§ (The Lord President.)
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he had given Notice to move on the Motion that the House be put into Committee—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to give power to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to frame rules (if they shall think fit) under which persons other than communicants as defined in this Act may become qualified to elect and appoint ministers to vacant churches and parishes in Scotland"—He had been advised that it would be competent for the Committee on the Bill to deal with the subject referred to in his Instruction; and therefore he would not proceed with the Motion.
THE LORD PRESIDENTacquainted the House, That Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to signify that she had placed at the disposal of Parliament 1227 her interest in the several rights of advocation, donation, and patronage of churches and parishes in Scotland be-longing to her.
Then it was moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill: The same was agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 3 (Repeal of Acts 10 Anne, c. 12, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 61. Appointment of Ministers in future).
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, the object of this measure, as stated by the Lord President, when he introduced the Bill to your Lordships, is to strengthen the Church of Scotland, and the mode which the Bill adopts is by removing patronage from the hands of the patrons who have exercised it hitherto, and placing it in the hands of the communicants. Now, my Lords, I want to know, in the first place, how does this removal of patronage in any way strengthen the Established Church of Scotland? It appears to me that, apart from the objections that exist to the communicants, the effect of this change is not to strengthen the Church by any enlargement of the basis upon which it rests, or by giving it some additional hold on the affections of the people; but the effect of the change is simply to give a statutory recognition to what has for long been a matter of fact—namely, to enact by statute that for the future, presentations which practically have been for a long time in the hands of the congregations, are actually to be vested in the hands of a portion of the congregation. Indeed, as I have already pointed out to your Lordships, so far as this is a change at all, it really is a restriction and not an enlargement of the Church, because hitherto the patrons themselves have for the most part not been members of the Church of Scotland, and where they have renounced their patronage they have given it up into the hands of the congregations, who have exercised it directly or through the hands of a committee. Now, this change, so far as it is a change at all, is a change in a restrictive sense, because henceforth the patrons who are not members of the Church of Scotland will have no voice in the presentation, nor, as the Bill stands now, will that portion of the congregation have any voice who are not 1228 communicants. Now, my Lords, does this new electoral body as defined in the Bill in any way really strengthen the Church of Scotland? Does it alter the basis upon which the Church is constituted, so as to enlarge it as a Church in any way? Does it bring into the Church any person who is at this moment without its pale? But, apart from these questions, there are objections which I would entertain to the very qualification of communicants. In the first place, the qualification is the institution of a sacramental test—a form of qualification which has been universally rejected for many years in all legislation with regard to England. I was mistaken the other day when I said that the communicants up to this time were a body unknown to the Legislature in Scotland, because—as the noble Lord opposite who corrected me afterwards very properly observed—in the year 1870 a Bill was passed with regard to certain churches in Edinburgh which undoubtedly did constitute the communicants for the future the elective body. But I submit to your Lordships that this qualification of communicants is a narrow and not a broad qualification, and it is one which we ought not to sanction in a Bill of this kind, which has for its object the strengthening of the Church Establishment in Scotland. In the next place, I would point out that the patrons who have up to the present time presented to the livings have been recognized in Acts of Parliament, and that their title is a Parliamentary title. I submit to your Lordships that a Parliamentary title is the title upon which alone any persons who have a right to present to livings of the Church in connection with the State should base their claims. Now, my Lords, what are we going to do in this Bill? I find it, first of all, in the Bill—I find afterwards repeated on the Amendment of the noble Duke beside me (the Duke of Argyll)—that in the case of the communicants their qualification is to be defined by the General Assembly. The communicants are to mean all male persons whose names appear on the communion roll of the vacant church and parish. Now, I took the opportunity of stating to your Lordships on a previous occasion—and it is probable some of your Lordships may know it—that this communion roll may depend, to a great extent, on the will of the clergyman of a parish. The 1229 clergyman of a parish has the power, if he likes to exercise it, of raising any objection, and he might say that a certain person should not communicate. I admit that, in the event of a clergyman so acting, the person against whom the objection is raised has the right to appeal to the General Assembly; but I submit to your Lordships that it is not right that the qualification of those who are in future to elect the ministers of the Established Church should depend upon the action either of the minister or of the General Assembly, and feel convinced that the country will only be satisfied with the qualifications of the electors being determined by Parliament, as has heretofore been the case. Now, my Lords, I desire to be brief; but there is one more objection which I must take the liberty of pointing out to your Lordships, and it is this—that there are many parishes in Scotland in which this qualification of communicants cannot possibly work in a satisfactory manner. There are many parishes in the Highlands in which there are very few persons connected with the Established Church, and, consequently, very few communicants. To such an extent is this the case that in the course of a debate which took place lately in the General Assembly, a proposition was brought forward by, I think, a minister of the Established Church, that in parishes where there was not above a certain number of communicants the electoral franchise, as I may call it, should be extended to persons who were not members of the Church of Scotland. Now, my Lords, having said this much I will proceed to state the purpose of my Amendment. But I wish to make one general remark, in which I am sure all your Lordships will concur—namely, that it is a very dangerous thing to meddle or in any way, if I may so say, to tinker, with any Establishment. Unless there are very grave reasons of State why we should introduce some changes into it, I am sure that all the friends of the Establishment will be of opinion that it is much better to leave the Establishment undisturbed; but if it is conceded that there are such reasons in this case, and if it is necessary to change the principles upon which patronage has been hitherto administered, I submit to your Lordships that we ought at all events to seek some wide and comprehensive basis 1230 upon which the Church may really rest—that we ought to extend the franchise so as to give satisfaction and excite an interest in the general body of the Scotch people, and that we ought not, as proposed in this Bill, merely to recognize in words a state of things which has actually existed a long time in practice. I have looked at the various qualifications which have been proposed from time to time by different persons, and I must say that I take the same exception, though in a much less degree, to the substitution of "congregation" instead of "communicants," as is proposed in this Bill. It appears to me that we cannot get from the General Assembly any definition of "congregation" which is really final, and which it is beyond the power of anyone to change. I submit that the electoral body ought to be defined by Parliament, and without the consent of Parliament there should be no means of changing its constitution or of altering the mode of electing ministers of the Established Church of Scotland. Now, I may observe to your Lordships that all matters which affect the constitution of the Church, even if not an Established Church, are really determined by some Civil Court or by Parliament. I have read a good deal recently of the liberty, for instance, which the Free Church has obtained. But many of your Lordships will remember the famous decision in the Cardross Case, which laid it down that the Free Church has a constitution, that that constitution must be defined and decided by the Civil Courts, and that it is not competent for any member, or any majority of members, to set aside the rules which they have once established for themselves. If this is true with regard to the Free Church, how much more true is it with regard to the Established Church. I have gone through the various qualifications proposed from time to time, and until I arrived at the ratepaying parishioners I have not been able to find one single qualification which, in my opinion, really places the Established Church upon a reliable and sound foundation, from which it cannot be removed without legislative interference. I have no superstitious veneration for the rate-paying parishioners, but a ratepaying parishioner is a person whose qualification your Lordships will readily understand: and if it is represented to me— 1231 as it was the other night—that in the first place there are many ratepaying parishioners who do not belong, not only to the Established Church, but to any Protestant denomination whatever, and, in the second place, that there are many ratepaying parishioners who are hostile to the Established Church, I think I can show your Lordships that the Established Church of Scotland, if she really seeks to be the Established Church, need not be afraid of making this change. In the first place, I do not think there are a great number of ratepayers in Scotland—at all events, such a number as the Established Church need be afraid of—who belong to denominations entirely foreign to Presbyterianism in some form or another. There are no doubt Roman Catholics in considerable numbers; there are Jews, and there are persons belonging to other religious persuasions; but if Presbyterianism has that hold upon the feelings of the Scotch nation which I believe it has, I do not think we need apprehend from these persons any upsetting of our national religion. I think it has not generally been found to be the case that persons who do not agree to particular sets of religious tenets therefore constitute themselves, when they can got the opportunity, into open enemies of an existing Establishment. It has been said that the Voluntary bodies of Presbyterians will not join the Church even if we make the change I propose. The noble Earl who represents the Free Church in this House (the Earl of Dalhousie) has stated what has already been stated in the General Assembly of the Free Church itself, that although they are glad to see that patronage is being abolished, yet that the differences between them and the Established Church are not thereby removed, and that they remain as hostile to the Church, and as unable to re-enter it, as they were in 1843. Dr. Chalmers said, in his first speech as Moderator in the Free Church—
Although we quit the Establishment, we go out of it on Establishment principles. We quit a vitiated Establishment, but we would rejoice to return to a pure one. We are the advocates of a national religion, and not Voluntaries.Now, that declaration shows that the Free Church at that time was not in opposition to the Establishment. And not only that, but your Lordships will see that within the last fortnight, letters 1232 have appeared in the newspapers to this effect—that although the Free Church has declared by a great majority in its Assembly that it is opposed to the principles of the Establishment, yet there are many persons who have written to say they themselves do not agree with that decision, and who do not object to the principles upon which this Bill proceeds. I submit to your Lordships that if we wish once more to receive within the arms of the Church those persons who have left it, or are no longer connected with the Establishment, it is expedient and wise to open the arms of the Church as widely as possible; and, at all events, if, from whatever reason, those who now belong to the Free Church should refuse to rejoin the Church which they have quitted, yet the Establishment ought to have it in its power to point out that she has recognized them as electors, and that she holds that she is still the Church of the country, the Church of the parishes; that her ministers are the ministers of the parishes; and that she does not in any way admit that, because they have quitted her fold, they are therefore unable to return to it. If the Church of Scotland is to continue to be the Church of Scotland—if it wishes to make its way in the affections of the people—it must, when it makes changes in its constitution, accept for itself some basis which will, without any difficulty, comprehend all the members of the Presbyterian Church. My Lords, it is for that reason that I propose to your Lordships to add the words, "rate-paying parishioners." When I spoke upon the former occasion, I proposed to strike out the word "communicants;" but it has been represented to me that many persons feel great interest in the Church who are not ratepayers, therefore I propose to insert, immediately after, the word "communicants," the words "and rate-paying parishioners."
§ An Amendment moved page 2, line 2, after ("communicants") add ("and rate-paying parishioners").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYopposed the Amendment. He thought it was certainly comprehehensive enough; but it did not appear to him to have any other merit. The connection between the ratepayers as such and the Established Church was of the slenderest kind, 1233 and had never been recognized. If their Lordships proceeded on old historical lines, they might define what the elective body was to be, because in various Acts they would find mention made of the "congregations;" but he could not find that it had ever been considered by the Established Church of Scotland that the appointment of her ministers ought to be vested in the ratepayers.
EARL GREYAlthough no noble Lord connected with Scotland has supported the Amendment of my noble Friend (Lord Camperdown), I cannot allow it to be rejected without stating my reasons for believing that if we are to have the ministers of parishes in Scotland appointed by election, the ratepayers, as proposed by my noble Friend, would, on the whole, form the best electors. We must consider what other qualification for electors could be adopted instead of that now suggested. The proposal of the Bill is that the right of voting for ministers shall rest with the communicants. Even my noble Friend the noble Duke behind me (The Duke of Argyll) in so strongly supporting the Bill, took exception to giving the right of voting to communicants. [The Duke of ARGYLL dissented.] I beg pardon of my noble Friend for having mistaken him, but I certainly understood him to say that he did not approve of making the right to vote depend upon being a communicant, and I was confirmed in that impression by the Amendment of which he had given Notice, for substituting the "congregation" for the "communicants" as the voting body. But though the noble Duke may not object to making the fact of being a communicant the qualification for voting, I have myself an insuperable objection to such a proposal. In the first place, I consider it a desecration of this holy rite of our religion, and as tending to induce men to take part in that rite, not from religious, but secular motives. In the second place, it would place a dangerous power in the hands of the Kirk Session. It rests with this body—as was explained to us on a former night—to determine who are to be admitted to the communion, and to settle the roll of communicants. When being placed on this roll is to give a right to vote in the election of ministers, there will be an obvious temptation to abuse in settling it, while the mere suspicion of any such 1234 abuse or partiality would be injurious to the discipline of the Church. I do not see how these objections to making the roll of communicants the list of voters can be met. Another proposal which is to be submitted to us this evening is that the right of electing the minister should be given, not to the communicants, but to the congregation. This would be a less narrow, and therefore, to that extent, a better qualification; but besides other objections, it has the great fault of being too vague. When you are creating a qualification for voters in elections, which will excite much interest, and cause many contests, it is absolutely necessary that the right of voting should be so clearly defined as to make it easy to determine with certainty who are, and who are not, entitled to it. But I do not find that the Amendments of my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) would provide this required definition. He evades the difficulty by empowering the General Assembly to frame rules to guide the Kirk Session in making out a list of the congregation. I cannot regard this arrangement as satisfactory. If Parliament decides that the congregation is to form the electoral body, it is bound to define the conditions of admission to it, and is not entitled to make over to the General Assembly the duty of such supplemental legislation. I must add that, looking to its past conduct, I should feel much distrust as to the manner in which it would exercise this power. I fear that the rules for deciding who are to be regarded as members of the congregation might be framed by the Assembly in a narrow and sectarian spirit. There is still more reason to fear that such a spirit might be shown in the application of these rules by the Kirk Session. Religious parties are almost sure to be formed, and we know that religious parties are apt to be even more bitter than political ones; and when party divisions ran high in a Scotch parish, the power of admitting or excluding persons from the congregation would not be likely to be very fairly exercised by the majority of a Kirk Session anxious to keep up its own ascendency. Perhaps the election of a new minister might be approaching when the question arose whether such and such persons had not avowed opinions not sufficiently in conformity with the doctrines of the Church 1235 to justify their being included in the congregation. In such circumstances, would there not be a danger that such questions would be decided in a manner to render the church congregation more and more narrow and sectarian? This mode of forming constituencies for the election of ministers seems to me directly calculated to create and exasperate religious animosities in the parishes of Scotland. And these animosities would spread from the parishes to the Presbyteries and Synods, to which, as the higher Church Courts, questions as to the exclusion or admission of members into the congregation would be carried from the Kirk Session by appeal. Nor is this all. When being admitted to the congregation carries with it a valuable privilege, and exclusion from it a denial of that privilege, I apprehend that it will be impossible to prevent those who may consider themselves unjustly excluded from the congregation from appealing to the Civil Courts, and asking those Courts to decide whether the privilege Parliament had meant to confer upon the parishioners, of taking part in the election of ministers, had not been unduly narrowed by the rules of the Assembly, or the application of those rules by the Kirk Session. In the case of a national institution, and of a question as to rights derived from an Act of Parliament, I do not see how jurisdiction can be refused to the Civil Courts, and if it is exorcised, we may be sure that the cry against Erastianism will again be raised. By adopting the proposal of the noble Duke, I cannot doubt that we should be sowing the seed which, sooner or later, would produce the fruit of fresh conflicts between Civil and Ecclesiastical authorities in Scotland, and new perils for the Church Establishment. There is another and a yet stronger objection to the proposal, that the choice of ministers for the parishes of Scotland should be determined by an election, in which only the members of the church, whether described as "communicants" or as "the congregation," should have votes. If the Church of Scotland is still to be considered to be a national institution, the whole nation must be regarded as interested in its welfare. For one, I have always held that it is impossible in argument to defend the maintenance of an Established Church, except on the ground of its utility to the nation at 1236 large. On that ground, but on that ground only, I hold that a well-constituted Church Establishment may be successfully defended as one of the most important of national institutions. An Established Church ought to be, and I believe it is, both in England and in Scotland, of the greatest benefit not only to those who belong to it, but to the nation, because the nation at large is deeply interested in the existence of such an instrument for diffusing and keeping alive through the whole community religious knowledge and a sense of religious responsibility. Hence, though I am not a Scotchman, but an Englishman, and prefer our own Church to a Presbyterian Church, still as a British subject I feel a deep interest in the success of the Established Church of Scotland as promoting the welfare of the whole United Kingdom. And this interest must be felt much more strongly by a Scotchman living in Scotland. Though his own feelings and opinions may lead him to join in the devotions of some other form of Christianity, it is a matter of deep concern to the inhabitant of a Scotch parish, that the person selected for the office of minister of its national Church should be a truly able and pious man. Surely, then, it is not just that a man of education and intelligence deeply interested in the welfare of a parish should be denied any voice in the choice of a minister because he is not a member of the Established Church, while men far less likely to exercise the privilege with judgment are allowed to vote. Among the electors there may be men who owe the privilege to an adherence to the Church far more nominal than real—worldly, selfish, and indifferent to the public good. It is neither just, nor calculated to promote the welfare of the parish or of the nation, that such men should be allowed to vote in the election of ministers because they profess to adhere to the Church, while men far superior to them, and far more truly interested in the good choice of a minister are excluded from voting because they are members of a different religious body. Consider how this would work. My noble' Friend behind me (the Duke of Argyll) told us the other night that many of the persons holding patronage in the Scotch Church did not belong to it. He is himself a large holder of patronage which he uses admirably, and 1237 he is also a member of the Establishment; but there is another noble Duke, not now in the House, who is, I believe, the patron of a still larger number of parishes, and who told us that he is a member of the Church of England and not of the Church of Scotland. Now, I believe nobody will deny that the Duke of Buccleuch has used his patronage as well and as conscientiously as my noble Friend behind me, and that he has a deep interest in the welfare of the parishes where he exercises this power. Yet under this Bill the Duke of Buccleuch will not only be deprived of the patronage he has used with so much benefit to the public, but he will not even be allowed to give a vote in the choice of the minister of the parish in which he lives, though he is so deeply interested in the choice which will have to be made. I repeat that this is neither just nor calculated to promote the public good; and I contend, therefore, that if we must have an elective ministry for the Scotch Church you ought not to confine the right of election to its members, and I know of no other body to which it could be entrusted with so much propriety as those who are most truly interested in the welfare of the parish as its rate-paying inhabitants. There may be some doubt whether the ratepayers would not in some cases be too numerous a body of electors, and whether it would not be better that they should be enabled to exercise their power indirectly instead of directly by giving the nomination of the minister to the school board elected by the ratepayers. But without venturing to give an opinion on this point, I must express my conviction that maintaining the Church as a national institution implies that the whole nation is interested in it, and that to establish a system by which its ministers should be elected only by those who are members of it is entirely inconsistent with this view of its position. While ministers are appointed to churches by the Crown, or by private patrons, acting in the character of trustees for the nation and the parishes, and while every inhabitant of the parish is entitled to share if he chooses in the use of the Church, and the services of the minister, the position of the clergy is obviously totally different from what it will be if they are to be elected only by a section of the parishioners, and in some cases by a very 1238 small section of them. If this change is made, I am persuaded that no long time will elapse before the question what is to be done with the Scotch Establishment will again come before us in a more difficult and complicated form than it now presents. In contending that the right of voting in the election of ministers ought not to be narrowed by excluding parishioners who are not members of the Church, I have not forgotten with how much power the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) argued the other evening in his very eloquent and impressive speech against allowing the enemies of the Church to have a share in the appointment of its ministers. I cannot deny that this was a weighty argument, but admitting its force, it seems to me rather to suggest a doubt as to the wisdom of having brought forward this measure at all than to justify the adoption of so dangerous a course as that of creating a narrow sectarian constituency for the purpose of chosing the ministers of a national Church. My noble Friend's speech, as I told him at the time, led me to the conclusion that it would have been far better not to have meddled with the subject at all. I do not mean to find fault with the Government for having done so; considering the strong wish which has for several years been displayed by the General Assembly of the Church for the proposed change, and the very large majority in that body by which the demand for it has been supported, I am not surprised that the Government—having before its eyes the unhappy results of a difference with the Assembly 30 years ago—should have shrunk from again engaging with it in a controversy of the same kind with that which ended so badly. But though I do not presume to condemn the Government for what it has done, I most deeply lament that the leaders of the Scotch Church should have been so ill-advised as to raise this question. When I listened to my noble Friend, as he described how well the existing system had worked, it seemed to me that he was proving in the most conclusive manner, how much wiser it would have been to abstain from disturbing an arrangement under which the parishioners have no practical grievance to complain of, for the purpose of introducing a new system which will be attended with so much risk of failure 1239 For let me remind you what it was that we heard from the noble Duke. He told us that in the present state of things, it was practically impossible that a minister to whom there was a serious objection on the part of the people could be intruded upon a Scotch parish; he showed us that if a patron were so wanting in a proper sense of his duty as to wish to inflict such an outrage on a parish, there exists a moral power to prevent him from doing so, which it is simply impossible for him to overcome. The noble Duke went on to describe his own practice—which he said was that usually followed by other patrons also—when a parish was vacant. He told us that he consulted some of the leading Churchmen of the parish, and that they—after learning the opinion of their fellow parishioners—recommended to him, as the patron, the minister they thought most likely to be acceptable to the congregation. Can any man say that, under this arrangement, any practical grievance exists? Does it not, in fact, come to this, that, at the present moment, the parishes of Scotland enjoy the benefit of having their ministers appointed by a kind of virtual election, but without all the disturbance and the risk which must follow from making the election a formal and a legal one, with the necessity which flows from this, of defining by law, who are to be the electors? The heads of the Church of Scotland have therefore, in my opinion, committed a grievous error, by inducing the General Assembly to insist by such large majorities in asking for legislation on this subject; but as they have been so ill-advised as to do so, and this measure is brought before us by the authority of the Government, I should be the last Member of your Lordships' House to ask you to reject it. But in assenting to it, it is our duty to endeavour to pass it in the shape in which it will be likely to give rise to the fewest difficulties, and to the least danger hereafter; and of the various constituencies suggested for the election of parochial ministers in Scotland, the one proposed by my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment—namely, the ratepayers of the parish, is, in my judgment, that to which, on the whole, there is least objection.
THE DUKE OF AEGYLL*As on Tuesday last, on the second reading of this Bill, I had the honour of stating to 1240 the House several arguments which appear to me conclusive against allowing the ratepayers, as such, to elect ministers of the Gospel, I shall not require to detain your Lordships long in urging some further objections to it. But I cannot allow to pass without reply the two speeches which have just been delivered—one by a noble Lord who was connected with the late Government, and the other by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) on the cross-benches, misrepresenting in the most grievous manner many facts which ought to be understood by everyone conversant with the history of the Church of Scotland, and advancing arguments in favour of a proposal which I really can hardly conceive being deliberately made by any sane man—the proposal, I mean, to give the election of ministers of the Established Church to ratepayers indiscriminately. In the first place, my Lords, I must observe that it is absolutely a revolutionary change. There has been nothing like it in the whole history of Churches either of England or of Scotland; and when we undertake to deal with ancient institutions, avowedly for the purpose of reforming and strengthening them, it is our habit to act in the spirit of those ancient institutions, adapting them indeed to the new circumstances and new conditions of society, but not to adopt proposals which are absolutely inconsistent with the fundamental principles on which Parliament has proceeded in former times.
My Lords, I do not consider myself in any sense a High Churchman—for there are Presbyterian High Churchmen as well as Episcopalian High Churchmen; I hold that the attitude in which all Churches should address Parliament is that of ordinary societies, whatever may be their opinion as to the peculiar sacredness of the source from which their privileges are derived. But it is fatal, not merely to a Church, but to any society, to introduce into it—and confer powers of government upon—those who do not belong to it, and who do not desire to do so. Are we prepared to introduce the principle of this Amendment into any other Church? We cannot adopt it in this case on the plea that it is essential to the position of an Establishment without admitting a general principle applicable to the Church of England also. The professed object of the Amendment is to widen the Church 1241 of Scotland; but I have no hesitation in saying, that in the peculiar condition of opinion in Scotland—a condition which has always existed—it would make comprehensiveness as regards the Dissenting Churches absolutely impossible. There is not a Presbyterian Church in Scotland which would not reject the proposed terms of membership, and which would not be repelled from joining' the Established Church by the very fact that such a clause had been enter-rained. The Dissenting Churches would say, with truth—"We have got our freedom by seceding from all connection with the State; we always told you that connection is fatal to the freedom of Christian Churches. You of the Established Church denied it, and applied to Parliament to reform and strengthen you, and what have you got? You have got an Act of Parliament which forces upon you vast numbers of men who belong to no Church whatever." And yet my noble Friend (Earl Grey) talks of the danger of collision with the Civil Courts because we propose to leave something to the regulation of the Church itself. He refers to this possible collision as likely to increase the prejudice of "Erastianism" against the Established Church, whilst he supports the Hyper-Erastian Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown). As to the danger of Erastianism being charged against the Church because the Civil Courts may have to decide on the interpretation of this new law, that cannot be avoided. There can be no Established Churches without Acts of Parliament, and there can be no Act of Parliament which may not ultimately come before the Civil Courts for decision and interpretation. The certainty that a ratepaying constituency for the election of ministers would be fatal to the possibility of comprehension with the other Presbyterian Bodies is so important that I wish to impress it on the House. The mere fact that the Established Church had submitted to such a claim would be to all other Presbyterians final and conclusive against their ever joining it. Anyone who knows the opinions of Scotchmen must know that the Bill, in its present form, is beyond all question that which best removes the difficulties in the way of other Presbyterians joining the Established Church. Look at the indications of this which are now 1242 being given. Look at the alarm this Bill has caused among the leaders of the voluntary Churches. And why this alarm? Because they know that the proposed constituency—so objected to here—is the very one which places the Established Church on the most popular basis in Scotland. But adopt this Amendment, and the whole virtue of the Bill as regards popularity and comprehensiveness is gone.
Then, my Lords, I have another objection as regards the practical working of such a system. There are some parishes in Scotland, as in England, in which the patronage is in the hands of the ratepayers. In England it is notorious that these are the most unfortunate parishes in the country, and the same may be said of the corresponding parishes of Scotland. I have a Petition here from one of them, the parish of North Leith, and Dr. Smith, the minister, and the whole Kirk Session declare that the operation of this indiscriminate popular patronage is most injurious. Within the last half-century no vacancy has been filled up in a shorter period than two years on account of the squabbling, quarrelling, and electioneering tactics that were resorted to. Yet this is the condition of things which the Amendment would make universal in Scotland. My Lords, there is no analogy between election by ratepayers and selection by a congregation. The conduct of bodies of men depends on the spirit in which they are brought together. Congregations have a pride and a real personal interest in the ministrations of the Church. They are an organized body with its own esprit de corps. Its members have a sense of responsibility towards each other and towards the Church. But the ratepayers as such have no esprit de corps; the election of a minister, therefore, becomes a scramble, which is conducted without principle, without the sense of responsibility, and must end, as it always does, in disorder and confusion.
And now, my Lords, I pass to another objection to the Amendment of my noble Friend, to which I referred also on Tuesday last, but which has acquired new force from the proceedings of this night. For what, my Lords, have you already done to-night? You have passed one clause of the Bill which repeals Lord Aberdeen's Act—an Act, indeed, to which there are many objections, but 1243 which has at least this advantage, that it does afford an important protection to parishes against the intrusion of improper men, by giving to congregations the power of making objections against a presentee, and by giving to the Church Courts power to give effect to those objections. Now, it is proposed to vest the election of the minister in a committee of ratepayers—men infinitely less responsible than the existing patrons—and to enable them to put a man in over the heads of the members of the congregation, withdrawing at the same time from the congregation even the protection of Lord Aberdeen's Act. Was ever such an act of tyranny towards a congregation and a Church proposed before? If it be said the Amendment is to be itself amended, and protection against the intrusion of improper men is to be given by recognizing the right of veto on the part of the congregation, and by allowing it to be exercised toties quoties so long as unacceptable men are presented—then you come back to a virtual election by the congregation, but you arrive at this result in a roundabout and most inconvenient way. But as the Amendment is now proposed to the House there is no security whatever against a majority of ratepayers putting in a bad man on purpose to disgust and destroy the Church. My Lords, I see that in the Press, and in letters, I have been taken to task for suggesting that such a Machiavellian policy could be adopted. I confess I have a profound distrust of the temper in which religious parties will act towards each other when they have the power. Moreover, we are not without experience in this matter. There have been cases in which it is alleged with apparently too much reason that this has actually been done. There have been cases in which municipal bodies holding the right of patronage and governed by Dissenters have been strongly suspected, and, I fear, on good grounds, of presenting inferior men on purpose to disgust and disperse the congregation. Some of these cases, and one in particular near Edinburgh, have been among the most scandalous cases of disputed settlements. But, my Lords, this is not all. Look at what the voluntary Churches are doing now in resisting this Bill. I said the other night that the United Presbyterian Church did not venture to oppose 1244 this Bill on its merits, and I have had some indignant remonstrances addressed to me saying that they do. Well, I saw some United Presbyterian friends of mine the other day, and said to them—"How on earth can you oppose this Bill? It proposes a mode of selecting ministers which you yourselves have adopted; and not only that, but which you declare to be a matter of divine right. How, then, can you refuse to your fellow Christians in the Established Church that which you yourselves declare to be the divinely appointed right of every Christian Church?" Their answer was—"It is a divine right provided the Church is disestablished; but it is not a divine right if it is established." Now, men who deceive themselves to such an extent as to the conduct which real Christian principle requires them to pursue towards others, are quite as capable of thinking that an individual parish has no right to the services of a good man as that the whole Church has no right to a good system of appointing her ministers. Of course, I do not say that all Dissenters would act upon such principles; I know they would not. The high-minded men among them would refuse to have any part in the election. But, then, who would take part in it? The men of a lower class of mind—the bigots, the fanatics—and others who may not be scrupulous as to the means of embarrassing the Church.
My Lords, there is another argument with regard to the ratepayer to which for a moment I desire to call the attention of the House. Not many years ago the minister of the Established Church had many civil functions; he was head of the education of the parish, he was head of the Poor Law Board, and had many other statutory rights and privileges strictly connected with civil matters. At that time there might have been at least some plausibility in the argument in favour of ratepayers having some voice in his election, although even then it would have been monstrous not to allow the congregation at least a veto. But all this has been changed within the last few years, and the Established Church of Scotland and her ministers have been dissociated from all those civil powers and duties which formerly belonged to them, so that they have now purely spiritual functions to 1245 discharge, and are merely the spiritual guides of their own flocks, including, of course, all who desire to belong to these.
And now, my Lords, there is another argument of some delicacy, which, however, I should be ashamed wholly to avoid. It is impossible not sometimes to ask the question whether the power of the Christian pulpit is not on the decline. It has, I think, lost much of its authority in this country, owing to other competing influences—to other modes and forms of discussion. But this may be said with perfect truth, that over a large part of Scotland the pulpit is still what it has ever been—the centre of intellectual and religious life, upon which many depend for the highest interest and comfort of their lives, and for the consolation which the services of religion can give them in the hour of death. I do not envy the responsibility of those—a responsibility in which I will take no share—who would place the election of ministers in the hands of men who may not be Christians at all—who may take no interest in the services of religion, and who make no profession whatever of the Christian life. Is it fit that such men should be the judges of the powers of the ministers of the Gospel rightly to handle the word of truth? Will the House of Lords import such a precedent into its legislation—a precedent which, once established as an essential feature in Churches connected with the State, will soon be extended to the Church of England also?
My Lords, the Bill of the Government stands on this strong foundation; it is founded, in the first place, on the universal practice and custom of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland; it is founded, in the second place, on the adoption by the Legislature of the very same constituency on the very last occasion on which it has had to deal with the subject. Only four years ago Parliament, when many Established Churches in Edinburgh were disconnected from the Annuity Tax, decided that the constituency for the election of ministers should be the congregation, expressing its opinion through the communicants. That is the precedent adopted by Parliament, and it is for those who object to show conclusive reasons for their objection. Lord Minto, in a letter to a public journal, and my noble Friend 1246 near me, have endeavoured to represent the Communion as a test by means of which a man might be arbitrarily excluded by the minister of the parish. But that is not the constitution, that is not the practice, of the Church of Scotland. The practice is that the desire of persons to go to Communion is considered, not by the minister alone, but by the minister and the Kirk Session, the elected representatives of the congregation; and I think I can say of my own knowledge as a fact that everybody is admitted to the Communion as a matter of course, except those who are leading notoriously scandalous lives. My Lords, I have known cases in Scotland in which a refusal has been given, but those cases were not in the Established Church. I have known a case in the Episcopal Church of Scotland where a man has been repelled for having written a book which was certainly not against the interests of religion; and another in which Church Ordinances were refused to parents because they had sent their children to a school connected with the Established Church; but that was in the Free Church. The truth is that the Communion Roll is by far the best foundation, if you desire comprehensiveness as regards all the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. In England, indeed, when a Dissenter goes over to the Established Church he takes a great step—perhaps I may say a very wide stride. But in Scotland he has to take no step or stride whatever—there is nothing different in the worship—nothing in the forms of Communion—no quarrels about symbolism, or about the more important things which that symbolism is intended to represent. In that weighty speech which we heard the other night from the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) on the English Bill, he said—"Do not let us quarrel about the position in which a minister may stand in administering the Holy Communion; let it be to the south, the west, or the north, do not let us quarrel about it." Well, my Lords, that may be a wise thing, I believe it to be a necessary thing as matters stand in England; but let us not deceive ourselves as to what it means. It means "Don't let us mind, don't let us care, don't let us as a Parliament inquire, whether this Sacrament is dispensed as a Protestant Communion or as a Roman Catholic Mass." But 1247 did I not hear my noble Friend on the Bench below (the Earl of Harrowby) declare the other night that the existence of those ritualistic practices in the dispensing of the Communion was an effectual bar to many persons joining the service? In England, therefore, the Communion may be a test, and the communicants in a particular parish may be confined almost to one religious party. But in Scotland there are none of these differences, and therefore the members of one Presbyterian Church may pass with perfect case and freedom to another. My noble Friend (Earl Grey) said that the other night I had disapproved of communicants as the constituency for the election of ministers. I never said so; what I did say was that "communicants" was not the word used in the old statutes, but that "congregation" was the old word, although formerly no doubt "congregation" was synonymous with "communicants." Nevertheless I think it would be expedient to give power to the Church to include among those who are to elect the minister members of the congregation who are not communicants. Practically at the present moment, when the selection of ministers is left to the congregation, the opinion of the whole body, whether communicants or not, is consulted; although no doubt in the event of agreement not being attained, and a vote being taken, it is the communicants who alone generally vote in all the Presbyterian Churches. My Lords, the other day I mentioned the parish of Bonhill, in the Vale of Leven, which at the present time is vacant. In pursuance of my usual practice, I put the patronage in the hands of the congregation, and since the previous debate I have received from my hon. Friend (Mr. Smollett), for many years M.P. for Dumbartonshire, and one of the chief members of the congregation, a statement of the number of communicants, and also of the number of adherents who usually sit in the parish church. From this it appears that the number of communicants is 820, but besides these there are other 420 adherents and regular sitters in the church. I think it is not expedient to preclude the Church, by the wording of an Act of Parliament, from assigning to them some part in the election of a minister merely because they did not choose to 1248 communicate—if the General Assembly can see its way, as I do not doubt it can, to some reasonable rule as to the definition of those who are bonâ fide members of the congregation. If Her Majesty's Government should think this Amendment opposed to the principle of the Bill I will not press it; but I am unable to perceive that it is in any way inconsistent with such principle. I think it will place in the hands of the Church a useful freedom, and a freedom, moreover, which is at the present moment exercised; for both in the Free Church and the Established Church, where this freedom is allowed by the patron, all the congregation, and not merely the communicants, are consulted on the choice of the minister, although, no doubt, if it came to a vote, the communicants only may take part in the election. My noble Friend on the cross-benches has said that by avoiding the definition of a congregation we shall impose a very difficult task on the Church. I cannot agree that such will be the case. There are at the present moment some hundreds of parishes in Scotland which are termed quoad sacra parishes. These are not in the gift of patrons, but the ministers are often presented by the seat-holders of 21 years of age and upwards who have been attendants in the church for one year. I see no difficulty whatever in the Church enacting a general rule that, in addition to the communicants, those who have occupied seats in the parish church for a twelvemonth previous to the vacancy should take part in the election of the minister. I do not agree, however, with my noble Friend (Earl Grey) that there is any danger of persons partaking of the Communion with the sole object of becoming electors. In the first place, it is not practically found that such danger exists, although the constituency is the same in all the voluntary Churches. Indeed, as I am not aware that people can see beforehand the death of a minister, and as the Communion Boll is ordinarily made up once a year, it would not appear that there is much temptation or much facility for the conduct my noble Friend refers to. My noble Friend has apparently never been able to get out of his head the old controversy about the Test Acts. My Lords, no one can entertain a greater horror than I do of those Acts, for it was a 1249 profanation of the Sacraments of Religion to compel men to partake of them for the purpose of acquiring civil rights; but all Churches are connected more or less with creeds, confessions, and articles of belief; and what are these but religious tests? Indeed, I do not know what is meant by a Church unless it be a body of men bound together by some community of beliefs. These may be so drawn as to be wide and comprehensive, or they may be narrower and more restricted. But every Church must have some definition of its beliefs—some test of a religious character whereby to define its membership. Therefore, to object to Communion being made a test for religious purposes because it is utterly abominable and detestable in civil matters is surely a strange confusion of thought.
As usual, my noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) agrees with nobody but himself. According to him, every possible alternative is bad—the provision in the Bill being worst of all. Then he expressed astonishment that the Government should have undertaken to do anything at all, and asked what could be the reason of it. Now, I must remind my noble Friend that there exists in Scotland a Body called the General Assembly, with a full representation of the laity as well as of the clergy of the Church. Well, that Body, by over 400 votes against 16, determined to accept this Bill, and sincerely thanked the Government for bringing it forward. Your Lordships may, I think, safely assume that a body of that kind knows its own interests. For my own part, my Lords, I envy the noble Lords opposite the honour of having introduced this Bill, and I envy them still more the power of passing it; but I should feel ashamed if I were to allow any feeling of envy to interfere with the cordial support which, in my opinion, this measure deserves. My Lords, this Bill has no necessary connection with party politics; but no question can be brought before Parliament in the present day connected with an Established Church, without touching on its outskirts various prepossessions of the great political parties. For example, this Bill does offence to some of the political prepossessions of the party opposite, which prepossessions it is most honourable in them to abandon. There has always been a very 1250 strong feeling on that side of the House, and also on this side of the House, in favour of lay patronage as a right of property. I hold, therefore, that a Conservative Government which brings in a measure to do away with lay patronage has sacrificed a good many of the strongest prepossessions of their Party. With regard to the Liberal Party, I should have thought that there were some elements in this Bill which would have recommended it to them. It carries with it some extension of popular power and popular privileges which, within due limits, the Liberal Party has been accustomed to regard with favour as expedient and just. I am well aware that a section of the Liberal Party is opposed to all Established Churches; but, even if Free Churches should ultimately be the rule in this country and throughout the world, at least it ought to be admitted that as long as Established Churches exist we should deal honestly by them, and legislate for their good and the spiritual interests of their members.
There is another thing, my Lords, which I confess recommends this Bill to me as a Member of the Liberal Party, The Liberalism of Scotland has been an historical Liberalism, founded upon clear, definite, manly conceptions of the nature and duties of the Christian Church, and also of the nature and duties of a Christian State. It has never been the modern slip-shod Liberalism, which is indifferent to all principles of this kind, or which looks for some Church which is to be without any faith, and for some theology which is to be every man's religion in general and no man's religion in particular. The Liberalism of Scotland has been made of very different stuff—founded on definite conceptions on all these matters, and it has been because of its possessing this character that it achieved such great things in the history of the country. I think I perceive on the horizon controversies yet to come in which the same principles will yet play an important part. I agree with my noble Friend, that it would have been better not to touch this question at all rather than to adopt any of the alternatives to the Government Bill which have been proposed. But if this Bill passes, it will, I believe, strengthen the Established Church, and will do lasting honour to the House of Peers.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK, who was very imperfectly heard, opposed the Amendment, observing that whatever course was taken, he hoped the noble Duke would not give this power to the General Assembly, as it was a body eminently unfitted to discuss such questions. He hoped the Government would look narrowly at the clause again, and see if some better means could not be provided of defining those bodies who were to elect the ministers.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that in the Instruction which he had intended to propose to the Committee, but which he had withdrawn, he had gone a step further than the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll.) The Instruction was in effect to give to the General Assembly power to frame rules under which persons other than communicants as defined by this Act might be qualified to elect—in other words to define who were members of the congregation qualified to vote. His noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) argued at great length against the ratepaying qualification; but he (the Earl of Airlie) only proposed to admit those to whom injustice would be done if it was left to the general body of the ratepayers to elect the ministers. It would be very dangerous when dealing with the Established Church to lay down the principle that no one who was not a member should have anything to do with it or any of its regulations. His noble Friend said that the United Presbyterians would not allow any interference by those outside. But that was not an Established Church—which made the case entirely different. He did not think that the illustration of the noble Duke with respect to the disendowment of certain churches in Edinburgh bore on the matter. If the Amendment were carried a good many bodies, including the town councils and heads of houses in Scotland, would be excluded. He had not heard any reference made to the Highlands, in which there was a very large population, of whom the members of the Established Church were a very small section indeed. In some of the parishes of the Western Highlands there were no members of the Established Church at all. What would be the position of things there? It was said that they left the Church because they had no voice in the election of the minister; and now they were not allowed 1252 to have any voice in it because they did did not come to church. They might get over the difficulty of the appointment of minister by having him elected by the General Assembly; but they would by so doing bring the church in those parishes into opposition. They knew in Wales there were hardly any members of the Established Church. Would it strengthen the cause of the Church in Wales if they were obliged to put the election of ministers in the hands of the Bishop or the Dean and Chapter? But the case was stronger, because the people in the Highlands had left the Church for the very cause that they had no voice in the election of ministers. They were making it much more difficult for the Dissenters in the Highlands to come back. What they said was that those men should never have a voice in the election of ministers unless they stultified themselves by coming back to the Church first. Instead of opening wide the doors of the Church—as wide as possible—they were closing them, and really ostentatiously slammed the doors in their faces. The truest friends of the Church were, in his opinion, those who would entrust the election of her ministers to a large and not to a limited body. The Resolution proposed in the General Assembly, which could not be put, would have opened the doors of the Church far wider than the present Bill, and he would point out that many distinguished writers would be excluded by their very eminence. He knew that the noble Duke opposite would give a very fair consideration to the objections of those who differed from the Government, and therefore he would leave the matter in his hands.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that he quite concurred in the sentiments of the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Airlie) with respect to the parishes in the north of Scotland, in which the communicants were so very few that it would be absurd to leave the election to them. He would suggest that where there were less than 20 communicants in the Established Church, the Free Church communicants should be allowed to vote.
§ EARL GRANVILLE, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he would give every assistance to the Government in carrying the measure; but he thought the question was 1253 a much larger one than the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) seemed to be aware of when introducing the Bill.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he did not think the Amendment would be agreeable to the House or to the country. He hoped, at least, that the word "congregation" would be added to "the communicants," because, if not, one half of the heritors would be disfranchised, although they might have pews in the Church. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had expressed great thanks to the Government for bringing this subject forward; but he (the Earl of Lauderdale) could not concur with him, for he never was more surprised in his life than he was in finding that a Conservative Government should have brought in a Bill to upset the Church of Scotland, when even the late Prime Minister thought this a subject with which he could not deal.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, I do not know what the mind of the late Prime Minister may have been; but as my noble and gallant Friend speaks of the motives and feelings that actuated Mr. Gladstone when in office, I am sure he would not bring them under our notice unless he had special grounds for being his mouthpiece. My noble and gallant Friend expressed his surprise that Her Majesty's Government should have dealt with this question; but I think he should rather have adduced some arguments to show that the abolition of patronage in Scotland would tend to injure rather than to strengthen the Established Church in that country. I do not know whether my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Argyll) called your Lordships' attention to the fact that the General Assembly, which is supposed to know more of the requirements of the Church than any other body, has, by an overwhelming majority, arrived at the conclusion that it was expedient to pass the measure in the shape in which we have brought it before the House, and have rejected all other modes of dealing with the question. I wish, I may add, to remove the idea that it is only since our recent accession to office, that I, as a Member of the Government, thought of bringing this subject under the notice of Parliament. The fact is this—It has been my duty, connected as I am with that part of the country, to consider all matters relating to the welfare 1254 of the Establishment in the country; and I pointed out the other evening that, on the Motion of my noble Friend, when he was dealing with this subject some Sessions ago, I said that the question ought to be dealt with by any Government to whom it appeared that the opportunity had presented itself of bringing legislation with respect to it to a successful issue. That opportunity has, in my opinion, arrived, and I hope we shall be successful. I must take this occasion of expressing my deep sense of gratitude to my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) for the large assistance he has given us; and I felt that if I could obtain his support, knowing the great interest he takes in this subject, and the great attention he has paid to it, we should have no great difficulty in passing through Parliament a measure which would strengthen the Church in Scotland. I propose to deal with all the Amendments that are on the Paper at once, as being a more convenient course than criticizing them in detail—because I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that if a division should be taken on one of these points, it should indicate the feeling of the House. With regard to the whole of these Amendments, I shall state as briefly as I can the view of the Government upon them. The noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), in proposing the Amendment, said that what you really want, in selecting a minister of the Church is, that the persons who take part in the selection or election of the minister are the persons who are most likely to be benefited by his ministry, and who are likely to be brought most frequently into contact with him, and whose interests would be identical with his and with the interests of the parish. The proposition that, in a large parish, where possibly the Established Church does not count among its adherents the majority of the ratepayers, you should give to the ratepayers of the parish the power to elect the minister, astonished me more than I can express; and, indeed, I did not think I could be more astonished till I heard the proposal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntley). But by way of healing all the heart-burnings and all the jealousies which, for the last 30 or 40 years, have disturbed the Church, that he should propose that the electing body should 1255 be thrown sufficiently open so that they might elect a minister of the Free Church, is to me even more astonishing still.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLEYexplained that his proposal only applied to cases where there were not more than 20 communicants.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDWith regard to the question put to me by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare), I ought to mention that those points are under consideration; but it will be difficult to meet the cases of some of the parishes in the North where the communicants are few in number. It will require some machinery to place these parishes on a satisfactory footing. With regard to the ratepayers, the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) would make out that they are the only proper body to elect; but I could not see by what process of reasoning he made that out. The noble Earl objected to the Communion Roll, and said that the clergyman might exclude persons whose views did not coincide with his own, but he seemed to forget that, so far as the election of a minister is concerned, the interest of the clergyman is a posthumous interest, because the election of the clergyman will not arise till after the clergyman, who sought to exclude the elector, was dead and gone. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has completely disposed of that objection. Besides, I have too high an opinion of the clergy of Scotland to suppose that they would be guilty of so discreditable and so foolish an act—which might be described by a somewhat vulgar expression as "cooking" the Communion Roll. The ratepayers, therefore, I think, are not the proper persons to elect the minister, and I cannot accept the proposal of the noble Earl. As I said before, it seems to me that you want to have the interest of the parish identical with the persons who are to elect the minister. Moreover, there has been no real feeling in Scotland in favour of any such proposal as that of the noble Earl—at none of the meetings on this question has there been the smallest hint that the ratepayers were the proper persons to be entrusted with so important a duty. With respect to the proposal of my noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie) who spoke last, I am unable to accept his Amendment. 1256 The views he has so ably expressed do not commend themselves to my mind as to what would be the best electoral body. I do not think the words he has suggested are sufficiently fenced off to warrant me in accepting his proposal. This brings me to the proposal of my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll), who has very consistently advocated that the word "congregation" shall be inserted as well as "communicants." I think there has been some misapprehension on this subject, as if my noble Friend had proposed to substitute "congregation" for "communicants;" but the words of the Amendment are most distinct, for it says after "communicants" insert "and other members of the congregation." I am not sure but that in some of the northern parishes the very addition of these words would remove some of the objections to the smallness of the number of the communicants. I have very carefully considered the question raised by the noble Duke since I had last the honour of addressing your Lordships on the subject. I have endeavoured to find words which will meet the difficulty raised by my noble Friend; but I confess I have been unable to satisfy myself with any words in the sense in which the noble Duke seeks to amend the clause. Perhaps it-would be better to retain the Bill in the form in which I introduced it; but there is so much force in the reasons given by the noble Duke for inducing your Lordships to accept his Amendment, that I have, on the part of the Government, come to the conclusion to accept it. Before I sit down I will say a few words on the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Napier and Ettrick).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDI can anticipate what the noble Lord will say. He intends to propose that the heritors shall participate in the elections. Now, heritors are not necessarily members of the congregation. Therefore that point of the Bill that the congregation and the communicants are identical in interest with the minister is lost sight of entirely if you include the heritors, because you may include men who possibly were never in the parish. I shall resist all these Amendments, with the exception of that of the noble Duke; but his Amendment I, without hesitation, accept, 1257 In reply to EARL GRANVILLE,
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would be prepared to state on the Report how he proposed to deal with the small parishes.
§ EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the noble Duke's Amendment on the 3rd clause proposed to add after "communicants" "and other members of the congregation." In the 9th clause he proposed to define "congregation."
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the 9th clause was the Interpretation clause, and it might cause some alarm if the word "congregation" did not appear in the principal part of the Bill. In a mere question of grammar, some weight might be given to popular impressions. With regard to the question that had been asked as to the parishes where there was only a small number of communicants, this was one of the arguments that might be used against any Bill. Their Lordships would be grossly deceived if they supposed that in all cases the number of communicants was an index of the number of adherents of the Church. In some Highland parishes, where there prevailed as strong a feeling about communicating, amounting almost to as great a superstition as prevailed in the Early Church with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, there would be found, perhaps, 25 communicants to 250 adherents; but the 25 were accepted as a committee of the congregation. Where the communicants fell below a certain number, he did not see why the Presbytery should not be resorted to.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, it appeared to be impossible to legislate upon the same principles for the Highlands and the Lowlands. He hoped all further Amendments would be printed before they were proposed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would not trouble the House to divide on his Amendment, but he would make this remark, that he was obliged to ask himself what was the object of this measure?
§ On Question? Resolved in the negative.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKrose to propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice, that the words "and heritors" should be inserted after "communicants." He said it would not have been necessary to move this Amendment 1258 if ratepaying parishioners had been accepted as the electing body, because heritors were ratepayers, though they might not be members of the congregation; but now he felt it necessary to propose the Amendment on its own merits. His first ground was that of precedent, the participation of heritors in the election of ministers having been incorporated in the Act of the Scotch Parliament of 1690, and one of the Articles of the Act of Union was that the constitution of the Church of Scotland should be hold sacred. The heritors of Scotland had exercised the right of patronage with zeal and with solicitude for the good of the Church. They had surrendered that right for the welfare of the Church, and it was but a reasonable act of justice to such a body of men that they should participate in the way he proposed. It was also due to them on account of their pecuniary interests. The heritors were, in a manner the trustees and guardians of the ecclesiastical revenues of Scotland, and they supported the fabric of the church by a tax on their property; and, under these circumstances, he thought they had a right to participate in the election of the minister. Moreover, the heritors would form useful members of the constituency. When the lower orders in Scotland had to select their ministers, they were apt to look too much to one particular accomplishment, the faculty of preaching; they had fewer opportunities of judging the wisdom, the discretion, and other Christian qualities of the ministers than the heritors, who were men of wider experience and better knowledge of the world. Then, there were parishes in the north-west of Scotland where there would be no constituencies whatever under the Bill; but if this proposal were adopted there would be at least some electors, because there were heritors where there were no congregations and no communicants. He begged to move in page 2, line 2, after "communicants," to insert "and heritors."
§ On Question? Resolved in the negative.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved to insert in page 2, line 2, after "communicants," to insert "and other members of the congregation."
§ Amendment agreed to.
1259§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he he was obliged to resist this proposal.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, this was precisely one of those cases in which everyone ought to vote on his own responsibility, and to know how the others had voted.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved the omission of certain words which, in his opinion, would withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Court of Session all questions connected with the temporalities of the Church.
§ Amendment moved line 11, leave out from ("Provided always") down to (" thereof") in line 20, inclusive.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the words would not bear the interpretation put upon them by the noble Earl.
§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 95.)