LAY PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND). (Hansard, 10 July 1835)

Mr. Andrew Johnstone
rose to bring forward, as an Amendment, the subject of which he had so long given notice, namely, Lay-patronage in Scotland. In doing so, he would endeavour to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible, by merely endeavouring to give a very brief and practical exposition of the present situation of the question, and then calling upon the House to grant the people of Scotland an indication of the manner in which the House was disposed to treat the subject. He was aware that the Scotch questions in general were not received with much cordiality by the House; but he thought he was peculiarly entitled to ask their attention, seeing how seldom such questions had been obtruded on them during the present Session.

§ Mr. Hume
hoped the hon. Member would excuse his interruption, but he put it to his own good sense, whether, as the inquiry into the whole subject had not terminated, the present was the time for bringing forward such a question, which could lead to no practical result.

Mr. Andrew Johnstone
said the inquiry to which the hon. Member for Middlesex alluded was only on one part of the subject, namely, Church accommodation; the question of Church-patronage stood quite by itself. Besides, the hon. Member must be aware that a Committee of that House had inquired into the subject; their long Report was submitted last Summer, and the House certainly required no further information now. He (Mr. A. Johnstone) did therefore submit, that they could not at present require information, otherwise he assured the hon. Member he would be most happy to attend to his suggestion. He would then very briefly state those great evils which had pressed on the Church of Scotland from Lay-patronage, and had led him (Mr. A. Johnstone) and many others in Scotland, to come forward and ask for a remedy. It was that which he would press on his Motion. The evils had been most extensive, and had affected the Church in every one of her departments; they had affected the clergy, the candidates for the Ministry, and done infinite injury to the Church in general. He called the attention of the House to the petitions which laid on the Table in reference to the proposed grant to that Church. There were, indeed, 150,000 petitioners for, but there were also 120,000 against, the grant. 413 Those petitioners must unquestionably shew the sense of the people of Scotland; and they exhibited to them such a large mass of that people, who had fallen away from the Church, and become Dissenters. It had been, undoubtedly, the practice of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to give the Crown presentations to individuals who had found favour with the majority of the Heritors—that might answer well so far; but then Gentlemen should observe that there was a number of the people, as well as the Heritors, in every parish. Take the case, for an example, of the parish of Kirk-Michael (one of the last presentations granted by the late Government); in that case the presentation was given to the nominee of the Heritors (there being only one resident Heritor in the parish). The parishioners themselves having heard seven or eight candidates, sent up a petition to the Crown-office, on behalf of the person who met with their approbation; but their recommendation was disregarded, and the nomination was given to the Heritors. It was necessary that something should be done. The Church of Scotland was in that situation that, if some measures were not taken to bring back the alienated affections of the people, they would soon see the fall of that excellent Institution. It seemed to be supposed that it was his intention to give no compensation to Lay-patrons; he assured the House that such was not his view. He unquestionably admitted that the Lay-patrons having existed for upwards of 100 years in Scotland, were entitled to some compensation. With regard to the other part of the question, he meant to repeal the Act of Queen Anne, regarding patronage, referring it to the Church itself and its own legislation to arrange respecting the induction of Clergymen, and to make presentations to the Church. That might be early provided for, by simply inserting a clause, that the Act should not come into operation till the Church had made its arrangements for the settlement of the question. With regard to the present situation of the Church, he was told, early in the Session, by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, (Sir George Clerk) that if the matter were postponed, the General Assembly intended to make a regulation upon the subject. The General Assembly had certainly taken the matter up, but so unsatisfactorily that the proceeding pleased neither party; and being only a half mea- 414 ure, it could not be a beneficial one. But he (Mr. A. Johnstone) submitted that the question should be dealt with by the Legislature; for, in fact, till the Church was so empowered to act, it could not take one step on the subject. He was aware that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the far-advanced period of the session, he could not do that justice to he subject which he desired to do; but he brought it forward from a deep impression of the necessity that the people of Scotland should know what were the feelings of the House on it. The House had granted the political franchise to the people of Scotland; why should they not also have the right of choosing their Ministers? He had no motive in urging the question on the House, but a desire to free the Church of Scotland from those corruptions which had so long existed in her. He would trespass no longer, but merely observe, that if they left this great question without coming to a conclusion on it, which he thought himself justly entitled o demand for it, they would inflict a great injury upon the Church of Scotland; and that if they did not interfere to preserve that Church, and prevent the people of that country from forsaking her, (for he assured the House there was a very strong feeling upon the subject of Lay-patronage there) they would run the risk of losing one of the strongest bulwarks of the Protestant faith. He begged leave to move, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will give his consent to introduce a Bill to abolish Lay-patronage in Scotland."

The Lord Advocate
said, that the hon. Member for St. Andrew's seemed to think the measure which he proposed so expedient and necessary, that he could not even allow the House to go into a Committee of Supply, without first determining on the merits of a Bill for abolishing Lay-patronage in Scotland. So far, however, was he from looking at it as an urgent measure, that he thought it would be much better not to agitate it in the present Session. That, indeed, seemed to be a very general opinion; for among the many Members for Scotland who were present, the hon. Member for St. Andrew's could not find one to second his proposition; and it was seconded by a Gentleman from a part of the country in which, he understood, Lay-patronage was by no means regarded with an unfavourable eye. He 415 (the Lord Advocate) had every reason to believe that the great body of the people of Scotland thought that a fair opportunity ought to be afforded for ascertaining how far the Lay-patronage of the Church of Scotland might be advantageously carried on under the recent regulations of the General Assembly. If that were not the case, why had not petitions been presented to that House, expressing a different opinion? The course which he should recommend, certainly, was to allow a further time, in order to see how far the regulations of the General Assembly, to which he had alluded, would work beneficially. Of the Church of Scotland generally, he would confidently say that he believed no Church, in any country, possessed a stronger hold on the feelings and affections of people; and that no Church was more influenced by a sense of duty, or manifested greater zeal and integrity, or a stronger and more anxious desire to promote, in every possible manner, the interests of religion. All changes, therefore, which it was proposed to make in the constitution of such a Church, ought to be viewed with doubt, lest any rash measure might produce a diminution of the existing good, without effecting any commensurate advantage.

§ Mr. Fox Maule
entirely concurred with the hon. Member for St. Andrew's in the opinion which he had expressed on the subject of Lay-patronage in Scotland. He entirely concurred with that hon. Gentleman that the sooner Lay-patronage was abolished in Scotland the better. But on the present occasion he felt it his duty to oppose the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, on the ground that it stopped the House from going into a Committee of Supply. His motives might be misconstrued; and it might go down to Scotland that he had departed from the declarations which he had made on the subject. He cared not. He had given his public and honest reasons for his vote; and he should be as ready to state them elsewhere as he had shown himself to be in that House. Whenever the hon. Member for St. Andrew's might think proper to enter his notice regularly on the book, instead of bringing it forward as an amendment to a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply, he should have his warmest and most cordial support; but on the present occasion he could not support his proposition.

§ Mr. Stewart Mackenzie
regretted that 416 the hon. Member should have introduced in that incidental manner a subject which, if advisable at present to discuss at all, surely demanded the most weighty and serious attention. Brought forward as it now was, it could only interfere with the declared business of the night. The people of Scotland had felt a great and just interest in the important question of Lay-patronage; and though that interest had nowise diminished, it had taken a new course. After the full and patient investigation of the subject last Session, and the recent proposal of the General Assembly respecting it, the people of Scotland felt the greatest confidence—in which he entirely joined—that no minister would henceforth be intruded on them not fully qualified by education, and not agreeable in doctrine to the majority of the communicants. He protested against the principle which regulated the right to the elective franchise being at all applicable to the election of ministers in the Church, whereby the highest interests of man, involving his eternal welfare, might be influenced, and was ready to peril the whole question upon the opinion of Lord Moncrieff, whose advice, as a great lawyer, and as one hereditarily and deeply attached to the Church of Scotland, both in letter and spirit, he thought was the safest guide the House could follow; and he had taken the view sketched out here, and declared he saw no ground for the interference of the Legislature, nor any substitute preferable to the existing system. The hon. Member deprecated any further discussion of the subject till the General Assembly's proposal as to the vote of the parishioners should have had a fair trial. He was persuaded it would work well; and, now that public opinion had been so fully awakened to the subject, he was confident that in future the patrons would not venture to intrude on any parish a minister whose doctrines and qualifications would not justify his appointment. On these grounds he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and allow the business of the night to proceed.

§ Mr. Cumming Bruce
I shall vote against the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's, on the ground stated by the learned Lord Advocate, namely, that the General Assembly has lately made an alteration in the laws of the Church. I think it extremely improper to interfere in the progress of those mea- 417 sures, which may enable us to legislate with greater advantage than we can at present. I think the time also injudicious, on account of the period of the Session, as well as on account of the great change that has lately taken place, which should induce us not to enter upon the subject at all.

§ Mr. Hardy
observed that as the objection to the proposition of his hon. Friend seemed, upon the whole, to be directed not so much against the principle of that proposition as against the form in which it had been brought forward, he advised his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and submit the subject to the House again as a substantive proposition.