Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

A debate of some length ensued, in which all admitted the paramount importance of establishing the Bishopric of Manchester. The Bishop of Bangor, and the Bishop of Salisbury, supported the new Bill. The Earl of Ripon opposed it. The Archbishop of Canterbury defended the arrangement made by the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Bishop of London did the same; the real difficulty, he said, was not to provide an income for the Bishop of Manchester, but a seat in the House of Lords: to create a Bishop without a seat-to say nothing of the technical difficulty, that all Bishops sit by right of their baronies-would beget odious comparisons, and eventually a general disposition altogether to dispense with the attendance of Bishops in the House. The Bishop of Exeter was favourable to a large increase of the Episcopacy of the country and of the House, though he thought, that some arrangement like that of the Irish Representative Bishops might be made, to free Bishoprics from the necessary connexion with seats in that House. The Bishop of St. David's, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Bishop of Norwich, reluctantly consented to the sacrifice, for the sake of instituting the Bishopric of Manchester. Earl Fitzwilliam voted for the second reading of "A Bill to unsettle a paltry Reform of the Church," desiring a real Reform. Lord Lyttleton would increase the number of Bishops in the House.

At the suggestion of the Bishop of Exeter, the Earl of Powis withdrew his Bill, intending to introduce it again next Session.

The great secession in the Church of Scotland, of which an VOL. LXXXV.

account will be given in the following chapter, gave occasion to the introduction of a Bill, proposed by Lord Aberdeen on the part of the Government, to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to benefices in Scotland. Some preliminary discussions had taken place in both Houses respecting the distracted state of the Scottish Church, and the Ministerial measure being introduced into the House of Lords, the second reading was moved on the 13th June. Lord Aberdeen then stated, that the Bill was the same with one which he had introduced in 1840; and he felt, that while it would satisfy neither extreme, neither the non- Intrusionists, nor those who were whimsically named "Violent Moderates;" it had regard to the great body of the clergy, who desired to remain in the Establishment with safe consciences, and to the contentment. of the people. He considered it a fundamental principle of the Church of Scotland, that no man should be intruded on a congregation against the will of the people, to whom he was appointed. Such was the principle of every Calvinistic Church in Europe; but he regarded it as a point not to be judged according to the mere arbitrary and capricious will of the people, but rather as a matter capable of being explained and judged of. In that sense, however, he altogether dissented from Lord Brougham's technical interpretation of the terms " qualified person," and "ministerial qualifications," as limited to the consideration of "the life, literature, and doctrine" of the presentee. It was opposed to the regulations for Presbyters, in the admission of presentees recently [P]

issued by the Church of Scotland. The point was not argued in the legal proceedings before the House of Lords, or in the courts below; but the question there discussed simply was, whether the Church had the power to divest itself of the right of judging the qualification, and could delegate to any portion of the people the right to refuse the party presented, without assigning any reason. In Scotland, the candidate for holy orders is not ordained generally, as in England, ignorant of the place to which he may be subsequently appointed; but he is ordained on presentation to a particular parish, and the Presbytery are to judge of his qualifications for the particular parish to which he is presented. The statutes say nothing of life, literature, aud doctrine," but he is to be " qualified;" and the statute of George I. says, that his " gifts and qualities" are to be tried. There might even be too much learning: the preacher of Bishop Butler's three admirable sermons upon human nature, would be unfitted for a congregation of illiterate ploughmen. Lord Aberdeen cited the opinions of Scotch judges, who were adverse to the Veto, but who held that other things besides "life, literature, and doctrine," must determine the suitableness of a presentee-as Lord Corehouse, who said, that ignorance of Gaelic would disqualify for some pa rishes; a weak voice for a large church; feeble health for an extensive parish; and none of the other judges expressed opinions at variance with this. Therefore, Lord Aberdeen would give the greatest possible latitude of objection to the people, and of judgments to the Presbytery; not liberum arbi

trium," but "liberum judicium." He believed that if the Bill now proposed had been supported by Lord Melbourne three years ago, the lamentable rupture which had since occurred would have been obviated. A declaration in favour of the Bill, in 1840, was signed by 400 ministers and 2,000 elders.

In judging of the "qualification," objections should be considered on their own merits, whether preferred by many or by few, or even by strangers to the parish; but in some cases, the numbers of the objectors were an important element-as objections that the minister's voice was weak, or that he did not edify. The Bill, therefore, provided that the Presbytery, or Church Court, to which the objections shall be referred to be cognosced, shall be authorised to inquire into the whole circum stances of the parish, and the character and number of the persons by whom the objections and reasons are preferred; and if the presentee shall be found not qualified or suitable for that particular parish, the Presbytery or Court shall pronounce to that effect, and shall set forth the special grounds upon which their judgment is founded. There is a security against any arbitrary and unjust decision, in the necessity of specifying the grounds on which the judgment is founded, and their finding that the presentee is not qualified for a particular parish.

The next clause abolished the Veto, to guard against any doubt or difficulty on that point; providing that it shall not be lawful for any Presbytery or other Ecclesiastical Court to reject any presentee upon the ground of any mere dissent or dislike, expressed by any part of the congregation of

[ocr errors]

the parish in which he is presented, and which dissent or dislike shall not be founded upon objections or reasons to be fully cognosced, judged of, and determined in the manner aforesaid, by the Presbytery or other Eccle siastical Court. The appeal, of course, in such cases, can only be to the superior Church Courts.

In judging of the qualifications of a presentee, the Church alone can decide; and it must be to the superior Church Courts exclusively, that an appeal can lie, provided only that the Presbytery acts within its competency as a judicatory of the Church: but in cases of excess of jurisdiction, the Civil Courts could interfere, by declarator, interdict, or any other mode.

Expressing strong respect for the disinterested, if erroneous, motives of the seceding minis ters, Lord Aberdeen declared his belief that the adoption of his Bill would retain in the Establishment a numerous body of ministers then in a state of suspense. The parish Ministers who had seceded were about 240, about one-fourth of the whole number; the unendowed ministers about 200; in all about one-third of the entire clergy of Scotland. He did not apprehend any fatal consequence from the secession, which was inevitable; for the point in dispute had ceased to be a question of non-intrusion, and had become one of spiritual independence, a claim inadmissible by any State which recognised an Established Church. But the Bill would tend to tranquillize those who remained within the pale.

The Earl of Roseberry considered the Bill as being in no way fitted to meet the present emer

gency. Without approving of the proceedings of the Non-Intrusionists, he thought they had been treated in an exasperating manner; and he feared that the necessity for a wholesale filling-up of the vacancies in the Church would fill Scotland with rival chapels-church preaching against church, Protestant against Protestant, until Scotland would no longer be a model of moral conduct and peaceable behaviour. He would have recommended a modified Veto Act.

Lord Brougham contended at some length that the Bill substantially reversed the decision in the Auchterarder case; as he still held that decision to be right, he must oppose this Bill, and he would rather have the Veto Act than thus throw the power into the hands of the Priests.

The Earl of Haddington defended the Bill, contending that it by no means gave the Veto to the Church. If it were refused, he anticipated a fearful increase of the secession.

Lord Cottenham argued at some length that the Bill was not in accordance with the existing law of Scotland; he quoted the opinions of several Scottish judges and writers, and various statutes, to show that "life, literature, and doctrine" constituted the real qualifications of a presentee. It could not allay the excitement in Scotland; because the claim was, to prevent persons being intruded on parishes to the majority of which they were objectionable, while the Bill only transferred patronage from the lay patrons to the Church. Besides, the plan had been rejected by the General Assembly in 1840; and if it was to be so efficacious, why was it not brought

forward to prevent the secession, instead of being delayed till after it had taken place?

The Lord Chancellor said, that the Bill was necessary in order to allay the excitement in Scotland; he believed that most of the objections to it would disappear on further examination, and others could be removed in Committee. Lord Campbell remarked that the Lord Chancellor, after his entire approval of the Auchterarder decision, seemed to have received some sudden light. He would not wish at once to reject the Bill; in the altered position of the Church, he thought that legislation was no longer unsafe, but advisable; but he could not agree that it "declared" the existing law of Scotland; unless therefore the words rendering it a declaratory instead of an enacting Bill were struck out, and unless the Civil Courts were empowered to ascertain that the Presbytery confirmed objections to presentees upon none but spiritual and canonical grounds, he should oppose the third reading. The Earl of Minto supported the second reading with a view to amendment in Committee. In reply Lord Aberdeen stated, that the Bill had been submitted to the proper authorities, and revised by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Bill then passed a second reading.

Upon the Motion for its commitment on the 25th June, some further discussion took place. Lord Campbell then renewed his objections to the Bill, which by referring a liberum arbitrium to the Church of Scotland, was an insult to those who had decided in the Auchterarder case. The opinion of the Law Lords he stat

ed to be unanimous, that the Bill was not a true exposition of the existing law of Scotland, and therefore could not be truly described as declaratory.

The Earl of Aberdeen defended the Bill, the expectation of which he said had operated to prevent many from seceding. It had been objected to in other quarters as inadequate to satisfy the people and the Church, but as far as it went, he believed it to be a just and proper Bill. It had undergone the careful consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and been pronounced by them to be in accordance with the constitution of the Church. It was a measure which he could not abandon; for in abandoning it he should be abandoning what he considered the indisputable right of the people, and that right no power under Heaven should make him concede.

The Duke of Wellington defended the Bill which he considered did not at all clash with the point decided in the Auchterarder

case.

Lord Cottenham strongly contested that this was a declaratory Bill, and he challenged the Earl of Aberdeen to mention any learned person who had read the Bill, and had not given such an opinion.

The Lord Chancellor took up the challenge. The 3d clause expressly, and in terms, stated that no objection should prevail, unless it was founded on some defect in the presentee's ministerial gifts, Unless the objection, therefore, ranged itself within that character, it could not prevail; and consequently there was an end at once of the argument, that the Bill was an innovation on the law of Scot. land. The question in the Auch,

terarder case was, whether the Presbytery had the right to refuse to try the qualifications of the presentee, not what those qualifications should be. The Bill had been submitted to the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and the Lord Justice Clerk, who, as Dean of Faculty, argued the Auchterarder case at the bar with great ability. That learned Judge expressed himself with respect to this Bill in these terms "As the Bill stands, it is the deliberate opinion of myself, of the Lord-Advocate, and of the Solicitor-General, that it embodies the existing law of Scotland." In another passage he spoke more in detail. He said "I beg to state most decidedly my clear opinion, that your Bill is only declaratory of the law of Scotland on the subject of the collation of ministers by the Church; or as another statute calls it, the examination and admission of ministers; or as the statute of George I. describes it, of trying the qualities of ministers. I admit that the law has never before been so explained and cleared up; and your Bill goes to the full extent of the principle of the suitableness of the minister, as admitted by me in my judgment in the Auchterarder case." The former Bill was also a declaratory Bill; and the late Lord President pronounced that to be really so. The present Lord President also said, in a letter to Lord Aberdeen "I hold that the enactments proposed in your Bill are in consonance with the true principles of the constitution of the Church of Scotland. I cannot, therefore, persuade myself that there is any solid ground for holding that your Lordships' Bill can be justly viewed as impeaching the autho

rity of the judgment in the Auchterarder case. In that case, nothing was, in fact, judicially determined as to the extent of the power of the Presbytery in trying the qualification and completing the admission of the presentee which the Church had thought proper to devolve upon the communicants." Lord Corehouse, Lord Jeffrey, and five others of the Judges, were authorities against the arguments of the Opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst rested the case on the authority of the Scotch Judges.

Lord Denman did not feel competent to argue the question merely as one of Scotch law; but the arguments for passing the declaratory Act seemed to him to be alarming; a very strong case ought to be made out before the judgment in the Auchterarder case, with the reasons given for it, should be set aside. A division then took place in favour of the Bill. Lords Cottenham and Campbell, assisted by the Marquess of Breadalbane, again opposed the Bill on the Motion for its third reading, and an amendment by the former learned Lord, which went to strike out all declaratory words was negatived, as was another which he afterwards moved to record his strenuous opposition to the Bill, that the debate be adjourned to that day three months.

In the House of Commons Sir James Graham moved the second reading of the Bill on the 31st July. He reviewed the history of the subject from the earliest period of the Reformation in Scotland, when patronage was an object of great jealousy to all classes; the doctrine of non-intrusion of the presentee by the patron against

« ForrigeFortsett »