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

Under these circumstanc

i might fetter their better

a of the

as an am

went, tha

ci from t

HOPE then proceeded to condemn the existing
and quoted the opinion of Mr. Pitt, who had
t that he had steered the vessel of the state
t fearful storm that ever had assailed it, by
feeding and to the comfort of the people.
>bservations from Lords LYrrts:Torr and
COLCHESTER, the amendment of the Duke of Wellington
was carried without a division.

ed that there was no analogy be-

my and navy

...... • •••
r families, and those of persons entering a
he officers might refuse to serve if they dis-
Ated from their wives and families.
WELLINGTON said he might take the case of

Earl S

Ting to the

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TrESDAY.
gracious answer to the address of the
in consequence of Lord Ashley's motion on the sub-
ct of the education of the people, was brought up and or-
ared to be inserted on the journals.
Mr. Fox MAULS then moved the following resolution :
That this house will immediately resolve itself into a corn-
iittee to take into consideration the petition of the commis.
ion of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and
he matters therein contained." The petition was to be
onsidered as that of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
Dr the commission of the General Assembly was similar to
committee of the whole house in the House of Commons.
['hat petition complained of the infringement of their juris-
fiction by the civil courts, and also of the evil of patronage.
Die letter signed by Sir James Graham showed that the
Florae Secretary had fallen into the mistake that the General
kssetribly claimed to be exclusive judges in ecclesiastical
matters ; the fact being that it only claimed to be independent
within its own sphere, and to have the right of defining in
natters coming before them the limits between the civil and
•;ons. The right hon. gentleman quoted va-
, proving that it was the intention and
Jrmination of their flamers to secure and perpetuate the
ht s of the Presbyterian established religion, and to give an
ndependent jurisdiction to its courts in all ecclesiastical mat-
ers. As the subject was so nearly balanced in the supreme
:ivil court of Scotland, it was, in his opinion, the duty of
.he legislature to interfere. The Court of Session had, he
:ontended, overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting, of its
)wn authority, to over-rule another court possessing an
equally independent jurisdiction. He thought that parlia-
ment should pass a declaratory act to put an end to the dis•
,e, and place the church in possession of its rights of ju-
'ion. He next adverted to the evil of patronage, which
of old standing. The first forced settlement of a

er Majesty's most

How; Scotch statute

clergyman took place in 1730, and, though at the time Fres-
byterianism was lukewarm, it was yet strongly protested
against, and amongst others by Duncan Forbes, of Culloden,
the first lawyer of his day. It was not until the evangelical

subsequently revived in Scotland that it was again re-
ne Veto Act of 1834 was passed by the General
kssembiy, in conformity with the general feeling of the peo-
ple, and encroached as little as possible on the rights of the

ure had worked well u

gentleman contended that this men-
itil reskted by the civil courts, and

unless parliament now interfered there would be a large se-
cession of both ministers and people from the Established
Church of Scotland, an effect which would be disastrous to
he general interests of the country. He had no wish to see
patronage altogether abolished, but he was desirous that the
principle of non-intrusion should be so tar recognised as
would satisfy the people and erve the Church of Scotland
from a shock which might re-act upon other institutions.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he was fully alive to the import-
uhject, which had been so calmly, ably, and dis-
brought under the consideration of the house by
Parliament was bound to regard