HC Deb 07 June 1844 vol 75 cc398-413

On the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee on the Division of Parishes (Scotland) Bill,

The Lord Advocate

said, he thought it would be convenient to the House if he were to give some explanation of the scope and objects of this Bill. The principal object was to facilitate the division of large parishes in Scotland, and when necessary, the erection of new ones, with separate endowments, manses, glebes, and so forth. He was not introducing any new principle into the law of Scotland, he merely wished to facilitate the doing of that for which the law had already provided. By a law passed in 1707, power was given to any Court then existing, to make division of parishes, but under certain restrictions, one more particularly requiring the consent of three-fourths of the heritors in valuation to such division. Under that Act a good many parishes were divided, and for a considerable time after its passing applications for division were frequent. But as the power existed only under certain conditions, especially that relating to the heritors, a great difficulty had hitherto stood in the way of division. Some parties were reluctant to interfere in matters of the kind, some were absent, and some were minors; and the object of the Bill was to obviate the inconvenience by providing that, instead of three-fourths of the heritors, a majority would be sufficient to justify an application for division. It seemed but just that a majority of those whose property would be affected by the division should have authority to apply to Court to do that act. He did not mean that an application so backed should be imperative on the Court; the Court would retain its power to refuse. His object was merely to facilitate the application. It sometimes happened that one parish contained two churches, and when that occurred, and when no new burthen was incurred, it was but reasonable that the Court should have power to erect one into a separate endowment, should the majority of the heritors require it. Accordingly, there was a provision in the Bill to that effect. By the law, as it now stood, when a parish was divided, a question arose as to the patronage of the new parish, and it was now given to the patron of the original parish, although he bore no part of the burthen. In the Bill he gave the right of presentation to the majority. It had lately been decided in Court, and confirmed on appeal to the House of Lords, that even when parties endowed parishes, such parishes could not be considered parishes quoad spiritualia without the consent of the heritors, and the Bill provided, that when districts were provided with a church and properly endowed by parties, they should constitute parishes of that description, whether the consent of the heritors had been obtained or not. He perceived, by four or five petitions, which had been presented, that some erroneous im- pressions were abroad respecting the tendency of the Bill on this point. It would seem that an impression was abroad that there was something in the Bill which gave to a certain number of persons who should have contributed to the erection of a church, to seize such church and apply it to the purposes of the Church of Scotland, notwithstanding the dissent and objection of other persons, few in number but also contributors, and having ceased to be connected with the Church of Scotland. That was a mistake; the Clause which bore on this point, merely provided that when there were two parishes united into one, or a parish in which a second church was erected and maintained by the heritors, it should also be considered and treated as a parish church. Neither did the Bill interfere in the matter of title, but left the matter to the decision of the Courts of Law, as before. Another part of the Bill empowered heirs of entail to burthen their estates, to a certain limited extent, for the erection of churches. There was another provision in the Bill, which was one of considerable importance. In many of the great towns in Scotland—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth, Paisley, Aberdeen, and others—there were resident a great number of the natives of the Highlands, who required to have the Gospel preached in the Gaelic language. Ministers who could preach in Gaelic, but had not the status of parish ministers, nor their congregations, however numerous, of parishes. The Bill gave a power of erecting such districts into parishes, quoad sacra, and of giving the minister the position of a parish minister. He believed he had now gone through the principal features of the Bill, and should conclude by moving that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

On that question being put,

Mr. F. Maule

said, that before the House proceeded to legislate on the Bill, some case ought to be made out showing its necessity. The learned Lord had, it was true, explained some parts of the measure which had not been understood, and removed some difficulties which had arisen in his mind as to other parts, but still he had not shown that there was any necessity for legislating on the subject at all. He had not shown any want of additional places of worship in Scotland, and after what had occurred in that country within the last 12 months, it was evident that additional church accommodation there was not necessary. Within 12 months not less than 800,000 persons had seceded from the Church in which they were now called on by this Bill to provide additional accommodation. Within the time he had named, not less than 500 places of worship had been erected within the four corners of that country. Let him not be misunderstood—he had no objection to do that which the Bill required, if any necessity for it could be shown. The 4th and 6th sections of the Bill were so vaguely worded that they had created great alarm in Scotland, as they seemed to imply that a right of possession was to be given to the establishment of the churches formerly erected in what were called quoad sacra parishes; and the Scotch Courts of Law had already pronounced that quoad sacra ministers were not in legal possession as ministers of parishes, and that the decisions of Presbyteries in which they had given their opinion were illegal; and no doubt, strictly speaking, they could not hold in point of law. He was, therefore, glad that the Lord Advocate had given such an explanation as must tend to allay that alarm. But his main objection to the Bill was, it was totally and entirely unnecessary. There was nothing in in it to recommend it, except so much as gave a status to parish ministers, and to ministers of certain churches in the Highlands and to Gaelic ministers in towns. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be committed that day six months.

Mr. P. M. Stewart

wished the House to bear in mind, that though this appeared to be a mere Parish Bill, it was one of considerable importance to the country to which he belonged, it was also one of the most extraordinary attempts at legislation that had ever been made in that House. It was so extraordinary a measure and so flagrantly out of time, that he could scarcely believe Her Majesty's Government were in earnest with it. Before the Easter recess he had asked the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to delay this Bill until the feeling of the people of Scotland could be fully ascertained upon the subject, or at least until a case was made out to prove the necessity for such a measure. But the right hon. Baronet refused to accede to his request, and it passed a second reading under cover of a practice which had grown too common in the House, of letting Bills go through a second reading pro forma. Yet substantially, although the right hon. Baronet was so anxious to push on the Bill, it had not moved a step since that time. Really the House ought to be on its guard against this measure. The blind infatuation of the Government last Session had done considerable and irreparable mischief; it had caused the secession of 500 ministers, 2,000 elders, and nearly 1,000,000 members from the Church of Scotland. Yet the Government now proposed to extend church accommodation in that country. Suppose 5,000 of the ministers and 8,000,000 of the members of the Church of England, which was about the proportion in comparison to the secession from the Scotch Church—were to leave her communion, what would be said to a proposition immediately to increase church accommodation? Why, what was the present condition of the Church of Scotland? Pastors without flocks, and churches without ministers. It was extraordinary that the Government should attempt to increase church accommodation when the Establishment had lost two-thirds or one-half of its members. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet, who had refused to allow a little delay, would have, at least, the courtesy to explain why this measure was insisted upon? The effect of the measure with regard to heirs of estates would be most unjust, as it would tend to leave additional burdens on estates. The act of 1837 was no precedent for this measure, although it gave power to give sites for schools, for then there was a great need and outcry for new schools; but the same could not be said now with regard to churches.* He believed that the chief object of the Bill was to restore a man, estimable in character, and much distinguished for his political ardour and his religious zeal, to his status as a minister. It might as well be called a Bill for the division of parishes and the erection of churches in the moon as a Bill for doing so in Scotland; and he hoped, if nothing else could be done, that when the Speaker came to pronounce those final words which would fix the title of the Bill, it would be competent to move that it be called a Bill to shut the stable-door when the steed was stolen, and to make Dr. M'Leod a parish minister. * The King of Saxony honoured the House of Commons with a visit during the speech of I the rt. hon. Member. His Majesty occupied the chair of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and remained for some time listening to the debate.

Mr. Hume

said, that the Bill was altogether uncalled for on the part of the people of Scotland, and was one to which he was altogether opposed. Nothing could be more objectionable than the Clause which gave a power to heirs to entail such a burthen on their successors as under this Bill they might. There were numerous Bills which were required by the country; and the Government, instead of bringing forward such Bills, introduced this, in order to take away the public attention from those which were really required; or, at all events, if that were not the intention of this measure, it would be one of the results of the discussions upon it. The people of Scotland, in fact, could scarcely believe that the Government would be so insane as to persevere with this measure, a measure which was calculated greatly to increase the religious agitation in Scotland, which it was of so much importance to diminish instead of augmenting. He hoped that the Government would pause before they proceeded further with this measure, and bring forward some Bill which was really required by the country.

Mr. Ellice

said, that he looked on the Bill as one that was calculated to affect his property in a manner against which he ought to be protected. He had paid for property on the condition of being freed from future charges of this description, and now the charges on it were about to be increased by this Bill. The Bill appeared to be brought in at the suggestion of a certain obscure and unknown set of individuals in Edinburgh, and not in accordance with the wish of the people of Scotland. The effect of the Bill would be to attack the property of many individuals for the benefit of a remnant of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. Wallace

did not know if there could be a better reason assigned for opposing the Bill than the fact that not one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had risen to support it when it was about to go to a division. He could not believe that there was not some truth in the observation of the hon. Member for Renfrew, that the object of the Bill was to confer advantage on particular individuals, and he hoped it would be received by the people of Scotland with the contempt which it deserved. The voice of the people of Scotland had been plainly in favour of a Free Church, and its ministers had already shown a good example to the drones belonging to the Established Church of the country. The Bill before them was a most useless and obnoxious Bill. He was surprised, agreeably surprised, at the great progress which the people of Scotland had made in their movement in favour of a Free Church, and he rejoiced in the success which had attended the course they took, although himself not belonging to it, but being a member of the Established Church of that country. This Bill he looked upon as an attempt to make a distinction between the Church of the people and the Church of the aristocracy. If the Bill went to so advanced a stage as to require the Speaker to put the question as to the title of it, the title which ought to be proposed was, a Bill for separating and dissevering the people of Scotland from one another, and preventing them from adhering to the Church of their forefathers, to which they had always so faithfully adhered in times of the greatest difficulty. The Bill was got up with an evil intention, and for a foul purpose, and he never opposed a Bill more willingly than this.

Sir J. Graham

Before the House went to a division, be wished to offer a few remarks. He was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, state that he believed the Bill was introduced with a foul intention, and with an ulterior object, for he was at a loss to conceive upon what ground the hon. Member made that statement—it was a statement which the hon. Member ought to substantiate if he could before he ventured on such an assertion. They had now to discuss the principle of the Bill and not its details, and if they looked to the principle of the Bill they would find that it was not by any means objectionable. It was proposed by the hon. Member for Renfrew to change the title of this Bill, and in reference to that he should read the title, in order to enable the House to form a judgment as to whether any objection could lie against the object as indicated by that particular portion of the measure. The title was, "A Bill to facilitate the disjoining or dividing of extensive or populous parishes, and the erecting of new parishes in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland." The hon. Member for Renfrew, however, appeared to think it was for a different object, and he stated that it was for a foul and corrupt purpose —namely, to give to a particular clergyman (of the Established Church of Scot- land) in Glasgow, a status as a minister of the Church which he does not now enjoy. Now, with regard to that charge he (Sir J. Graham) would only say, that until the hon. Member now brought it forward he had never before heard the suspicion mentioned, he never knew it was entertained, and he took that opportunity of repudiating any such motive. Dr. M'Leod was an excellent minister, for whom he entertained sincere respect; but Dr. M'Leod sought no favors; he relied with just confidence on his merits. The hon. Member for Montrose said, that a new principle was introduced by the Bill—an Erastian principle; but he (Sir J. Graham) could assure the House that the principle of the Bill was not by any means a new principle—it was a principle which had been recognised in the best times of the Church of Scotland— which was recognised immediately after the settlement of the Kirk of Scotland, which was recognised in 1693 and in 1707, and it could not, therefore, be called a new principle. It was a Bill, the object of which was to give additional facilities in the disjoining or dividing of parishes, and to give a majority in value the power of agreeing to such a proceeding. At present three-fourths of the heritors must agree before a division could be made; in England, at present, the majority by which a division of a parish was agreed to, was a mere numerical majority; the Bill before the House did not require three-fourths of the heritors to agree, but did not, like in England, give the decision to a numerical majority. The Bill proposed that a majority of the heritors should be sufficient to agree, instead of three-fourths, as at present, but it required that there should be a majority of value. It was not a compulsory Bill, it was a permissive Bill. But, it was asked, where was the necessity for this Bill? It was intended to provide a competent mode of deciding upon the division of parishes, so as to meet the demand which now existed for such a measure. The right hon. Member for Perth had stated that upwards of 800,000 persons in Scotland had seceded last year from the Established Church of Scotland, and the hon. Member for Renfrew said that the seceders amounted to a million, and that a small remnant of the Church was all that remained. Now he must demur to the accuracy of both statements; and with respect to the apprehension that 120 Churches would be left without Ministers by that secession; he could assure the House that there had been no difficulty in finding new Ministers to fill those Churches—there had been no difficulty in finding suitable Ministers, who were received with gladness by the flocks to whom they were appointed-men in every respect competent to discharge the duties that were entrusted to them, and in every respect as well qualified as the Ministers who had gone forth. Notwithstanding the secession which had taken place, hon. Members would admit that it was just to give all proper facilities for the arrangement of parishes, with a view to the spiritual welfare of what had been called the remnant that was left, and to give every fair chance of ministering to the spiritual wants of the people. There were, for example, forty Highland parishes, which had been founded by the munificence of Parliament, and this Bill would give them- the full rights which they did not now possess, and the Ministers appointed to them their full status in the Church Courts. He was quite confident that the House would not refuse its assent to a measure, the object of which was to secure these advantages to Highland parishes, and to manufacturing districts in Scotland—advantages in this respect which they did not now possess; and for this purpose it was proposed to place upon heirs of entail with the consent of the tenant for life, and of the heir next in succession, a limited amount of burthen. He had seen with regret the effects which had been produced amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite by the recent discussions with which the subject of the Church was connected. The right hon. Member for Perth and the hon. Member for Renfrew, who now objected to the discipline of the Church, whilst they still adhered to its doctrines, had been the advocates of Church extension; yet they opposed the principle of this Bill, and refused to give any facility to Church extension. That brought to his mind another inconsistency which he had noticed last night. The right hon. Member for Perth, who had been the advocate for the abolition of subscription to a particular Creed, when the subject of the Scotch Universities was before the House, was last night the bitter and unsparing opponent of the non-subscribers. [Mr. Fox Maule: "Order." The right hon. Member was referring to a former debate.] He clearly saw that he had touched on a sore point when he alluded to that inconsistency. He of course would bow with submission to the Speaker's authority. He should not proceed with any fur- ther allusion to it. He was inclined to compassionate the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman; and all he should say was, that what he had adverted to showed how suddenly and speedily the bitterness of religious dissent operated upon opinions previously avowed and strongly entertained. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had given a distinct pledge that every facility would be afforded for Church extension in Scotland—that Church which had so long maintained, and would still, he trusted, maintain a place in the hearts and affections of the people. He (Sir James Graham) fully concurred in that pledge, and he would repeat it, that the Government would give every facility to that extension consistent with the principle of the existing institutions of Scotland. This Bill was brought forward in redemption of that pledge, and whatever objection might be made to any details of the measure, he could not conceive how there could be any objection to its principle. Alterations in detail might be made in Committee, but the House would recollect that they were now called upon to vote upon the principle of the Bill, a principle which would be found to be in perfect accordance with the early acts of the Church of Scotland, and which was to be applied most advantageously to the spiritual interests of the people, by giving a competent tribunal to decide upon the expediency of subdividing large and populous parishes, and by affording facilities for additional voluntary endowments. He trusted, therefore, the House would now decide on the principle alone, and he should say that he was satisfied the Government would be wanting in good faith as regarded the pledge they had given, and in their duty to the people of Scotland, if they had not brought forward a measure such as this, for the subdivision of large parishes in that country.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 113; Noes 59; Majority 54:

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Borthwick, P.
Acton, Col. Botfield, B.
Allix, J. P. Bowles, Adm.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bramston, T. W.
Arkwright, G. Brisco, M.
Bagge, W. Broadley, H.
Baillie, Col. Bruce, Lord E.
Baring, T. Bruges, W. H. L.
Beresford, Major Buck, L. W.
Blackstone, W. S. Campbell, J. H.
Boldero, H. G. Cardwell, E.
Chelsea, Visct. Knight, H. G.
Clayton, R. R. Lawson, A.
Clerk, Sir G. Lefroy, A.
Colquhoun, J. C. Lennox, Lord A.
Copeland, Ald. Lincoln, Earl of
Corry, rt. hon. H. Lockhart, W.
Cripps, W. Lowther, hon. Col.
Darby, G. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Davies, D. A. S. McGeachy, F. A.
Denison, E. B. Mackenzie, W. F.
Douglas, Sir C. E. M'Neill, D.
Drummond, H. H. Mainwaring, T.
Duncombe, hon. A. Manners, Lord C. S.
Duncombe, hon. O. Manners, Lord J.
Eaton, R. J. Master, T. W. C.
Eliot, Lord Morgan, O.
Farnham, E. B. Morgan, C.
Flower, Sir J. Mundy, E. M.
Forbes, W. Neeld, J.
Forman, T. S. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Gardner, J. D. Oswald, A.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Patten, J. W.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Gladstone, Capt. Peel, J.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Pringle, A.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Rolleston, Col.
Gore, W. R. O. Round, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Rushbrooke, Col.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Russell, C.
Greenall, P. Sandon, Visct.
Greene, T. Sheppard, T.
Grimston, Visct. Smollett, A.
Grogan, E. Somerset, Lord G.
Hamilton, Lord C. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Harris, hon. Capt. Stanley, Lord
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Stewart, J.
Hodgson, R. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hope, hon. C. Thesiger, Sir F.
Hope, G. W. Trench, Sir F. W.
Houldsworth, T. Trollope, Sir J.
Hughes, W. B. Trotter, J.
Hussey, A. Vesey, hon. T.
Hussey, T. Whitmore, T. C.
Irton, S. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Irving, J. TELLERS.
Jermyn, Earl Young, J.
Jocelyn, Visct. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Barclay, D. Ellis, W.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Evans, W.
Barnard, E. G. Ewart, W.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Fielden, J.
Bowes, J. Ferguson, Col.
Bowring, Dr. Gisborne, T.
Brotherton, J. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Clive, E. B. Hallyburton, Lord J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. F. G.
Collett, J. Hastie, A.
Craig, W. G. Hawes, B.
Crawford, W. S. Heathcoat, J.
Dalrymple, Capt. Heron, Sir R.
Dennistoun, J. Hill, Lord M.
Duncan, Visct. Horsman, E.
Duncan, G. Hume, J.
Dundas, Adm. James, W.
Ellice, E. Johnson, Gen.
Layard, Capt. Strickland, Sir G.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Traill, G.
Maher, N. Trelawny, J. S.
Marjoribanks, S. Tufnell, H.
Marsland, H. Villiers, hon. C.
Martin, J. Wallace, R.
Mitcalfe, H. Wawn, J. T.
Morris, D. Wemyss, Capt.
Muntz, G. F. Wyse, T.
Napier, Sir C. Yorke, H. R.
Ogle, S. C. H.
Pulsford, R. TELLERS.
Redington, T. N. Maule, F.
Sheil, rt. hn. R. L. Stewart, P.

House went into Committee.

On the first Clause being put,

Mr. E. Ellice

opposed it as being an invasion of the rights of property, and a measure wholly uncalled for. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to bring forward any proof of the necessity of this change in the law.

The Lord Advocate

said, that although the present Bill gave powers to the heritors of a majority of the valuation (instead of three-fourths as required by the present law), to make application to the Court for the subdivision of a parish, it should be remembered that the Court had power to reject the application if no sufficient reason was assigned for the subdivision, or if it would do injustice to any party. He asked whether it was probable that parties would seek to impose burthen and expense upon themselves if there was no need for it? He thought the capricious power of dissent vested in the hands of one fourth, by the present law, was much more likely to be abused than the power now proposed to be confided to upwards of one-half.

Mr. Ellice

said his question, as to any instance of the necessity of a change caused by any such opposition of a minority, remained unanswered.

Mr. Hume

said, that when so great an alteration was proposed, it was only proper that some example should be given of the object of the present law. He had no objection to any man endowing as many churches as he pleased, provided he did not come upon his neighbour, who had no interest in it, for the funds, and compel the Dissenter to pay for it, who had his own church to maintain. He thought it quite unreasonable that the House should be called upon to make so important an alteration on the mere ipse dixit of the learned Lord.

Sir G. Clerk

expressed his surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have any doubt that there were parishes in Scotland which, from the extent of their surface or the enormous increase of population, were far beyond the superintendence of their own ministers. So great was the difficulty of subdividing parishes under the ecclesiastical law of Scotland, that scarcely a single parish had been subdivided in a period of nearly eighty years. Sufficient proof of the necessity of this subdivision was to be found in the number of chapels of ease which had been built, and the forty new churches erected by the Government.

Mr. F. Maule

said, he should join with his hon. Friend in opposing this Clause, on the ground that no necessity had been shown for altering the present law. He confessed that he had, in 1835 or 1836, had an idea of legislating in the same way himself; but then the law had not decided that these quoad sacra parishes erected by the General Assembly were not bonâ fide parishes to all intents and purposes. They were a great expense to benevolent persons, and, for the purpose of meeting them halfway, he thought some coercion might be applied to the heritors to subdivide, but what he had intended was the consent, not of a majority of the valuation as proposed by the Government, but a majority of numbers. The circumstances, however, were now so totally altered, that he should not feel that he was liable to any imputation of inconsistency in not supporting even the proposition which he had then approved. In the present circumstances of Scotland there was scarcely any possible situation in which it was necessary that this principle should be applied.

Sir James Graham

remarked that, in 1835, he and the right hon. Gentleman opposite agreed on this question. The right hon. Gentleman assented to the principle in 1835, and now he contended for an opposite principle—that of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's. As the right hon. Gentleman put the matter, the question was one merely of adhesion, or non-adhesion, to the Church, and the right hon. Gentleman was ready to go three times as far before as the present measure went.

Mr. F. Maule

in explanation, denied that there was any question as to church principles; but that which was to be considered was, whether it were expedient in 1844 to apply the same principle to the Church of Scotland, which might have been applied to it in 1835. That which he considered to be expedient in 1835, he thought was not expedient in 1844.

Mr. Colquhoun

enumerated some of many instances occurring to his recollection, of places, the populations of which had been augmented by manufactures tenfold in comparison with what they were at the commencement of this century; rendering absolutely necessary a proportionate increase of church accommodation. The free church had been compelled to leave this spiritual destitution unrelieved from inability to endow ministers. This was just the inevitable effect of all "voluntary principle" systems like the free church however popular they might be for a time. And the agency of the Free Church had been absorbed by the wealthier districts, able to pay for its ministrations. The exigency thus existing it rested with the Legislature alone effectually to remedy. And no one had more powerfully exposed the utter inefficiency of the voluntary system than Dr. Chalmers. Mr. Allison had well expressed his opinion that it was pre-eminently the duty of the Legislature to favour religious establishments first in those districts in which poverty prevented the people from establishing places of worship for themselves, but in which they were most required.

Mr. Hume

said, churches would do no good of themselves, and the physical condition of the people should be improved.

Mr. Colquhoun

protested against its being represented that the diffusion of moral and religious instruction had not immediate effects in repressing crime. Dr. Chalmers bad powerfully proved that the condition of the population had been vastly elevated by the efforts of parish ministrations.

Mr. P. Stewart

asked if it were not singular such a measure should be required at a time when some 600 or 700 churches had just arisen, the result of the exertion of the last year or so? He declared it incorrect to affirm that the free church had directed its efforts to the more opulent portions of the towns. Even as a member of that church he regretted the extent to which the disruption of old associations had been carried in the unfortunate secessions from the Established Church. But he, at all events, believed that this measure, intended as one of church extension was quite unnecessary.

Mr. E. Ellice

objected to the Clause on principle, and believed it would be utterly inoperative.

The Committee divided on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill:— Ayes 52; Noes 20: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B. Hope, hon. C.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Hope, G. W.
Arkwright, G. Johnstone, H.
Baillie, Col. Lennox, Lord A.
Baring, hon. W. B. Lincoln, Earl of
Boldero, H. G. Lockhart, W.
Borthwick, P. Mackenzie, W. F.
Bowles, Admiral McNeill, D.
Clerk, Sir G. Mainwaring, T.
Colquhoun, J. C. Manners, Lord J.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Martin, C. W.
Cripps, W. Masterman, J.
Darby, G. Morgan, C.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Mundy, E. M.
Drummond, H. H. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Eliot, Lord Peel, J.
Flower, Sir J. Shaw, rt. Hon. F.
Forbes, W. Smollett, A.
Freemantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Sutton, hn. H. M.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Thesiger, Sir F.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Trench, Sir F. W.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Trotter, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Vivian, J. E.
Greenall, P, Whitmore, T.
Grimstone, Visct.
Henley, J, W. TELLERS.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Young, J.
Hodgson, R. Pringle, A.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Ewart, W.
Barnard, E. G. Ferguson, Col.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Hume, J.
Bowring, Dr. Stewart, P. M.
Brotherton, J. Wakley, T.
Browne, hon. W. Wallace, R.
Butler, hon. Col. Wawn, J. T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Yorke, H. R.
Craig, W. G.
Dalrymple, Capt. TELLERS.
Dennistoun, J. Ellice, E.
Duncan, G. Maule, F.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 8, "That it shall be lawful for any heritor or heir of entail to give and grant land for the site of such church, etc., not exceeding in the whole acres." It was proposed to fill the blank with the word "four."

Mr. F. Maule

objected to the Clause. He thought it mast unjust, that proprietors of estates in tail should have power to give sites of four acres to churches, with power to bind their successors. He proposed to insert as an Amendment, one acre and a-half.

The Lord Advocate

contended that the principle of the Clause was not new; it had been introduced in former Acts.

Committee divided on the question that the blank be filled up with the word "four": —Ayes 53; Noes 17: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt. Hope, hon. C.
Adderley. C. B. Hope, G. W.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Johnstone, H.
Arkwright, G. Lennox, Lord A.
Baillie, Col. Lincoln, Earl of
Baring, hon. W. B. Lockhart, W.
Boldero, H. G. McGeachy, F. A.
Borthwick, P. Mackenzie, W. F.
Bowles, Adm. McNeill, D.
Clerk, Sir G. Mainwaring, T.
Cripps, W. Manners, Lord J.
Darby, G. Martin, C. W.
Denison, E. B. Masterman, J.
Drummond, H. H. Mundy, E. M.
Egerton, W. T. Nicholl, rt hon. J.
Eliot, Lord Peel, J.
Flower, Sir J. Pringle, A.
Forbes, W. Round, J.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Smollett, A.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Godson, R. Thesiger, Sir F.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Trench, Sir F. W.
Greenall, P. Trotter, J.
Grimston, Visct. Vivian, J. E.
Henley, J. W. TELLERS.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Young, J.
Hodgson, R. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Hume, J.
Brotherton, J. Mitcalfe, H.
Browne, hon. W. Mitchell, T. A.
Busfield, W. Plumridge, Capt.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Stewart, P. M.
Dalrymple, Capt. Wakley, T.
Duncan, G. Wawn, J. T.
Ellice, E. TELLERS.
Ewart, W. Maule, F.
Forster, M. Wallace, R.

On the question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill,

Mr. Bouverie

objected to the Clause altogether, unless its principle were extended to all denominations, and would divide the House against it.

Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 16: Majority 41.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt. Balilie, Col.
Acton, Col. Baring, hon. W. B.
Adderley, C. B. Baskerville, T. B. M.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Boldero, H. G.
Arkwright, G. Borthwick, P.
Bowles, Adm. Lincoln, Earl of
Briscoe, M. Lockhart, W.
Clerk, Sir G. McGeachy, F. A.
Cripps W. Mackenzie, W. F.
Darby, G. McNeill, D.
Denison, E. B. Mainwaring, T.
Drummond, H. H. Manners, Lord J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Martin, C. W.
Egerton. W. T. Masterman, J.
Eliot, Lord Mundy, E. M.
Flower, Sir J. Nicholl, rt. hn. J.
Forbes, W. Peel, J.
Forman, T. S. Pringle, A.
Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T. Round, J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Shaw, rt. hn. F.
Gordon, hn. Capt. Smollett, A.
Greenall, P. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Grimston, Visct. Thesiger, Sir F.
Henley, J. W. Trench, Sir F. W.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Trotter, J.
Hodgson, R. Vivian, J. E.
Hope, hn. C. Wortley, hn. J. S.
Hope, G. W. TELLERS.
Johnstone, H. Young, J.
Lennox, Lord A. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J. Plumridge, Capt.
Browne, hon. W. Stewart, P. M.
Busfield, W. Trelawny, J. S.
Dalrymple, Capt. Wakley, T.
Ellice, E. Wallace, R.
Forster, M. Wawn, J. T.
Hume, J.
Maule, rt. hn. F. TELLERS
Mitcalfe, H. Colebrooke, Sir T.
Mitchell, T. A. Bouverie, hn. E. P.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill to be reported.

House adjourned at ten o'clock.

Back to