The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-10 00:00:00

In order to rescue it from this

►t bill to afford greater fa-

•
position, he proposed in the
cilities to the naturalization of foreigners, by empowering the

Privy Council to grant lette

s patent of natural

id the Government had decided

711e-propiietl;OCopposing the further progress of the
Ele denied that the hon. gentleman bad pointed out
led by the present law, and
ll.before the house, because

any great inconvem
he was decidedly opr

permitted t

s in the legislature.
. Stock, Mr. Aglionby,

vations fr

Mr. LABOCCHERE Sald be COUIU DOL suppurt. Luc; wiL
fore the house, but at the same time he was far from say

Ation of the law was not required.
dE supported, the bill, upon the principle that
trade was benefited by the immigration of foreigners. lie
hailed the bill as another link in the happily lengthened chain

Mr. SMYT

of universal toleration.
Mr. EWART supported the bill ; which was, however, un-
fortunately negatived without a division.
The adjourned debate on Mr. Fox Maule's motion re-
specting the Church of Scotland was then resumed, by
Mr. C. BRUCE. who opposed the motion, because the
Church of Scotland not only claimed jurisdiction in ecclesi-
astical matters, but it also claimed the power of deciding
what were ecclesiastical matters. He believed that the whole
Scotland, and the majority
to the claims of the
He con-

of the upper classes of society in
of the middle classes, were opposed
dominant party in the church of that country
demned the course taken by some ministers in Scotland, one
of whom told his congregation that they had to choose be-
tween Heaven and Satan, and those who signed the paper he
had prepared was deciding in- favour of Heaven. Another
told his congregation that the King of the French was in
correspondence with Queen Victoria for the purpose of

ay were the lower classes

bringing back the Pope_ _._
in Scotland deluded by many of their pastors, who ought to
be ashamed of resorting to such means to carry out their
views. He had no doubt but that the government were
anxious to settle this question favourably to the Church of
Scotland, but it was impossible that they could settle it by

the concession of everything that was claimed by that church.
He hoped a better spirit, a spirit of peace and unity, would
yet, ere long, influence the Church of Scotland, and that it
would be once more a blessing to the people of that country.
Sir G. GREY hoped crimination and recrimination would
not be indulged in at a moment when the Church of Scotland
was in actual peril, but that no effort would be left untried to
restore that Church to peace, to harmony, and efficiency.
He agreed in a great measure, though not altogether, with
his right hon. friend (Mr. F. Maule); and he would, there-
fore suppOrt his motion for going into committee;
_formn com-
mittee some means might be devised to Aettle the differences
which prevailed. He believed this might have been accomp-
lished if Parliament had interfered at an. earlier period, and
given effect to the Veto Act passed in 1834. The practical
working of that act proved that it conferred benefit on the
people of Scotland without producing any of the evils which
it was predicted would result from its adoption. He entirely
concurred with Sir J. Graham in the jealousy which he ap-
peared to entertain of the aggressions of ecclesiastical
courts ; and he was not prepared to set them free from the
supervision of the civil courts of judicature. He would not
object to giving ecclesiastical courts a current jurisdiction
with the civil courts, in deciding as to what matters were
civil and what ecclesiastical ; but there were many difficulties
in the way in endeavouring to give a definition upon that

head.
Mr. J. WORTLEY supported the view taken by Sir James
Graham of the subject, and opposed the motion of Mr. F.
Maule. It was impossible that the system of patronage
which had produced such beneficial effects in Scotland could,
if calmly considered, be viewed as an injury and a detriment
to the Church of Scotland, which had allowed its exercise to
go on unmolested for upwards of a brindred years.
Sir A. L. HAY, in supporting the Oition, said that be
might not have been so zealous on this question if the majo-
rity of the clergy only were about to secede from the Church,
but, knowing that the people would follow their ministers,
he called upon the house to avert so terrible a calamity.
Mr. B. COCH RANE Said, that no one could desire a more
• form of Church government than that which now
a He maintained that the only ground
amnority in the people was to be found in the
first book of discipline, and that had never been sanctioned
by any act of parliament. It was his opinion, that all the
clamour about non-intrusion was for the purpose of gather.
ing temporal power into the hands of the Church. If they
spiritual `pctwer predominant, lie would prefer
tue arrogance of Rome 16 the hypocrisy of the Kirk.
LordJ. RESSELL considered, with great pain, that a great
calamity was pending over a large portion of the people of
this empire, in the secession of the clergy of the Church of
Scotland. The clergy had given the strongest proofs of their
sincerity in the conscientious feelings they entertained. He
confessed, however, he did not see any advantage to be de-
rived from the adoption of any resolution which dealt in
mere abstractions. Ele could not assent to the claims now
put forth by the Church of Scotland, nor could he permit
it by an act of 1834 to change a state of things which bad
reached up to that time, and had never until then been ob-
jected to by the Church.
Mr. A. CAMPBELL supported the motion which asserted
a principle essential to the very existence of the Church of
Scotland.
Sir W, FOLLETT concurred entirely in the view taken by
Lord John Russell of this important question. He regretted
that the Church of Scotland had not adopted the opinions of
the hon. member for Leith, in which case there would have
been spared all the difficulties which had since arisen, and
that house would have been spared the pain of being called
upon to sanction claims which it could not listen to without
overturning every principle of the constitution, which recog-
nised the supremacy of the law over every institution, civil
or ecclesiastical, in the empire. When the House of Lords
decided that the act of Queen Anne was the law of the land,
the General assembly should have at once repealed the Veto
Act of 1834, which was in contravention of the act of Anne.
lie could not believe that it could be the liw of Scotland
that there could have been concurrent jurisdictions. Sup-
pose the Church declared certain matters to be within ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction, while the civil courts insisted that
these same matters were within the jurisdiction of the civil
courts, who was to dacide between them ? It was quite im-
possible that anything so absurd could have prevailed as law
in Scotland. A power of decision must rest somewhere;
and if the civil courts exercised a jurisdiction that did not
belong to them. or if they improperly interefered with the
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, there was an appelate
jurisdiction which would decide between them—the House
of Lords. Ile could not give his sanction to the claims and
pretensions of the Church of Scotland, and therefore, with
all respect for that Church, he should oppose the motion of
the right hon. gentleman.
Sir R. PEEL said it was unnecessary for him to detain the
house at any length after his opinions had been so exactly
stated by Sir William Follett, Sir James Graham, and Lord
John Russell also. Still his position demanded that he
should not give a silent vote upon such an important occa-
sion. A state of things existed in Scotland not contemplated
by law, and, of course, not provided for by law, and the re-
sult was that there was great danger that the courts in Scot-
land would become paralysed. If it had been proposed to
bring in a bill to settle uch a state of things, and to settle
also the question of patronage--provided it did not interfere
with the privileges of the crown—it might be that ministers
would not object to going into committee upon such a mea-
sure ; but to go into committee with no definite object to be
übmitted for their consideration, would be to countenance a
It was a paltry argument to ask the house
to go into committee as a compliment to the Church of Scot-

i in Scot

were to have

mere delusior

land, taking the chance of some remedy suggesting itself in
that committee. The real question was whether the claims
of the Church of Scotland %ere such at parliament ought to
agree to, and looking at it in this point of view he was pre-
pared to vote against the motion of the right hon. gentleman.
He dissented altogether from the position taken by the Church
Scotland upon the question of the abolitionof patronage. The
)gnised the abolition of pati onage as necessary to
the Church of Scotland. In fact, the maintenance