§ Mr. Andrew Johnston,in rising to move an Address to the Crown relative to Church patronage in Scotland, regretted that it had fallen to his duty to introduce the subject he had then to bring before the House. It was 883 a question of great importance to the people of Scotland, and had excited great attention there for many years past. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session a Committee was appointed which laid a Report upon the Table containing information exceedingly necessary in order to enable English and Irish Members to form a correct notion of what the people of Scotland were then claiming on behalf of the Constitution of their Church. Many Gentlemen connected with the Bar were examined before the Committee, and among others one well known as an historian whose large experience in the history and the Constitution of the Courts in Scotland was thus made available to the Committee on that occasion. The Report consisted of about 500 folio pages. Owing to a difference of opinion in the Committee, which had placed them in a condition not to present a Report before the close of last Session, it was determined to bring the whole matter under the consideration of the House: and it now fell to his lot to introduce a Motion following up the intention of that Committee. He was aware that English Members especially might conceive that he held doctrines which might infringe upon the rights and privileges of the Church of England. But if those hon. Members would take the trouble of looking into the evidence taken before the Committee they would find from the Constitution of the Church that it was quite different from that of the Church of England, and in bringing forward that question, he thought he stood upon sure ground when he stood upon the Constitution of the Church of Scotland. That Church declared that there was in every congregation, the right to elect its own Minister. That the State did not recognize that principle he was aware. But for a century and a half that Church never ceased to bring forward its Constitution on every special occasion and to urge its claims on the Scottish Parliament: and in 1649, it succeeded in procuring the recognition of the valuable principle, that the State should not interfere in things regarding the Church, however much it might interfere with regard to the support of that Church. It might be objected, perhaps, that at the time when that Act was passed, it was a period when republican doctrines were about the country; and certainly it was a period over which many 884 who heard him would be glad to throw a veil. However, the Act was passed at that time by those who supported Charles 1st, in his attempts to gain the Throne, and were most friendly to his son Charles 2nd. After the Restoration, the efforts of those Reformers were met by duplicity and falsehood. No sooner did those Monarchs find themselves in secure possession of the Throne than they procured the rescinding of that, and many other valuable Acts, and restored Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland which from that period to the glorious Revolution of 1688, remained in that situation. The first proposition which the Prince of Orange assented to, he having previously recognized the principles of the celebrated "Claim of Rights," was one, on which the Scotch Reformers insisted, that "the power of lay-presentation to Churches had been terribly abused, and that it was inconvenient to continue it in that kingdom." King William kept his promise, and in the first Parliament which met in, Scotland, Episcopacy was abolished, and an Act was passed which though it did not go so far as that of 1649, went in a great degree to ameliorate the Constitution of the Church of Scotland. The preamble stated, that it was inexpedient to continue the system of lay-patronage; but at the same time, provided that a sum, considerable then, of 1,000 marks, should be paid to every layman deprived of patronage, declaring it to be compulsory on the part of the Heritors in every parish in Scotland. No doubt that few parishes availed themselves of the privilege, but the House would observe that the payment at that time was compulsory simply on the Heritors, not on the people. Many of those Heritors were patrons themselves, and Episcopalians, and therefore had no particular interest in abolishing the patronage. That state of the law continued till after the Union between the two countries. That the system of 1649 worked well might be learnt clearly by reference to the History of the reverend Dr. M'Cree. At the Union, the people, being zealous of the rights and privileges of the Crown, took care to pass an Act which declared that the Church of Scotland was to stand unaffected by that measure. The Ministry of Queen Anne, being anxious to pave the way for the Restoration of the exiled family of Stuarts, endeavoured to procure means by which clergymen might be forced on the people 885 of Scotland so far favourable to their opinions in order that the influence of the Church might be exercised over the people in furtherance of their views, and the Act of Queen Anne which he sought to repeal was the fruit of their intrigues. It came upon the people of Scotland by surprise, so that it was not till the Bill was going through the House of Lords, that they had an opportunity of being heard by Counsel at the Bar of that House against the measure. Then they were unsuccessful, and the Bill passed by a great majority, though it should be recorded to their honor that five Bishops voted against it. Many eminent authorities indeed had given it as their opinion that there was in that Act no infringement of the Articles of Union. But, it must be admitted, that the Assembly of the Church of Scotland at that period were better able to know what rights were guaranteed to them by that measure than any of those gentlemen. For twenty years, by reason of the strong resistance of the Church, no lay-patron came forward to assert his claim in the unqualified degree in which by the Act he might have done. But the Church did not long retain its high and independent spirit, for about the year 1732 the Church in a great measure gave way, and a secession arose at that period which had gone on since and now existed in that country, flourishing in numbers and of great respectability. Subsequent to that period, Principal Robertson, the celebrated historian, had obtained the management of the General Assembly, and he defered to the claims of the Crown to regulate the Sessions of that Assembly and threw completely into the shade the rights of the people. From that period, therefore, the Church continued in a state of great apathy till about ten years ago, when an association formed in Glasgow became greatly useful in directing the attention of the people of Scotland to the subject. The founder of which association was a person whose name need only be mentioned to ensure respect, Dr. Andrew Thompson. He would not detain the House by re-uttering the evils which had arisen from the system of lay patronage in Scotland; they had been great and numerous, making the Church contemptible in the eyes of her own congregation, and if she had not been, humanly speaking, preserved by the purity of her doctrines, he believed she would have ceased to exist 886 in the course of the last century. He would only advert to the melancholy period between the beginning of last century and the beginning of the present century, during which the Church was under the dominion of what was called the "High Church party," whereby every difficulty was thrown in the way of the exercise of the people's rights, and ministers were often inducted into their livings at the point of the bayonet. That state continued so long that heretical doctrines were preached in many parishes, and had not an Act passed to restrain such practices, he believed the doctrines of the Church were very likely to have fallen into complete abeyance. Not the least of the evils of which he complained were those of the secession itself in regard to the Church. He felt great gratitude to the seceders, inasmuch as they had provided church accommodation for many of those persons the State had refused or neglected to provide. That body comprehended now between 500 and 600 congregations, and within the last few years the evil had been fully developed, and the seceders had come forward in an attitude of hostility to the Church and there (it would be admitted even by those who differed from it) was a great evil to the Church which otherwise would not have existed. Again the character of the Clergy was deteriorated. Instead of the parishes receiving them with gratitude and respect for the religious instruction afforded by these ministers, in many instances, they were forced upon the people who looked upon them consequently with indignation as intruders. The evils of the system were also great with regard to the candidates for holy orders, who, instead of endeavouring to make themselves, by study, fit for their sacred office, were much more anxious to become familiar with the lay-patron of the living, or the Home Secretary of the day; and he need not explain how injurious that must be to the Church. With regard to the people, the effect had been no less injurious, they had been led to secede from the Church and remain hostile to it, or else had sank into an utter indifference as to whether they belonged to any Church at all, for them the most dangerous state into which they could fall.
§ Mr. Potter moved that the House be counted.
§ The House was counted out.