HC Deb 27 July 1874 vol 221 cc837-44

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4 (Compensation to private patrons).

MR. ANDERSON

, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "Her Majesty" to end of clause, said, patronage was held in three hands—the Crown, certain municipalities, and private persons. Parliament was entitled of right to deal with patronage in the hands of the Crown as national property. With patronage in the hands of municipalities and private individuals, Parliament was not entitled so to deal, and if they desired compensation, it ought to be given them. He did not believe that every municipality would want compensation, but he thought it better not to leave the question an open one.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from the words "Her Majesty," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Anderson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he would remind the hon. Member that in the Irish Church Act, no compensation was to be given to Her Majesty or to any corporation for loss of patronage. For that reason, he thought the Government were justified in putting these provisions into the Bill. He also opposed the Amendment on the ground that no application for compensation had been made by any corporation, and further, that in Scotland, no corporation could sell patronage, because it was held in trust for the "common good."

MR. RAMSAY

expressed his surprise that the Lord Advocate should have quoted the Irish Church Act, which he, when in opposition, had regarded as an act of spoliation. He trusted the hon. Member for Glasgow would persevere with his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 15: Majority 119.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

inquired if the Lord Advocate could inform the Committee what the "rules and regulations "were that were referred to?

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, it would be left to the General Assembly to frame them. His object was to suspend the operation of the Act till the General Assembly should take action.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

thought the amended clauses would not meet the case of the parishes with less than 25 communicants, unless they gave instructions to the General Assembly.

MR. R. REID

, in moving the omission of the clause from the Bill, said, it had been said when the Bill was first spoken of, that it was introduced in compliance with the wishes of the great mass of the people of Scotland, and that Parliament would not do that from an English, but rather from a Scottish point of view. All information on the subject went to prove that the people of Scotland looked with disfavour on the system of private patronage which the Bill was meant to remove, and even all the patrons themselves who had spoken on the subject refused to treat their privilege from a money point of view. On the contrary, they had thanked the Government for proposing to take a disagreeable responsibility off their hands, and it was generally acknowledged that this patronage had no marketable value; so that really there was not only no reason why the compensation should be provided for, but the patrons themselves had not asked for it. Any money value that was ever set upon private patronage was taken away by the Act of Lord Aberdeen, which gave congregations the right to object to any minister that a patron might present to a living. He objected also to the form in which the compensation was offered and the manner in which it was to be paid.

MR. MARK STEWART

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that a great diversity of opinion existed on the subject, and that there were some persons who had gone so far as to designate the Bill as a measure of compensation. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed, and that the Government would adhere to the clause.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that it was not exactly correct to say that private patronage possessed no marketable value in Scotland. He knew of one living which in 1862 was sold for £580, which was worth about £270 a-year. This was a matter of nearly three years' purchase. He thought, however, that as the Committee had confiscated the rights of municipalities, they might also confiscate the rights of private patrons.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Procedure before sheriff).

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 6, after "petitioner," to insert— and in making this inquiry the sheriff shall have regard to the amount of teinds already enjoyed by the present patron, and by former patrons under the Acts of 1690 and 1093, which allowed these teinds in compensation for the abolition of patronage, but which patronage was re-established under the Act of the tenth year of Queen Anne, chapter twelve, but without giving up the.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that it would be very difficult to carry it out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after "entitled," to insert "unless the sum shall be otherwise provided," expressing a hope that both a general and local fund would be provided, which would prevent the security of patrons from having to rest on the income of the clergyman of the parish.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

thought that no kind of security could be worse than that, and hoped the public spirit of Scotland would obviate the necessity for it.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, it would be far better for the Go- vernment to pay the whole £45,000 required to compensate patrons.

COLONEL MURE

observed that by the law of Scotland any contract that encumbered the income of a clergyman was simoniacal.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, such an arrangement would be like the old Popish practice of holding livings in commendam. He reserved to himself perfect liberty to bring forward a distinct proposition on the Report.

MR. ORR-EWING

did not think that any grievance would arise under the clause.

MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH

believed that when the Bill passed, a central fund would be raised for the purpose of purchasing the rights of presentees, and hoped the Lord Advocate would adhere to the clause.

SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL

thought that some further explanation should be given in regard to what was exactly intended by the Church of Scotland in this matter. The form of security proposed by the clause was very objectionable.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the difficulty would be met by giving power to the congregation to buy the patronage up at one year's purchase.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Sheriff's judgment final).

MR. VANS AGNEW

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the word "not," the object of which was to provide that the judgment of the sheriff-substitute in the matter should, as in all other cases, be liable to be reviewed by the principal Sheriff.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the provision was really to prevent any unnecessary or prolonged litigation; but he had no objection to an appeal being made to the Sheriff, as it was possible that mistakes might be made by the sheriff-substitute.

Amendment agreed to.

Word struck out accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Appointment by presbytery tanquam jure devoluto).

THE LORD ADVOCATE

then moved an Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 41, after the word "devolute," to insert the words "and the appointment by the presbytery shall be equivalent to an appointment by the congregation in terms of section three hereof. If at any time after the passing of this Act it shall appear to the presbytery of the bounds that the number of the communicants of any vacant church and parish, to which no presentation had been issued before the passing hereof, is less than twenty-five, it shall not be lawful to take any proceedings for the appointment, admission, and settlement of a minister, except under and until after the issue of rules and regulations to be framed by the general assembly subsequent to the commencement of this Act; the jus devolutum in the case of any such vacancy shall not come into operation until after the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, although more than six months may have elapsed from the occurrence of such vacancy."—(The Lord Advocate.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RAMSAY

suggested that the clause should be postponed, until he had had an opportunity of bringing forward the new clause of which he had given Notice.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the clause having been amended could not be postponed.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

thought they were giving too extensive powers to the General Assembly, and submitted that some security should be given that the right of patronage would be allowed to be exercised by the people.

MR. LEITH

also objected to the unlimited power given by this clause to the General Assembly. The terms of the rules and regulations ought to be inserted in the clause.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked, if the Amendment was not irregular, in the same way that his own was on Friday night—namely, that it contained a recommendation to the General Assembly? He objected to such an arbitrary power being given to any body.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment was not irregular, inasmuch as it was enacting, whereas the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General had been only recommendatory.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, that if such rules were laid down by Parliament, it would probably lead to a second Disruption.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

objected to the proposal, on the ground that it was not sufficiently definite with respect to the action which the General Assembly might take in the matter. So far as the small Highland parishes were concerned, there would be nothing to prevent any anomaly or scandal occurring.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he had received a letter from an influential constituent, saying that the great power which was left to the General Assembly-was the one blot in the Bill. He (Colonel Alexander) was quite unwilling to leave to any Church Court such enormous power, and thought that the regulations which might be made should be ratified by Parliament before they came into operation.

MR. ANDERSON

considered the Amendment better than the original clause. It would not do to leave the provision for the making of rules as it was.

MR. M'LAGAN

suggested that the rules should be the same as in Clause 3.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was too late to make the suggested Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 22: Majority 67.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

proposed a further Amendment, in the shape of a Proviso, making it necessary for the rules to be submitted to Parliament and approved before the clause could come into operation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

objected, and said he could not imagine anything more certain to give offence to the Free Church.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, there would otherwise be no guarantee that the rules would be framed.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, rather than have such a rule, the Church of Scotland would have patronage continued.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

maintained that Parliament should decide on the rules.

Amendment negatived.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Repeal of inconsistent statutes) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Interpretation clause).

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

, in moving as an Amendment in page 4, line 7, after "include," to insert "persons having a right to sittings, and persons occupying seats allocated by or rented from persons having such rights, and," said, its object was to restore to landowners the interest in the Church which was taken from them by the Bill. His proposal was to allow persons to vote who had seats in virtue of their properties.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 37, after the word "include," to insert the words "persons having a right to sittings and persons occupying seats allocated by or rented from persons having such rights and."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE LORD ADVOCATE

objected to the Amendment.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he would refer the House to Dr. Cook's opinion in favour of the proposed change.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, Dr; Cook's opinion was not of much value with him, because he was one of a minority of seven or eight who lately opposed the Bill.

MR. VANS AGNEW

appealed to the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 72: Majority 42.

Clause agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), being contradictory to Clause 7, could not be proposed in its present form.

Preamble.

MR. M'LAGAN

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, after "Scotland," to insert— Whereas there have been secessions from the Church of Scotland, as by law established, which have been more or loss directly caused by the operation of the first recited Act, and the continuance thereof is an obstacle to the reunion of Presbyterian Churches in Scotland which agree in doctrine, discipline, and worship, said, he did so with the object of inducing the General Assembly to frame the rules in a liberal manner.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he preferred the Preamble as it stood.

SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELL

suggested that his own Amend- ment was better than the hon. Member's (Mr. M'Lagan's). It was to insert— And whereas the removal of an ancient cause of controversy may tend to bring about a union between the various Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAX-WELL

moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 9, after the word "and," to insert the words "in order to remove an ancient cause of controversy and an obstacle to union among the Presbyterians in Scotland."—(Sir William Stirling Maxwell.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 83: Majority 67.

Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 234.]