COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 24 July 1874)

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 1, line 28, after "repealed," leave out to "thereanent," in page 2, line 12, and insert— And considering that patronage and presentation to kirks is an evil prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of kirks, and unto the free calling and entry of ministers into then-charge, discharge for ever hereafter all patronages and presentations to kirks, whether belonging to Her Majesty or any lay patrons, presby- 685 teries, and others as being unlawful, unwarrantable, and contrary to the doctrines and liberties of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, and do repeal, rescind, and make void and annul all gifts and rights granted thereanent, and all former Acts made in Parliament, or in any inferior judicatory, in favour of any patron or patrons whatsoever, so far as the same doth in any way relate unto the presentation of kirks; and doth statute and ordain that no persons whatsoever shall in any time hereafter take upon them, under pretext of any title, infeftment, or Act of Parliament, possession or warrant whatsoever which are hereby repealed, to give, subscribe, or seal any presentation to any kirk within this Kingdom, and discharges the passing of any infeftments hereafter bearing a right to patronages to be granted in favour of those for whom the infeftments are presented; and that no person or persons shall either on behalf of themselves or others procure, receive, or make use of any presentation to any kirk within this Kingdom; and it is further declared and ordained that if any presentation shall hereafter be given, procured, or received, that the same is null and of non effect, and that it is lawful for presbyteries to reject the same, and to refuse to admit any to trials thereupon, and notwithstanding thereof to proceed to the planting of the kirk upon the suit and calling, or with consent of the congregation, on whom none is to be obtruded against their will; and it is decerned, statute and ordained, that whosoever hereafter shall, upon the suit and calling of the congregation, after due examination of their literature and conversation, be admitted by any presbytery into the exercise and functions of the ministry in any paroch within this Kingdom—that the said person or persons without presentation, by virtue of their admission, hath sufficient right and title to possess and enjoy the manse and glebe, and the whole rents, stipends, and profits which the ministers of that kirk had formerly possessed and enjoyed, or that hereafter shall be modified by the Commission for plantation of kirks; and decerns all titulars and tacksmen of tithes, heritors, life-rentors, or others, subject and liable in payment ministers' stipends, to make payment of the same, notwithstanding the ministers' want of presentation; and ordains the Lords of Session and other judges competent to give out decreets and sentences, letters conform, horning inhibition, and all other executorials upon the said admission of ministers by presbyteries, as they were formerly in use to do, upon collation and institution following upon presentations from patrons: Declaring always, That where ministers are already admitted upon presentation and have obtained decreets conform thereupon, that the said decreets and executorials following thereupon shall be good and valid rights to the ministers for suiting and obtaining payments of their stipend; and the presentation and decreet conform obtained before the date thereof shall be a valid ground and right for that effect, notwithstanding the annulling of presentations by virtue of this present Act: And because it is needful that the just and proper interest of congregations and presbyteries in providing of kirks with ministers be clearly determined by the general assembly, and what is to be accounted the congregation having that interest; there- 686 fore, it is hereby seriously recommended unto the next general assembly clearly to determine the same, and to condescend upon a certain standing way for being a settled rule therein for all times coming. It is hereby provided that, pending the consultations of the general assembly in communication with the various kirk sessions, presbyteries, and provincial synods of the presbyterian churches, in settling the rule for naming, proposing, electing, and appointing ministers to churches and parishes in Scotland, the whole of the presentations hitherto vested in Her Majesty and others shall be vested in the Lord High Commissioner to the general assembly, who shall exercise this right to present to vacancies, subject to the feelings and wishes of the congregation, said, he was unfortunately obliged to go back to the past history of the Church of Scotland, because without bearing in mind the circumstances of former years, they could not possibly understand those of the present day. The Reformation brought about a desire in Scotland to be free from the corruptions of the Church of Rome. Not only was freedom of worship established in Scotland, but the people rose up strongly against all opposition. In 1561, the Church was independent, and exercised all her rights, including that of presenting ministers. That continued until the year 1638, when, under the Stuarts, the Church came into bondage, and so remained until 1649. In that year, an Act was passed, distinctly giving the Church the right to nominate its own ministers. The Church was free until 1661, when, with the Restoration of the Stuarts, evil days came again. In 1689 the Stuarts were expelled from Scotland, and in the following year, the Presbyterian Church became entirely free. From that time up to 1712, the Church exercised every power which a free Church ought to exercise. They had the right to choose their own ministers. Again in 1712, an unfortunate Act was passed under the government of Queen Anne, giving certain parties the right to impose on the Church of Scotland whatever ministers they wished, and the Church had never ceased to complain of the tyranny of that Act. At that time, the Church of Scotland was quiescent under that Act; but in the early part of this century, they raised themselves up to try and free themselves from oppression, and in 1833 an endeavour was made in the House of Commons to repeal the Act of Queen Anne; but unfortunately, Sir Robert Peel was successful in preventing 687 the rescinding of the Act. No one could read the debates of that period without coming to the conclusion that the Church of Scotland had invariably been staunch to the principles of the Act of Queen Anne. It was moved in the General Assembly, however, that the Scotch people should have the right of veto on the ministers presented to them. That was in operation for five years. The civil Courts were then called upon to interfere, and they saw that the Veto Act was illegal. Prom that time, various attempts were made to give back to the Church of Scotland the right to nominate her own ministers, but unfortunately all the efforts failed. The Free Church of Scotland had now been in operation 30 years, and during that time, her congregations had exercised the right of selecting their own ministers. With that example before them, he thought it right to come and ask the House that, instead of accepting the various provisions of the Bill of the Lord Advocate, they should give back to the people of Scotland, the right of fixing the mode in which their ministers should be selected. It was true the Bill of the Lord Advocate proposed to give them that right; but he held that this House had no right to dictate to the people of Scotland the manner in which they should nominate their ministers, and to that part of the Bill he distinctly objected. He would therefore ask the Lord Advocate to consider the Amendment he had to propose, which would give to the General Assembly the right to decide the manner in which they would elect their own ministers, and would then give to the people of Scotland an expression of opinion as to the mode in which that right should be exercised.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that I have had an opportunity of consulting the highest authorities in the House as to the language of the Amendment, and I must tell him and the Committee, that the first sentence being unusual, unprecedented, and irregular, I cannot put it to the Committee. It has never been the practice of Parliament to make recommendations to other bodies, but to enact laws; and I can only put to the Committee the latter part of the Amendment—the operative part.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, in that case, he would propose the latter part of his Amendment, to leave 688 out from "repealed" to "thereanent," and insert the following:— It is hereby provided that, pending the consultations of the general assembly in communication with the various kirk sessions, presbyteries, and provincial synods of the presbyterian churches, in settling the rule for naming, proposing, electing, and appointing ministers to churches and parishes in Scotland, the whole of the presentations hitherto vested in Her Majesty and others shall be vested in the Lord High Commissioner to the general assembly, who shall exercise this right to present to vacancies, subject to the feelings and wishes of the congregation.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
The hon. and gallant Member was quite right in having voted against the second reading of the Bill, if he intended to propose this Amendment, for it is quite inconsistent with the purport and tenour of the Bill. I was as surprised that he objected to the second reading of the Bill, because last Session, he said that he would vote for the abolition of patronage. It is, however, quite out of the question that an Amendment of this kind can be adopted by the Committee. The Amendment is apparently of this character—patronage is to be repealed nominally or provisionally, or in some way which I do not understand, and the Lord High Commissioner, representing Her Majesty is to have the whole of the patronage placed in his hands, at least, until the General Assembly of the Established Church shall have made arrangements with the other Presbyterian Churches. But with respect to that, I regret to say that we have had no encouragement to enter into consultation with those Churches. In the month of April, before the Bill was brought forward, there were meetings in Glasgow and Edinburgh of the two principal Dissenting Presbyteries, and there the Free Church and the other ministers intimated that they could have no communication with the Government in reference to the question of the abolition of patronage. Therefore, it would be vain for us to approach those Churches; and although I hope matters may mend in this respect, I regret to say that, so far as any open declaration on their part is concerned, we have had hitherto no encouragement. We are, however, sincerely desirous that there should be a reconciliation of the Presbyterian Churches, and I wish to avoid using any language which might produce an irritating effect, or tend to prevent that good feeling which I trust will 689 yet exist between the Established Church and the other Presbyterian Churches. It has been stated that the question of disestablishment has been raised in consequence of the introduction of this Bill; but that question of disestablishment was raised last year, before there was any discussion in this House in reference to the abolition of patronage. I am sorry to say that a majority of the members of the United Presbyterian Church had declared for disestablishment then, and have declared for it now. Then, further, the Free Church, before there was any movement of this kind in reference to patronage—I mean in Parliament—contended for the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. I think it must be obvious, therefore, that to stop the progress of the Bill until we have had communications with the Churches to which I have just alluded would be not only useless, but a waste of time. We are now trying in the interest of the Church of Scotland to get patronage removed, and I do not see how those who maintain that popular election is the proper mode of electing ministers can oppose such a measure. When we have got rid of patronage in the Established Church all Churches will so far be on a footing of equality, and a barrier which now exists will have been removed. I submit that the proper course for the Committee to pursue is to negative this Amendment.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, if he were a Churchman he should certainly object to the transfer of the power of electing the minister to a new body not known in Scotland. In Scotland the communicants were regarded as the only congregation. They looked to no Act of Parliament to confer on them that right; but they looked to the charter which was conferred on them by the Founder of Christianity Himself.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. ORR-EWING
moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "shall," and to insert the words "is hereby declared to."

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
What is the effect of the Amendment?

§ MR. ORR EWING
The congregations of Scotland do not like the Act of Parliament to declare a right which they believe they possess already.

§ MR. LEITH
It appears to me that this Amendment is to declare what the law of Scotland is in regard to the power vested in the communicants and other members of the congregation. The hon. Member desires not that we should give the power, but to declare that it now exists in the Church of Scotland.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
Before the Act of Queen Anne was passed, the right of presentation was in the communicants and members of the congregation. [Mr. LEIH: No; the congregation only.] In the congregation, which included the communicants. I do not see anything material in the Amendment, but I am not inclined to oppose it.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said, that if the Amendment referred to the state of things previous to the passing of the Act of Queen Anne, it effectually stopped all the Amendments of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friends around him, with reference to the constitution of the elective body.

§ MR. ORR EWING
said, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Leith) objected to the Amendment, because the previous Acts did not mention communicants as forming the congregation. If the House intended that the ratepayers should have the right, then he thought it would be inconsistent to put the Amendment; but he thought they should take a division to settle whether the ratepayers were to have the right.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he was rather perplexed with the explanation, but he understood that the Bill was to make a change in the existing law. By the existing law the right of nominating ministers was vested in the patron. They repealed that, and intended to vest it in the communicants and congregation; but he understood the Lord Advocate to say that by the simple repeal of the Act of Queen Anne, things went back to their former state, and vested it in the congregation. Now, by Lord Aberdeen's Act, the right of patrons was continued, but subject to the rights of congregations. That was existing law.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
Lord Aberdeen's Act is repealed, as well as the Act of Queen Anne.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
denied that the word "Church" would represent the true state of the case, because the Act of 1690 gave the election to heritors and elders. Now, they admitted the heritors here; but beyond that, it would be an unfair proceeding to shut out the Committee from discussing the Amendment by inserting a few words which nobody understood the meaning of.

§ MR. M'LAREN
failed to see that the Act of 1690 gave the people of Scotland a satisfactory right to have a voice in the election of ministers.

§ MR. ANDERSON
remarked that the clause as it stood was an enacting clause. The proposition of the hon. Member for Dumbarton would make it merely a declaratory clause.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
was of opinion that the Act of 1690 did not give the heritors or elders a right of presenting a minister to a parish, but merely the right of proposing one. That meaning of the Act was laid down by the official representing the Lord Advocate of that day, and the objection of respectable parishioners was held good.

§ MR. M'LAREN
admitted that there was no doubt patronage was abolished by the Act in question, but it did not follow that it was transferred to the public. That was one of the evils which the friends of the Established Church had to complain of.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
contended that the Act of 1690 did not make the Church of Scotland free. It certainly gave the heritors and elders influence over other electors, and that was what had been complained of. At the same time, he did not think the House of Commons should dictate to the people of Scotland as to how they should elect their ministers.

§ MR. ANDERSON
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, after "vested in" to insert "the ratepayers of the parish along with," said, he hoped he should not be considered hostile to the Bill in taking that course. As it at present stood, it appeared to him to be of a very sectarian character, and the object of his Amendment was to make it as broad as possible. The Bill was not to abolish patronage, but to transfer it 692 from one somewhat narrow body to another still narrower body. He wished to provide that in making that transference from one body to another, care should be taken that the body to which the patronage was to be transferred should be at least as national as that from which patronage was to be taken. The Bill as it now stood would not do so. The object of his Amendment was to make the constituency somewhat broader than that by adding the ratepayers to the electing body. Indeed, there were others who, in his opinion, ought to be added, although it might be difficult to constitute such an enlarged body, for there were many members of congregations who were not ratepayers who ought to have some say in the nomination to the pulpit. In this country, as well as in Scotland, much was left in the working of the parishes to females, and he thought it entirety wrong not to give them a fair share in the election of clergymen. He should be glad to vote for any Amendment which would make the Bill wider than it was, and there were many Amendments of that kind on the Paper. But on the whole he thought his own Amendment was the best, as it was the broadest, and he therefore moved it.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
said, the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) at first sight was very taking; but a little consideration showed that it would be ridiculous to entertain it for a single moment, and not only that, but the other Amendments to which the hon. Member referred. If ratepayers were allowed to have a direct voice in the election of clergymen, every one who had any knowledge of Scotland knew that there would be nothing but confusion and turmoil in such elections. Besides, it was a proposition that no other religious or irreligious community would submit to. What would the Roman Catholics say, if Protestants were to get the legal right to appoint the clergymen of their churches; and what would the other Presbyterian denominations say if members of the Established Church were to claim the right to elect the ministers of their Church? This was a question which referred to the Established Church of Scotland only, and though she would be willing to take in any other Church, or any other persons who would come into her fold, it 693 would not be right to thrust upon her those who had shown towards her dislike, if not hatred, and who might put into the ministry clergymen inimical to her interests. ["No, no!"] What happened at the time of the Disruption, when party spirit ran high? Town councils are said to have taken great pains and trouble to put into the Church pulpits clergymen who were inimical to and hostile to the Church of Scotland. The whole nation had a right to the services of the Established Church; but they would not give the Established Church into the hands of her enemies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, on the second reading, completely passed over that part of the subject. He never sup-posed the possibility of such a thing taking place. He (Mr. Stewart) maintained that no sensible person in that House who entertained a comprehensive view of the Church of Scotland would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow.

§ COLONEL MURE
said, he must oppose the Amendment, but not on the same grounds as the last speaker, and certainly not on the ground that no sensible man would propose such an Amendment. His motive was his utter objection to a ratepaying constituency as being unsuitable. The great object he had in view in supporting the Bill was to try to conciliate other Churches; and if anything was eminently calculated to have the very reverse effect, it would be the introduction of a ratepaying constituency. He desired to make the body entrusted with that power as ecclesiastical as possible.

§ MR. ERNEST NOEL
said, he was of opinion that if such a power as that proposed in the Amendment were given to the ratepayers, they might elect a minister who might be of some denomination different from that of the Church, or of no denomination whatever, which could not but be regarded as an insult to the Established Church of Scotland. He objected to the Bill altogether, but would certainly vote against the Amendment.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, every hon. Member who knew the Highland parishes was acquainted with the fact, that in the Highlands there was a particular prejudice against taking the Sacrament, and it was only on particular occasions it was partaken of, and therefore 694 there were very communicants in those districts. He however would repeat what he said on the occasion of the second reading, that the Bill was a matter of internal organization with which Dissenters had nothing to do. They had no right to say that United Presbyterians had a right to choose their own ministers, and to deny Churchmen the same right. If the Amendment were passed, there would be a danger of swamping the Established Church, and the game on the other side would be "Heads, I win, tails, you lose."

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, that amongst other questions raised was this—"What is a Dissenter?" In England, they knew very well what a Dissenter was, and they knew what it was in Ireland also; but in Scotland, there were no Dissenters, and therefore the term was not so well understood. They had the Free Kirk and the United Presbyterians; but there was no difference either in their creed or worship, and they went out from the Established Church merely on the question of patronage. As there were as many as seven Amendments on the Paper, each fixing a different constituency for the election of the ministers, and each evincing a dissatisfaction at the narrowness of its existing scope, the Committee ought to choose that one which opened the door widest, so as to facilitate the return of the Free Church and the United Presbyterians into the body of the Established Church, now that patronage, the point on which they had separated, was done away with. They should choose that Amendment which would unite the greatest amount of support. He did not think the proposal to make the ratepayers the electoral body would meet with much support in Scotland, and therefore he would advise the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow to withdraw his Amendment. It was clear that the constituency must be a religious, a Congregational, a Presbyterian, or a Protestant constituency, and the Amendment which most fully answered those requirements was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther). All the three Churches he had mentioned were identical in doctrine and ceremonial, and would become identical in government, if they had the opportunity given to 695 them to show a common interest in the selection of a minister.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the discussion would not be allowed to range over the whole of the seven proposals, and therefore he would suggest that for the present it should be limited to the question of the ratepayers. He believed that there was a great objection to the Amendment on both sides of the House; and that it was as much opposed to the principles of the Free Church and of the united Presbyterians as it was to those of the Established Church. The object of the Bill was to put the Church of Scotland into the position in which she was originally. The general principle of all Presbyterian Churches, he understood, was that no minister should be imposed upon them simply by the nomination of a patron, but that the congregations should have the power of electing their ministers, and what they wanted by this Bill was to put the Church of Scotland on the same footing as the other denominations. If the Committee were to insert "ratepayers" in the clause, they would do that which no Presbyterian Body would do of themselves.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
thought the hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his Amendment. The proposal was obviously an unpopular one at the present moment; but whilst he acknowledged that, he must say that it was not so monstrous as had been endeavoured to be made out by some hon. Members. He knew of churches in which it prevailed, and had not failed to provide them with a succession of excellent clergymen.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
asked those who recognized the congregation as having rights, who were the congregation? For his own part he considered the seatowners constituted the congregation, independently of the sacramental test. Unless Her Majesty's Government could lay down some satisfactory test, he would rather take the Amendment of his hon. Friend, than have the matter decided by a purely ecclesiastical tribunal. He did so for this reason—in appointing a minister of a congregation they were not only dealing with an ecclesiastical matter, but they were raising a person to a considerable social position, and one which gave him considerable civil influence in his parish, 696 and therefore it was important beyond the interests of the communicants that the appointment should be a good one. It was only right that those persons who had some influence in the parish should have some influence in the election. That fact was recognized by the right which the heritors possessed hitherto, independently of any ecclesiastical test. Why should the Committee say that any one who did not accept this religious test was necessarily an enemy, and would vote for the worst person possible?

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, if he had to choose one of the seven Amendments, he should certainly choose the one of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, for he considered it the right of every parishioner to vote for the election of minister. Its justice was shown by the fact that half of the people in Scotland did not belong to the Established Church. This, however, might be said against it, that in some instances the ratepayers might be a narrower constituency than the communicants.

§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said, he failed to discover that there was any virtue in a ratepayer, which entitled him to vote for the election of a minister. However much he desired to liberalize the electoral body, he could not see that it was possible to widen its basis; and he was disposed to agree with the Government that the best thing they could do was to leave the choice of the minister to those who were person-ally and directly interested in him, and who were to have the benefit of his ministrations.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, it appeared to him that in a national Church, maintained with national funds, every in-habitant of a parish had something to do with the election of a minister, and should accordingly have a voice in the matter. However he did not wish to multiply divisions, and he would there-fore withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. VANS AGNEW
, who had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert in line 2, after "vested in," "a committee consisting as to one-third of its number of heritors being Protestants, and as to the remaining two-thirds of," said, he would withdraw it, having been informed that it would place the patronage in the 697 hands of the heritors, with the communicants and the members.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "the communicants," and insert "the seatholders," said that the only point in which his Amendment differed from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh was this—that it created what he thought was a very proper restriction of the operation of the clause to the heads of families.

MR. GRANT DUFF
I regret that I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me; nor, to say the truth, do I see a single Amendment on the Paper which I care to support. It seems, indeed, to me, that the fairest and justest course that can be taken by those who, like myself, disapprove of the Bill from beginning to end, and who made their protest against it by voting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, is to let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pass it, much in the form in which they have brought it in, merely expressing a hope that it will turn out a happier measure for Scotland than I fear it will.

§ MR. M'LAGAN
approved of the Amendment, thinking that the seat-holders were the most proper persons in whom the power given by the clause could be vested. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire would come to an agreement upon the question under discussion.

§ MR. HORSMAN
suggested they should select one out of the seven similar Amendments and divide upon it to save time. By adopting that course a door might be opened to bring back the three great religious Bodies, which were one in doctrine and practice, into unity; and then the Bill would be a most useful one. After what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant Duff) had said, he (Mr. Horsman) wondered the hon. Member did not go to bed instead of sitting there. If by the Bill all came back to one Church the measure would be extremely creditable to the Government and very satisfactory to the House to pass.

§ MR. DALRYMPLE
said, the objection to seatholders was, that it would include heads of families and exclude the 698 female members of those families. He concurred in the suggestion that it would be convenient if hon. Members would agree upon which of these Amendments, which were all alike in intention and very similar in language, they would support, and then the Committee could divide at once.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, if the suggestion was adopted, he hoped the division would be taken, not on the substitution of seatholders for communicants, but on the addition of seatholders to communicants. It had always been the custom in the Church of Scotland to acknowledge the heritors; and by letting them into the Bill, they would not only restore the language of the old Acts, but make it more difficult to admit the Free Church again within its pale.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
objected to the term seatholders, on the general ground that it would include the rich and might exclude the poor. His object in supporting the Bill was, that he thought it would pave the way to a general reconciliation.

§ MR. ORR EWING
moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, the omission of "communicants and other members of the," so as to leave the election vested in the "congregation."

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he would accept the Amendment, subject to the subsequent definition of congregation.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
said, in that case, he should move that the definition include seatholders.

SIR ROBERT ANSTEUTHER
moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, after "respectively," insert "and in the congregation of any other Protestant church or churches in the parish." He considered that as far as the Free Church were concerned, they went out of the Church in 1843 upon free principles; and the demand made by that Church, it was utterly impossible to assent to. They still remained out, and he (Sir Robert Anstruther) submitted that they should fall back upon the Act of 1690, when the ministers were elected by the congregations. He thought the Amendment would prove of immense benefit to the Establishment 699 and would add greatly to its prosperity. Were the right to elect the ministers confined to members of the Established Church the Church would be open to the reproach of being a mere sect, but this would be removed by allowing all Presbyterian congregations to have a voice in the election of the parish minister.

§ MR. ORR EWING
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would form an insurmountable barrier to the union of the Established and Free Churches of Scotland. He believed the General Assembly had a strong objection to it, and if they wanted a union with the Free Church, they must get them to come in in some other way.

§ MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN
said, he was also of opinion that the Amendment was impolitic and objectionable. It would not effect the object for which it was designed—the bringing back of the Nonconformists to the Establishment. He objected to it as an attempt to set up a sort of secondary Established Church in Scotland, over which the State would have no control. He also wished to know how Protestant Churches were to be defined, and where the line was to be drawn.

§ MR. RAMSAY
entered a protest on the part of the other Protestant Churches of Scotland against their having that duty of electing ministers of the Established Church thrust upon them. He was sure that it would be anything but satisfactory to them if the Amendment were carried.

§ MR. ERNEST NOEL
thought that the Amendment would have the effect of rendering the Established Church more national than it was at present. He held that an Established Church kept up for a minority of the people was an established injustice. The people of Scotland were at that moment still Presbyterians.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said that the parish church in Scotland was open to every person in the parish, whereas the Dissenting church was only open to subscribers

§ MR. HORSMAN
said he heartily supported the Amendment as calculated to render the Established Church more national, and so to prevent her disestablishment; but he would suggest that the word "Presbyterian" should be substituted for "Protestant," as he thought his hon. Friend had made a mistake in using the latter term. They were now 700 asked to legislate for a Church which was confessedly the Church of the minority, and they were asked to give that Church by new statutory enactment, fresh recognition and fresh power. That was a thing that was actually unprecedented in the annals of English legislation. They were bound to do all they could to make that Church popular, strong, and useful; but when they were asked to take statutory action, and give further power to it as a national Church, they were placed in a false position. He should support the Amendment, believing that if they passed the Bill in its present form, they would make the majority of the nation enemies to Establishment.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the Amendment was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The measure was intended to abolish patronage in the Established Church of Scotland; but that Amendment would set up a system of external patronage in that Church in its worst form. The hon. Member for Fife could hardly be in earnest in proposing that all the Protestant Bodies in Scotland should elect the ministers of the Church of Scotland. The different Presbyterian Bodies were not on such terms of friendship as would make them act together cordially in the election of ministers, although he trusted the time would come when they would do so. But if anything more than another could tend to retard that result, it would be anything like au attempt to force a mode of electing their ministers on the Scotch people. The nearer allied sects were to each other, the greater often was their hostility, just as the quarrels between brothers were the bitterest. By trying to force the Presbyterian Churches to come together by pressure from without, Parliament was likely to do more harm than good.

COLONEL MUEE
supported the Amendment, the adoption of which would, he believed, induce many persons to withdraw their opposition to that measure. He did not believe that the proposal of his hon. Friend would compel any one to take part in the election of ministers. By creating discontent among the Dissenting Bodies of Scotland, that Bill, as it stood, would undermine the position of the Established Church, and the day was not far distant when they would combine to attack her. In order to pre-vent that eventuality, the object they 701 had in view was to restore patronage to where it ought to be, so as to smooth over the difficulty and re-unite the ancient Church of Scotland. The bitter feeling which was said to exist between the Free Church and the Church of Scotland was never heard of till the pro-sent Bill was before the House.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
, although sympathizing to a considerable extent with the object of the hon. Member for Fife, and being anxious for agreement among the different Presbyterian Churches, yet felt himself unable to accept that Amendment. If he had made such a proposal himself, he might have been accused of offering the other Churches a bribe to bring them over. From communications he had held with them he believed that members of the Free Church did not want the privilege which the Amendment would give them and that they concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay).

§ MR. REID
wished for a more precise definition of the term "seatholder," so as to limit it to regular attendants. At present, therefore, he could not support the Amendment.

§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIR
hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. M'LAREN
thought that if the clause was to be amended, it should be by adding the words "heritors" or "ratepayers," and not in the manner proposed.

§ MR. LEITH
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, after "respectively," to insert "and also in the inhabitants generally of the said parishes, being ratepayers and members of any of the congregations of Protestant Churches in Scotland," said his Amendment differed in form, but was identical in principle with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife just withdrawn. In conjunction with the proposition, he desired to embody the condition that the selection of ministers should be extended to licentiates or ministers of any of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, that the question had already been disposed of, involving as it did, the extension of the electoral body to "ratepayers" and 702 "other Protestant Communions," each head having been proposed and rejected by the Committee. For that reason, he could not accept it.

§ MR. ANDERSON
moved, as an Amendment in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "and the courts" to "thereof," in line 22, inclusive. The object was to deprive the Church Courts of the power of finally settling all questions connected with and arising out of the appointment of any minister thereof.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
opposed the Amendment. The Bill abolished the civil rights of election, and to the Church Courts ought to be given the power of settling disputes which might arise under the new system of election.

§ COLONEL MURE
thought that all fighting in the Church Courts should be put an end to, and therefore supported the Amendment.

§ MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN
would vote in favour of the Amendment. He thought it dangerous to allow the Church Courts such supreme power as was given by the Bill.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
thought the simplest process to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion would be to repeal the Act of Queen Anne.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
protested against the exemption of national property from the influence of the Civil Courts.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that as under the Bill as it now stood, there would be no appeals if civil right should be interfered with, he must take the sense of the Committee upon his proposal. He considered that the effect of the clause would be to set up a sacerdotal usurpation.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
hoped that the hon. Member would allow the clause to pass.