happiness and morality of Scotland
so materially depended. He apologised once more for
having, at that late hour, and when labouring under severe
illness, so inadequately pleaded the cause of the Christian
people of his native land.
Mr. H. ROSS, in seconding the motion, said that no
man could have laboured with more assiduity than his
Hon. Friend the Member for Caithness in his endeavours
to obtain for the people of Scotland this great object of
which they had been so long, and he would say, so un-
justly deprived. He thought that the House was now
called upon to take the state of the patronage of the Church
of Scotland into consideration. There were thousands of
Dissenters, who, discontented with the Established Church,
annually seceded from it, and no part of the system was so
universally disagreeable as the manner in which the pa-
tronage was distributed. He could say that the people of
Scotland were unanimous in favour of a change, and as a
proof of that feeling, he had only to remind the House
that two hundred petitions in favour of a change of system
had been laid on the table. He hoped that his Majesty's
Ministers would therefore comply with the motion; but
it they did not, and his Hon. Friend were defeated upon
this occasion, he (Mr. Ross) hoped that lie would take
an opportunity of renewing it next session.
The LORD ADVOCATE agreed with the Hon. M.m-
ber for Caithness, both as to the importance of the sub
ject, and the great interest taken in it by the people of
Seafood. He hoped, however, that any abuses, and he
did nut deny that there were abuses, might be satisfactorily
arranged ; and he submitted to the Hon. Member, that it
was not expedient to bring forward a motion of such im-
portance at that late period of the Session, when it was
impossible that it could lead to any beneficial or practical
result. There was another and important reason why the
present motion should not be passed. It was highly pro-
bable that the General Assembly of the Church of Scot-
land would of itself come to a satisfactory resolution on
the subject. At the last meeting of the General Assembly
in May last, a motion which had been brought forward by
Dr. Chalmers, for a resolution to give the ialiabitants of
parishes the right of negativing the presentation of clergy-
men appointed by the patrons to the charge of parishes,
was negatived by a majority of twelve only out of an
assembly consisting of upwards of 300 members. It was
probable, therefore, from the smallness of the majority,
that at the next meeting of the assembly a resolution in
favour of some change would be entered into, and he sub-
mitted that it would be inexpedient to attempt to legislate
upon the subject in the meantime. He doubted, too, if
the repeal of the Act, which was the subject of the Hon.
Member's motion, would of itself have the effect ex-
pected from it by the Hon. Member, or give satisfaction
to the people of Scotland. He, therefore, recommended
to the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion, and to abide
by another decision of the General Assembly. After such
a decision was come to, the real grievances complained of
would be known, and the House would have an opportu-
nity of legislating on a sure and safe foundation. Ita the
meantime he deprecated all premature discussion upon a
matter of such great importance. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man concluded by requesting the Hon. Gentleman to
postpone his motion for more mature deliberation.

Sir R. PEEL said, he thought the proposition for
taking away the patronage from the Crown would lead to
local feuds. During his Secretaryship, he was sure that
the patronage of the Crown was never exercised for
political purposes; he had always recommended to the
Crown any person recommended by the parishioners.--
(Hear.) Popular election had a tendency to diminish the
independence of the Minister. He hoped the House
would not rashly affirm the principle of popular election in
spiritual casts.—(Hear.)
Mr. COLQUHOUN supported the motion, which had

for its object the rep.al of an Act passed by the most
profligate Administration that ever ruled in England, and
which was in express violation of the Constitution of the
Church of Scotland. He hoped his Hon. Friend would
not agree to withdraw his motion. The Scotch Members
bad wai'ed because they did not wish to embarrass
Ministers, but that was no reason why it should be alto-
gether passed over. There was no subject in which the
people of Scotland were more deeply interested than the
present.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GILLON supported the motion. The feeling of

the people was, that the present system was corrupt,
unjust, and impolitic; and he was convinced that these
principles would daily gain ground, till it was impossible
to resist them.

Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTONE said the yoke of
patronage had long galled the neck of the Church of
Scotland. The people of that country bad frequently
bad most obnoxious ministers forced upon them, and
even inducted into their pulpits by an armed force. The
great abuses of the system made it imperatively neces-
sary that some such measure as that proposed by his
Hon. Friend should be passed. Church patronage in
Scotland stood on a very different footing to the Church
patronage of England. Since the reformatioo, 1-ro pastor
could be set over a congregation in Scotland against their
consent, without violation of the fundamental rights of
that church.
Mr. ABERCRONIBIE was sorry to fed himself called
upon by an imperious sense of duty to be at issue with any
portion of his countrymen on so vital a question as this.
He was very glad to sec the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
(Sir R. Peel) in his place, as it gave him an opportunity
' of contributing his meel of unfeigned approbation of the
eminently impartial and upright manner in which the
Right Hon. Baronet had managed this patron 1 ge when it
was under his superintendence. Admitting the defects of
the system of church patronage in Scotland, lie could not
conscientiously agree to the provisions of the proposed Bill.
fle thought the best, and indeed the only proper course,
would be, to leave the matter to the decision of the Ge-
neral Assembly. As the matter at present stood, nothing
would be more injurious than to des'roy church patronage
without providing an efficient substitute. He therefore
trusted that the motion would he withdrawn. If the
General Assembly should not decide satisfactorily to the
people of Scotland, then the question might come before
Parliament in a clear and definite shape.
Mr. HALLIBURTON supported the motion. He
wished to know how they could repeal the Act establish-
ing the present system of patronage without establishing
some other system. If the proposition of the Hon. Mem-
ber went merely to abolish the law for a definite time, for
the purpose of leaving it afterwards to be determined by
the House bow the arrangement should be made, so as to

settle the establishment on a sound footing, he should feel
inclined to vote for the repeal of any law which might in -
terfere with that object.
Mr. EWING said it had always been considered that
the system of patronage, as it existed in the Church of
Scotland, was an innovation on its established principles.
He cordially supported the measure.
Mr. KENNEDY said he was prepared to establish
popular election instead of the present system of Church
patronage. He only regretted that the measure did not
go far enough. He should vote against it on that ground.
He thought, however, that the present discussion, although
no vote were come to upon the subject, would have a
considerable effect on the General Assembly, and make
them come to a very different decision from that which
they had come to last year upon the subject.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS observed that the measure
proposed by the Honourable Member for Caithness
(Mr. Sinclair) involved principles which affected other
established churches as well as that of Scotland ; and was
a matter which called for the serious attention of the
country gentlemen and members of the church of England.
It went farther than the Hon. Member who proposed it
appeared 'co be himself aware; for it went to the complete
separation of Church and State.
Mr. OSWALD recommended that the matter should
be left in the hands of the General Assembly.
Sir R. FERGUSON said, the able discussion which
hail taken place upon the subject would answer all the
ends which could be aimed at by the motion, and he there-
fore recommended its withdrawal.

Mr. PRYME said he thought it would appear extremely
extraordinary if, when they were conferring upon the
people in the burghs of Scotland the power of electing-
their civil officers, they were to withhold from them the
power of electing a minister, with respect to whom it was
of so much importance that there should be a good feeling
between him and his parishioners. It was said that the
introduction of popular election in this case would be pro•
ductive of continual discord in parishes. He had lived
twenty years in a town where three of the parishes enjoyed
popular election, in the choice of their ministers ; he had
thus bad an opportunity of seeing its effects ; and it was
his opinion that the introduction into a parish of a person
who was disagreeable to it was at least productive of equal
evil in this respect.

Lord ALTHORP said he had no wish to throw any
obstacle in the way of this most important question ; but
it was impossible for the House to enter into the discussion
of the repeal of a statute which conferred on his Majesty
certain prerogatives, without having the consent of his
Majesty. He was not prepared, at this time, to give that
assent. He appealed to the Speaker whether they were
competent, under such circumstances, to entertain the
question.

- The SPEAKER said he bad not before read the Act of
Charles 11., by which the patronage in question was con-
ferred upon the Crown; but he had since sent for it, and
had read it. This was certainly a question affecting the
rights and privileges of the Crown ; and it was quite clear
that it could not be discussed without the consent of his
Majesty.
Mr. SINCLAIR stated his intention of bringing it be-
fore the House under more favourable circumstances next
session.

Mr. PRYME should have been inclined to deny the
doctrine laid down by the Chair. It only showed his ig-
norance ; but he had thought that the House could pro-
ceed to the repeal of any Act of Parliament without up-
plying to his Majesty.
Lord ALTHORP said that entirely depended upon
what the Act of Parliament might be. They could not
proceed to take away any right or privilege of the Crown
without the consent of the Crown.

After a few words from Mr. SHEIL, Mr. SINCLAIR,
and an Hox. MEMBER, whose name we did not learn,
The SPEAKER said it was quite impossible to enter-
tain the question in any shape.
The SPEAKER observed that he was to blame for
having put the question. He did not know the contents
of the Act ; but having called for it and read it, he found
that the motion could not be entertained by the House
without the consent of the Crown, intimated, as usual,
through a Privy Councillor.