§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§
MR. MURE moved the following proviso at the end of the clause:—
Provided always, That upon the death or removal of any of the present ministers of any of the above-mentioned thirteen churches, the successor or successors of such minister or ministers shall not be entitled to a salary or stipend of more than £550 per annum until such time as the Commissioners named in this Act shall have made such provision as they may deem expedient
508
for payment of a salary or stipend, amounting to not more than £550 per annum to the ministers to be nominated by them to the Tolbooth Church and the Old Church under the powers by this Act conferred upon the said Commissioners.
§ The hon. Gentleman disclaimed any wish to interfere with the principle of the clause. His object was simply to give power to the Commissioners to deal with the matter of the amount of salaries of the successors of the present incumbents to a limited extent, so that, if they thought it expedient, they might fix the salaries of successive ministers at £550.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEheld that the interests of religion and of the Established Church would be more effectually served by the maintenance of thirteen ministers at a salary of £600 or £700 a year, than by keeping up two inefficient charges such as these, at a cost of a diminution of the stipends of the other ministers. He would not, however, oppose the Amendment if his hon. Friend would consent to leave out the specification of the two churches, and say "any minister nominated by the Commission."
§ Amendment, with the alteration proposed, agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 15.
§ Clause 16 (Accounts to be kept and published by the Commissioners).
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsuggested that this clause should be postponed for further consideration. He would, however, take that opportunity of explaining the facts of the case with respect to Trinity College church to which the clause referred. It appeared that the North British Railway of Scotland, being obliged to take down the church for the purposes of their railway, paid a sum of £16,000 to the Town Council, to be applied to the rebuilding of the church on another site. Owing to some differences of opinion upon the question, an action was commenced against the Town Council to compel them to build the church according to the agreement. The Lord Ordinary decided against the Town Council, and the money would be handed over to the Commissioners for the rebuilding of the church. The arrangement was, that the church should be rebuilt after an interval of five years, during which time the minister of Trinity College church was to be maintained at a salary of £600 a year. After the rebuilding of the church there would be a balance of between 509 £5,000, and £6,000. A Committee of the House had recommended that a portion of this fund should be applied to the redemption of the Annuity Tax. On the part of the Town Council he had been pressed over and over again to take the money for the same purpose, and he thought it would be fair enough to relieve the town on the one hand and give the church the benefit on the other. The Amendment he was going to introduce was that the money should be handed over to the Commissioners, who should be bound to build the church and to apply the remaining fund as had been already stated.
MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)thought that if any parties had reason to complain, in respect to this matter, it was the Railway Company itself. They were compelled by the Town Council to pay a large sum of money for the rebuilding of this church. He observed that although this money had been extorted by the Town Council from the North British Railway Company for the specific purpose of rebuilding the church on another site, the Town Council had resorted to every technical quibble, to every mode of legal chicanery they could think of, in order to escape from the obligation which they took upon themselves when they received the money. As a matter of equity, if after rebuilding the church any balance remained, the Town Council ought to hand it back to the Railway Company.
§ MR. BLACKcontended that the former part of the transaction was highly creditable to the Town Council; and he might say that he was himself the Town Council on that occasion, because it was left entirely to him to arrange with the Railway Company in London. The Company at first proposed to remove the church and go to a jury to declare the value of the land; but he (Mr. Black) required that they should rebuild the church, and the Parliamentary Committee decided in his favour. The Company then preferred to pay the money, and he left it to the Company's own architect to say what sum the church could be built for. After that he (Mr. Black) left the Council; but he could not defend the Council for attempting to evade the obligation he had undertaken. Up to that point he maintained that the Council had acted very liberally towards the Company. The Company, in endeavouring to overreach the Council, had been overreached themselves.
§ MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the fault of the Council lay not in accepting the money, but in attempting to misappropriate it. If after the church was built a balance remained it should be applied to the support of the church, but not to the relief of the inhabitants.
§ MR. HADFIELDwas surprised that not a single Scotch Member had a word to say for the Town Council of Edinburgh. He was satisfied from what he knew of members of the Council that they had acted in an honourable manner.
§ Clause postponed.
§ Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
§ Clause 21 postponed.
§ Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
§ Clause 25 agreed to, with Amendments.
§ Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
§ Clause 28. (Provost, Magistrates, and Council to pay to succeeding Minister and his Successors a Salary of £200 per annum.)
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEproposed an Amendment which would have the effect of giving to the ministers of the Church of Montrose a salary of £250 a year, instead of £200. The town was a very large one, and he was sure the Committee would admit that even £250 a year was not more than adequate to enable the minister of such a place to maintain his position.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 38, after the word "hundred," to insert the words "and fifty."
§ MR. BAXTERreminded the Committee that the original proposal for the settlement of the Annuity tax was, that the salary of the minister should be £340. Now it was proposed that £200 should be paid as the stipend of the minister, and that the remainder of his income should be made up from the pew-rents, &c. That arrangement was acceptable to the Church party in Montrose, and so far as the result was concerned, the salaries of the ministers, so far from being reduced, they would rather be increased by the operation of the Bill. He should certainly oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, that he was informed that, a little time ago, the Town Council of Montrose were willing to have the salary fixed at £250, but that when the smaller sum was suggested they readily accepted it. He spoke in the interest of the minister, who, he considered, should not be left dependent on the generosity of any body of men.
§ MR. MUREobjected to the proposal, because it would interfere with the administration of relief to the poor, who received aid out of the church-door collection.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should not feel himself justified in agreeing to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Bruce), inasmuch as he believed it would have the effect of disturbing the arrangement that had already been agreed to by the Church party in Montrose.
§ Question put, "That the words 'and fifty' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided—Ayes 42; Noes 70: Majority 28.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 29 (Stipends of the Ministers of the Montrose Church).
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsuggested that, as the Bill was a compromise on this subject, it was desirable that no element should be left in it which could give rise to future misunderstanding and irritation. They had experience of the effect of pew-rents in England, and he did not think it would be wise to extend that principle in Scotland. It was very desirable that a certain portion of every church should be reserved for the poorer classes, and that they should have absolute security that those free seats would be reserved for them. He wished, therefore, that a clause should be introduced giving the poor a right to adequate accommodation in the church.
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, it was his intention to propose that one-tenth of each church should be appropriated to the poor. He proposed in line 15 after "case," to leave out to the end of the clause, and to insert "it shall be lawful for them to increase the salary or stipend of the ministers of the said church to an amount not exceeding £340." He did not think that the salaries of the ministers should be made dependent upon pew-rents or church-door collections, which should be devoted to the poor.
§ MR. BAXTERurged upon the hon. Gentleman not to persevere in his Amendment, which would have the effect of creating much dissatisfaction.
§ MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he supported the Amendment, on the ground that if the people knew that those collections would be appropriated to other purposes than the relief of the poor they would cease to contribute to the poor-box.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEproposed 512 an Amendment in the clause appropriating one-tenth of the church at Montrose to the use of the poor in the same way as had been arranged in the churches of Edinburgh.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYproposed a proviso at the end of the clause, by which not less than one-third of each church should be appropriated to the public without costs.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEopposed the proviso, on the ground that the accommodation already provided for the poor was amply sufficient, and that, if adopted, it would only lead to confusion.
§ Proviso negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause as amended agreed to.
§ Clauses 30 and 31 were agreed to.
§ Clause 16 (Accounts to be kept and published by the Commissioners).
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEthen proposed that the clause should be framed to this effect:—
That the moneys now in the hands of the Town Council of Edinburgh for the purpose of rebuilding Trinity College church, including all interest and accumulations, should be handed over to the Commissioners under this Bill in November next, and that after an interval of five years, the Commissioners should appropriate these moneys, or such amount as should be necessary, to the rebuilding of the said church according to the plan already agreed upon; and that during the said period of five years the minister of that church should receive a stipend of £600 a year.The rebuilding of the church would cost £12,000, which would leave a balance of £6,000 or £7,000 to be applicable to other purposes set forth in the Bill.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (If Commissioners fail in the Discharge of their Duties, the Lord Advocate may bring a Complaint before the Court of Session.)
§ Mr. STIRLINGproposed the following Amendment:
After 'on,' leave out the rest of the clause, and insert, 'and after the passing of this Act, the advocation, donation, and right of patronage of the following City churches—namely, St. Andrew's, St. George's, Greenside High Church, New Greyfriars, Old Greyfriars, St. John's, Lady Yester's, St. Mary's, St. Stephen's, Trinity College, Tron Church, and New North Church, shall cease to be in and belong to the Magistrates and Council, and shall be vested in the Commissioners; and the right of patronage of the said churches, as vacancies shall occur among the ministers thereof, shall be exercised by the Commissioners, assisted by representatives annually elected by the Kirk Sessions of the said churches, one by each Kirk Session, from among its own members, for the 513 special purpose of acting with the Commissioners in filling up such vacancies, subject to the rules of the Church of Scotland.He did not wish to cast any imputation on the manner in which the Council had exercised their patronage; but the altered circumstances of the case, he thought, required this change. He denied that the Council had any right to compensation for the withdrawal of the patronage, inas much as it was a trust vested in them on behalf of the public. No compensation was proposed to be given to the Town Council of Edinburgh, when the University patronage was withdrawn; and in this very Bill the patronage of the second charge in Montrose, was to be transferred to the elders and members of that church, without compensation to the Town Council.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEheld that the Town Council had always exercised their patronage well and wisely, and had been hardly dealt with in the University Bill. An ordinary patron could, of course, sell his right; but the Town Council could not alienate their patronage, which was, therefore, at present not saleable. He thought it right that they should have the power of negotiating for the disposal of their patronage, and could not consent to its being forcibly withdrawn from them.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the clause proposed was one so just and reasonable, that it ought to receive the general assent of the Committee. They should recollect that it was this question of patronage which had occasioned the great schism in the Church of Scotland. When they were changing the application of those funds, he thought it was but a just concession that this patronage should be given to the unexceptionable body proposed. It was most desirable that the patronage of the Church should be exercised by the members of the Church.
§ MR. BLACKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire; but as the right of presentation had always been treated as property, it was but fair that the Council should be permitted to sell a property which belonged to the City of Edinburgh. He suggested that the patronage should be transferred to the Kirk Session and congregation, instead of the Commissioners, as in the case of the church of Montrose, and that a year's rent should be the price of the patronage.
§ MR. BLACKBURNsaid, in the case of Montrose church, there was no price; the 514 Council merely held the patronage as a public trust; and if it were for the general good that it should be transferred, that was no reason why the Council should receive money, and make a profit out of it.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, nothing could be more injurious than to transfer the patronage from the public Council to another body, elected in a wholly different manner. Let the Council sell it, or let it be transferred in each instance to the respective congregations.
MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)pressed on the Lord Advocate the propriety of taking away the patronage from the Council, who had no title to compensation. The patronage ought to be transferred to the congregations; but sooner than see it remain in the hands of the Council, he would vote for the Amendment.
§ MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEthought there were grave objections to giving congregations this patronage; because very frequently there were two or more pastors amongst them; and the result was, that in the exercise of this patronage much animosity was engendered.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in this case there were very special reasons for vesting the Church patronage in the congregations; because they would look out for the most popular minister, whereby the seat-rents would be increased.
§ MR. STIRLINGhad no objection that the patronage should be vested in the congregation, and suggested that the Lord Advocate should put the clause in a shape that would satisfy all parties.
§ Clause negatived.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would not undertake to bring up a clause in place of it; he would, however, consider whether he could so amend it that it ought to meet the wishes of all parties.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ House resumed; Bill reported as amended, to be considered on Monday 25th June.