HC Deb 26 July 1898 vol 62 cc1444-67

Motion made and Question proposed— That the Bill be now read a second time.

*MR. GRAHAM MURRAY

This is a Bill for the proper utilisation of the resources of the Church. I see that there are various notices of Amendments, but really, had it not been for that I should have been at a loss to understand how there could be any opposition to this Bill, because it is so exceedingly innocuous in all its provisions. The Church of Scotland is regulated upon a parochial basis, and there has been, a great deal of growth since the time when, that parochial system was established, and the needs of the Church have been met by private liberality within that Church. Of course, as honourable Members know, in process of time centres of population, shift, and this has had an effect on the old parishes, and not only in the old parishes, but in the cities there have been many cases where the churches were originally planted in the middle of large residential populations: those populations have now left those districts, and those churches are now left in places which are inhabited by the persons who do not go to church, either because the district has become a business centre instead of a residential place, or in some cases because the people who live in the poorer parts of the town are mostly members of the other religious bodies. In the case of some parishes, sometimes where great works have subsequently grown, and sometimes where works have disappeared, there, again, also, the population has shifted from the church, and the provisions in this Bill are to deal with parishes in great cities, and simply to allow for the taking away of the churches from the depopulated districts, and replanting them in districts where the population abounds. I need only, I think, read one clause of the Bill to show that I am perfectly right in saying that it is entirely innocuous in its provisions. Clause 5 says— Nothing contained in or done in pursuance of this Act shall have the effect of increasing or altering the liabilities of heritors, ratepayers or others. Sir, there is not a single person affected financially, and nobody has to pay anything more, and it does not affect any question of rating whatever, for nobody will have to pay more under this Bill than they did before. It is simply and solely a domestic matter, and I really cannot, until I hear views to the contrary, see that the Church, whether all the persons belong to it or not, should be hampered in the proper utilisation of its own resources. I am bound to suppose that there will be some opposition, because I had sent me to-day a petition from the United Presbyterian Synod against the Bill, and I take that as a sample of something that will be said by someone to-night. I observe that the only thing which is said against the Bill is that the petitioners think that it is— opposed to any new legislation tending to confirm or extend the claims of the Establishment. Now, I cannot see how it tends to extend the claim, of the Establishment, or creates fresh powers of law in the interests of ecclesiastical privileges. It simply allows the Church of Scotland to do what other churches can do—that is, to husband its own resources in its own way, and it puts no burden upon anyone. Therefore, I ask the House to read the Bill a second time.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Dalziel.)

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

The Lord Advocate has expressed his surprise that there should be any opposition to this Bill, and it is therefore our duty now to enlighten him as to some of the grounds on which our opposition to this Bill is placed. I must say, and I must express surprise, that the right honourable Gentleman has not been at greater pains to ascertain what the prospects of this Measure passing were before he, at this period of the evening, brought it forward. We regard it as a very important Measure. The right honourable Gentleman asks for reasons why the Bill should not be persevered in, or why we object to it. The first objection which we have to the Bill on the present occasion is that it has not the remotest chance of passing into law this Session. If I were a betting man I would offer odds of 100 to 1 that the Bill will never go beyond the present stage, and therefore, when Parliamentary time is so important, and when we are anxious, I suppose, to get through the important Measures of the Session, it does seem to me almost a farce—indeed, it is wasting the time of the House—for us to sit up here for several hours to-night discussing the Bill, which, cannot possibly go beyond the present stage, and which has no prospects of passing this Session. I say further, that, there is no public demand for this Bill. The right honourable Gentleman, in the short speech which he delivered, had not ventured to say that there was any request for this Bill, so far as Scotland is concerned. And I venture to say that throughout the whole of Scotland at the last General Election, from John o' Groats to the Mull of Galloway, nobody was pressed on this question, and I think if any Member had had the question put to him as to whether he was in favour of this particular Bill, he would have replied in the negative. It is practically a new Bill, sprung upon us at the end of the Session, with the object, I suppose, that if we were to neglect and disregard the importance of the Bill, it might pass without serious opposition. The fact that there is no public demand for the Bill is a sufficient reason for objecting to it in its present stage. I must, however, express my surprise that it should be brought forward when the Disestablishment question is recognised as a question of principle and contention between the two great parties for the last few years. It has been brought forward with that kindness which is usual in Scotland, and I am surprised that the Government have taken the responsibility of restarting this controversy, and challenging the House upon some of the most important questions that have ever been the subject of controversy in Scotland. They are bringing in this Measure, if I may say so, upon a side issue, to declare that the teinds belong to the Church. Now there is no question which has given rise to greater controversy and greater discussion in Scotland than that question. I may say that I do not know when the opinion of this House was taken on this question. The House is asked to give a declaration upon that very important point. It seems to me that a Bill which challenges the House on that question can hardly be called the modest little proposal which the right honourable Gentleman represented it to be to the House. This Bill, to some extent follows the precedent of another Bill brought forward during the present Session—I mean the Benefices Bill—but it is different in regard to the Benefices Bill, in a very important respect. The Benefices Bill, whatever might be said against it, represented, I suppose, the opinion of the Parliamentary majority of English Members, and I suppose that, so far as Parliamentary representation is concerned, a majority of the English Members are returned to support the Church of England. But with regard to Scotland the case is altogether different. So far as the Parliamentary representation of Scotland is concerned, we have a majority against the establishment of the Church in Scotland, and while there might be a case for the Benefices Bill, I think there is a very great deal to be said in this House, so long as you have an establishment sanctioned, for dealing with the Benefices Bill. But there is no analogy or comparison whatever when you come to treat the question in Scotland, because the majority of the Scottish people, as represented in this House, are against the continuance of the Established Church in that country. Now, what does the Bill propose to do? It proposes to give authority to the Court of Teinds—and I will deal with the Court of Teinds. It gives power to the Court of Teinds to transplant from one parish to another a particular church which has ceased to be attended by the population of that parish to any considerable extent. That means, from any cause whatever, according to this Bill, whether the number of people attending a church differ, or whether they materially, disagree, the Court of Teinds is to have power to shut up the church, pull down the blinds, and build a church elsewhere, and sell the building, as my right honourable Friend has said. Well, it does seem to me that that is a very large order, indeed, that a church where you have a minister who is such a bad preacher that the people will not go on Sunday to hear, that church is to be pulled down and built elsewhere. Well, it seems to me that that is a power which ought not to be given in a Bill of this description. What, Mr. Speaker, is the case for the Bill, so far as the memorandum is concerned? We have heard very little as to the grounds on which the Bill is brought. forward. It quotes the case of Edinburgh, and the case of Edinburgh is the whole case we have in this Bill. Now, what is the case with regard to Edinburgh? I have looked up the records issued by the Church of Scotland itself with regard to the attendance at churches in Edinburgh. I have the whole of the numbers with me, if they are challenged. Now, I find that, the average number of communicants, so far as the churches in the city of Edinburgh are concerned, is over 1,200. Now, it does seem to me to be an extraordinary demand here in Edinburgh, where the average number of communicants in the churches in the very centre of the city is over 1,200. Now, if the average number is 1,200, I think—

SIR M. STEWART

Where does the honourable Member get his figures?

MR. DALZIEL

They will be found on page 114 of the official Report. What I stated was this: that the memorandum of the Bill states that the reason for bringing forward this Bill is the peculiar circumstances of the city of Edinburgh. That is only one case, and we are told that it is the strongest case; and for my argument the strongest case is the one that ought to be dealt with. If the Government are going to throw over the case of Edinburgh, we are prepared to deal with any other case. In the city of Edinburgh the average number of communicants in the churches is the figure I have stated, and you get that number on an average; of course, there are other cases in Edinburgh. I am speaking of the average in the city itself, and the average is between 1,200 and 1,400. As my honourable Friend reminds me, those figures are from the official information issued to us; if there is a stronger reason than the Government have been able to find, I have no doubt that the honourable Member opposite will be able to produce it. Well, so far as Edinburgh is concerned, I say there is no case for this Bill, and, therefore, we shall have to have stronger reasons why it should be passed. The effect of this Bill would be to give power to the Court of Teinds to deal with St. Giles's Church in that city. Imagine that! They would have power under this Bill to sell St. Giles's Cathedral in Edinburgh. Another point is that the parishioners are not to be consulted. You have a particular parish, and you have a particular church. The teinds belong to that particular parish, and you can come down, shut up the church, take it away, and build a new church elsewhere; but the parish and the parishioners themselves are not in any way to be consulted with regard to it. No provision is made whereby the parishioners can take any action whatever in a case of that kind. But what is far more important to some of us is this: that we have hitherto heard that this is the "parish" church of Scotland. From this time forward it will not be the parish church, because, as soon as the number of communicants diminish to any material extent, whether because there is a bad minister, or from any other cause, they can break up and sell the church, and build a new one elsewhere. It seems to me that we have come to a, pretty pass indeed, when we may open our paper any morning, and find that there is a sale of a church in Scotland, and all the jerry builders are asked to go there, and offer so much for the church and so much for the pulpit, etc. Why, Sir, what is the real case? The real reason will be found if you take the case in the centre of the city where the population have removed into the suburbs. With regard to Edinburgh, it does not apply there, because there are other churches, dissenting churches, in the city. But, as I say, the effect of it will be practically to encourage speculation in land, which ought not to take place in our large cities. Of course, the land upon which a church is built is often a very valuable site. I do not think that this House ought to take a premium on church land. Well, Sir, I say that it is no longer admitted then to be a parish church. But they go further, and they admit that it is unpopular in certain districts. They admit that the eloquence of the minister cannot make it worth their while to come and hear his sermons. Consequently, endowments are to be transferred to a particular parish, and they are to be taken away without consultation with the parishioners, and to a different parish; and if the parishioners want to go to church at all, they have to trudge away into another parish, and all that is being done without consultation! We are asked to exercise special favouritism with regard to the Church of Scotland, as against other denominations. Now, what would the effect of this be? In certain suburbs, where other denominations may have built churches at enormous cost, we are to have a State church put down between us, and this church is to be specially favoured by this House to compete with the existing churches. It seems to me that that is a larger demand than this House ought to grant. This House is asked to say that tiends are church property rather than national property. It seems to me that the opinion of the House is to be asked upon this question, when it ought to be asked in a proper form and brought forward in a proper fashion, and not upon a side issue such as is exercised to-night in this Bill. We ought to have it properly discussed at a proper time, when it would receive the careful consideration of this House. There are other important Measures to which the attention of this House ought to be called before we attempt to deal with one of the questions which have given rise to the greatest controversy which we have known for many years, and which cannot be dealt with by a proposal of this kind.

*MR. HEDDERWICK

The Lord Advocate has described this as a very innocuous Measure, and, certainly, judging from the manner in which he introduced it, no more modest proposal was ever put before the House. But, Sir, things are not always quite so innocuous as they appear, or I might add, as they may be made to appear, and I venture to suggest to honourable Members that the Bill now before them is an instance in point. What, Sir, are the main objects of this Bill? It is proposed to give to the Court of Teinds power to transplant any parish church in a town from the site which it occupies to a new site, and a new parish is to be created for that special purpose. It is also proposed to empower the Court of Teinds to sell the old church, and to apply the proceeds of the sale in the first place towards the cost of the proceedings; and, in the second place, such balance as may be left to the provision of a new church. And further, it is proposed to give to the Court of Teinds power to transfer to the new fabric the endowments and obligations attaching to the old fabric. Now, Mr. Speaker, upon what ground is it proposed to confer these powers upon the Court of Teinds? It appears from the statement of the Lord Advocate that the sole ground for the change proposed is scarcity of population. It is said that the receding tide of population has left these churches high and dry. But, Sir, when I turn to the Bill itself I find that the provisions go much further than would appear from this statement of the Lord Advocate, because the Court of Teinds is not only to have power to do these things where the flow of the population has left a church stranded, but also where from any other cause which may seem to the Court of Teinds to render it expedient that a church should be transplanted. I venture to think that is a very large discretionary power to vest in the Court of Teinds. It is not only a large power, but when it is remembered that these ancient fabrics, with their endowments, were founded to serve a national purpose, and that it is claimed, and in my opinion justly claimed, that they are national property, then I say that it is a power which Parliament, representing the people, ought certainly to guard with jealous solicitude. But, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the granting of these powers altogether. I believe, upon good grounds as I think, but, rightly or wrongly, I believe that the people of Scotland by a large majority are in favour of religious equality, and, certainly, whatever the Lord Advocate may say, if the House should pass this Bill, it will to some extent confirm and extend the privileges of a State Church whose existence is a matter in question at this moment in Scotland. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why I think the House would do well to look askance upon this Measure. The memorandum attached to the Bill declares that the case of the parish churches in Edinburgh is signally illustrative of the necessity for the proposals contained in the Bill itself. Now, I am not going to enlarge upon that point, because it has been dealt with sufficiently by the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy, but if Edinburgh is the strongest case the Government can find in illustration of the necessity for a Measure of this kind, it seems to me that the raison d'être of the Bill entirely fails. We are invited to assume that the parish churches of Edinburgh are empty, whereas, in fact, we are officially informed that they have an average of 1,200 communicants upon their rolls. Now, Sir, if, instead of a proposal of this kind, the Bill before the House were the Bill for the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, I wonder if we should be told the same tale with regard to the emptiness of these very churches. No, Sir, I venture to say that we should have these 1,200 communicants flourished in our faces, and every man of them pressed upon our attention for all he was worth. Mr. Speaker, passing from this point, which is not perhaps one of so much importance, I should like to ask what provision is made in the Bill to supply the spiritual wants of those poorer classes of the community who have not been able to follow the trend of fashion towards the suburbs? What provision is made for them if these churches should be removed to new sites? We are constantly told that the Church of Scotland is the poor man's Church. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to point out where in this Bill there is any provision to fill the gaps which must be created if these churches are to be removed, in consequence of the powers conferred by the Bill, to richer parts of the city? There is, so far as I can discover, absolutely none. Everything is left entirely to the discretion of the Court of Teinds. But with regard to the suburbs to which it is proposed that these churches should be removed, I would suggest to the Lord Advocate that the suburbs are already occupied. Other churches have done what the Church of Scotland has so long failed to do. By voluntary efforts these bodies have built churches and manses, and have gathered to themselves congregations. I want to know why the Church of Scotland is to be authorised to forsake its ministry to the forlorn residue of the towns, and to have a charter given it to enter into competition with these other churches upon favoured terms and at the expense of the State in a field which is already occupied, and which has been left so long untilled by the Church of Scotland? While I am upon this point I should like to remind honourable Members who may not represent Scottish constituencies and who may not be aware of the fact, that there is absolutely no difference, either in doctrine or faith, between the Church of Scotland and her sister churches. If this be so, could anything be more absurd or more foolish than to have half a dozen churches, all professing the same faith and teaching the same doctrine, ringing rival bells in a place where one church building might possibly suffice for the whole of the available body of worshippers? But there is yet another question. The Lord Advocate told us that there is no fresh liability to be thrown upon any person. I question very much, in spite of the section that he quoted, whether that is exactly so. I understand that new parishes are to be created by this Bill, or may be created, and I understand the liability under the law as it at present exists to be somewhat as follows. The heritors and feuars of a parish are bound to build, if need be, churches and manses, and to maintain in substantial repair the fabrics both of churches and manses. Now, if that be the case, and if a new parish be created, will there not be a liability thrown upon the feuars in that new parish by which they will be brought in as contributors?

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

No.

*MR. HEDDERWICK

I am told that is not the case. If it be not the case, I should certainly like to have it made clearer in the Bill. But in any case I maintain that the new church and the new manse to be put up in these new parishes are likely to be much more costly than the old fabrics, and if that be so then the burden thrown upon the old feuars must certainly be pro tanto increased. If the Established Church really wants to follow other churches into the suburbs, why does it not do so? What is to hinder it? Other churches have gone there by voluntary effort. Why should the Established Church at this time of day come cap in hand to Parliament to ask power to transfer itself from one place to another? As for Parliament, Mr. Speaker, it is not the duty of this House to bolster up a Church, the very existence of which is at this moment an agitating question. It is the duty of Parliament, in my opinion, to give effect to the desires of the people, and in religious matters to allow the churches of all denominations, without distinction and without favour, to supply the spiritual wants of the people as may be found most suitable. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I second the Motion.

SIR M. STEWART

Mr. Speaker, I think too much has been made of the view that both the preceding speakers have taken, that this is a question affecting the Establishment. It has nothing to do with the Establishment. It is simply carrying out what has been already carried out in many parts of England, and especially in London, where you have large numbers of streets literally converted into warehouses, where practically no population exists on Sunday. What in the name of wonder is the object of having a church there? The consequence is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England have taken up these church sites, sold them for large sums, and established churches in many cases in districts greatly in need of them. That is the plain story of these speeches that have been made, wondering what the Government are working at, wondering what secret machinery is in force to try and bolster up the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland does not want bolstering up. Very little has been said upon this question, and in a very few word's I am going to try to knock the bottom out of it. In the first place, these powers really are desired to meet the wants of the migratory population. That is the first point. I am not going to labour that; it is so transparent and evident to anyone who has thought about these matters at all. Then, again, you do not find great warehouses built up in rural districts. You do not find populations, except in the Midland districts, of a migratory character, and it is the wants of these migratory populations in these special districts that this Bill is to serve. My own knowledge tells me of many parishes in Linlithgowshire, and other counties, where at one time there were thousands of people requiring church offices. Now the mines are shut, the coal is worked out, the iron-stone is gone, and where are the populations? They do not exist. Are you going to enforce the Church of Scotland to retain practically empty churches instead of placing them elsewhere, where they would be much more useful? I had charge of this Bill last year, but I never had an opportunity, being unfortunate in the ballot, to get it into the House, and to give the House my opinions; but now the Government have taken up this question to meet a real want. It is nonsense to say that at the last General Election this Bill was never brought out in any honourable Member's platform speeches. It did not exist, but the questions concerning it were brought out. The honourable Member for Kirkcaldy remembers that, and he could have heard a great deal about the Church of Scotland at the last Election. What powers are you giving? You, or your forefathers, have put the Church of Scotland under durance. The Church of Scotland cannot move right or left hi certain things without an Act of Parliament, and we only ask that that stringency may be relaxed. You go to the Court of Session for most things in Scotland, and the Government very naturally goes to the Court of Session for this purpose. Then there is another point, to relieve the churches, and that is simply done in the interest of the working of the church. Where there are two large churches more than sufficient for the wants of the locality, it is far better to retain one as the parish church. This is no new question started to-day. It was talked of long before the last General Election, long before the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy was in this House, and this Bill is intended to deal with a difficulty which has lasted a great many years, and which ought now to be put an end to. One word more I will say, and I will sit down. You do not mean to suppose that they will take these churches out of the slums and streets of warehouses in Glasgow and other cities, and plant them in the richer districts. It is not natural they should do so. The Church of Scotland wants to meet all classes, and it is not likely that they will put churches, where already there are other churches existing. The object is to cover the land with churches to meet a great spiritual want. It is to meet that great spiritual want that the Government have brought in this Bill, and although a building may be removed and the site sold, all that really is for the benefit of the poor people of Scotland, and I thank the Government for bringing in this Bill to-night.

*MR. BRYCE

I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of the Bill, and therefore I shall trouble the House only for a very few minutes. If I were going to discuss the Bill I should not be so uncompromisingly hostile to it as are my two honourable Friends who have spoken. It is a Bill about which a good deal may be said on both sides, and I think the motives which have induced my honourable Friend who has just sat down to take up the question and to induce the Government to bring in the Bill are very creditable to him, although it cannot be expected that on this side of the House there should be a general agreement with the views he has expressed. What I desire to put before the Government is this. We have arrived at a very late period in the Session, and this is a Bill of a somewhat contentious nature. We are now entering upon the Second Reading at 12.15 a.m., and it is quite clear from what has been said that the Second Reading Debate may last some time. It is also clear from the questions that have been raised upon the Bill that there is a good deal of room for discussion in Committee. Take the question about the rights of parishioners. It is not a simple matter to carry out changes of this kind without fully consulting the wishes of every class of the parishioners, for in no Scottish cities have the old parishes in the centre become so denuded of inhabitants as many of the old parishes in the City of London now are. There is the interest of the parish in every sense to be considered, as well as the comparative advantages of retaining a church in the centre of a city or replanting it in the suburbs. There is the question of the disposal of the building, and those Members who remember the history of the various Acts under which churches were transferred from the centre of the City of London to the outskirts will remember that many questions arose about the disposal of the buildings, and provisions were inserted for preserving those parts of the buildings which were of architectural interest, and for keeping open spaces where the chucrhes had stood. All these questions might be raised respecting Scotland. There are also the question as to what use ought to be made of the sites, and the question of the discretion to be left to the Court of Teinds. A very large discretion is proposed by the Bill to be entrusted to the Court of Teinds, and it would be only reasonable that some conditions on the exercise of that discretion should be inserted. One point has a good deal impressed me, and it is this. It does not follow that in moving a church you have only to consider whether or not there is a large congregation. It may well be that there are poor in the parish who deserve to be considered, for whom the services of a minister of religion ought to be retained, although the congregation worshipping in the church may not be large, and they may not form a large portion of that congregation. This is evidently a matter that will have to be considered before the removal of any church is authorised. I refer to these topics, not for the purpose of expressing any opinion as to the way they should be determined by the House, still less in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, but to show that there is a good deal of matter for discussion, even without any of those controversies of high ecclesiastical politics which have been raised by my two honourable Friends on this side of the House. There are a good many practical questions on which there need not be any division of Party opinion, but on which many Amendments are likely to be put down for discussion which would consume a large part of the time of the House. Is it likely, as we desire now to wind up the whole business of the Session in a fortnight, that as we are only now approaching the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government could hope to carry it through without unduly taking up the time of the House and distracting it from more urgent matters? I would, therefore, submit to the Government and to the House that it would be well, before we spend any more time on this Debate, to consider whether really it is worth while sinking so much of our small capital of days and hours in the discussion of a Bill which it is hardly likely will be carried through this Session.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I confess, though I have no reason to complain of the tone of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, that the substance of that speech, and the substance of the speeches which have preceded it from that side of the House, have filled me with, I will not say despair, but with a feeling of extreme regret. That the opposition which is asserted to this Bill is likely to prove fatal to it in the course of the present Session, I admit. I cannot disguise from myself that when we have reached the 26th day of July, and when we are informed by a right honourable Gentleman, in the position of the last speaker that, in addition to all the subjects of controversy—high politics, as he described it—raised in connection with the Disestablishment question, we are to have a vast number of other questions raised not connected with that fundamental issue—when we are informed of that, everybody with Parliamentary experience knows that practically those who utter those threats have it in their power, as well as in their intention, to destroy the Bill for the present year of legislation.

*MR. BRYCE

Let me explain. The right honourable Gentleman seems not to have understood what I said. I certainly made no threats. I only called his attention to the fact that the Debate had elicited these points on which Amendments would be moved and discussion arise, and it was probable these points would occupy a good deal of time. I must entirely disclaim any intention to say a word against the Bill.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I had not the least intention of misrepresenting the right honourable Gentleman, and if I have done so I apologise to him. He uttered one of those prophecies which carry with them their own fulfilment. I am sure he will not object to that. He adumbrated in perfectly clear terms, and I am sure with no malevolent design, on what he gathered from his knowledge of the ways of the House, from his interpretation of the speeches which have been delivered, and he gave us his view of the sort of discussion which, must necessarily take place in Committee on this Bill. Everybody knows that if the right honourable Gentleman's prophecies are in any way accurate, and I am afraid he has not misinterpreted the speeches of those who preceded him on his own side of the House—if they are accurate it is quite impossible for any Government to hope to force through, to get through, a Bill of this kind. Sir, I deeply regret it, because, after all, what is it that honourable Gentlemen opposite are attempting to insist upon? They admit—they all, I think, will be prepared to admit—that what we ask them to do for the Church of Scotland is what any of the religious bodies to which they belong would do for themselves, because they have not to come to Parliament for permission.

SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS

Hear, hear!

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

We start, then, on that basis. Then what is their policy? Their policy deliberately and avowedly is to make it so difficult for the Church of Scotland to come to Parliament for any of the ordinary reforms which other churches are able to carry out for themselves, as to make the position of that church intolerable. That is their deliberate intention. I cannot believe, I do not believe, that any of the other religious communities in Scotland sympathise with that policy. I do not for a moment utter such a calumny against either the Free Church or the Presbyterian Church, and the great bodies of those who belong to those churches, as to suppose that they would deliberately hamper the spiritual utility of a Church which, after all, agrees with them upon every fundamental point of Christian theology, simply because that Church happened to be Established and they to be Disestablished. I cannot believe that a view of that kind extends beyond a very narrow circle of politicians; and, though I frankly admit that in the present position of Parliamentary business it is impossible, in the face of the opposition which has been declared, to carry this Bill in the course of the present Session, I must take this opportunity of recording my protest against the general principle which appears to underlie the policy of honourable Gentlemen opposite, a principle not founded upon a desire to extend spiritual advantages to the people of Scotland, but a principle which has for its sole aim that of making the position of the Church of Scotland intolerable, or as intolerable as they can make it, and thereby forwarding, as they suppose, the cause of Disestablishment. I cannot believe that that policy can ever be successful in itself, or that, stated, as I have stated it, without, I believe, exaggeration, it really has behind it any large body of public opinion in any section, in any church, of the people of Scotland.

MR. COLVILEE (Lanark, N.E.)

I wish to protest entirely against the representation of the right honourable Gentleman that the views to which he has given utterance are those held by Members sitting on this side of the House. He has wholly misrepresented the principles which actuate those of us who intend to oppose this Bill tooth and nail. We desire the spiritual advantage of the whole people of Scotland. We believe that when this Church of Scotland has been disestablished and disendowed she will follow the example which is set by the now liberated Church in Ireland, and have a fresh lease of life and greatly increased prosperity, both in spiritual and temporal responsibilities. I prefer rather to take objection to the speech of the honourable Baronet opposite, who informed this House that this Bill had nothing to do with the Establishment. I should like to ask, then, why the Church, which he has informed us has been of late years so prosperous, does not set about making such alterations in the way of placing new churches in populous districts, without coming to this House for an Act of Parliament. She has means, I have no doubt.

SIR M. STEWART

She has not got the power. We ask for that power to-night.

MR. COLVILLE

And yet the Church which the honourable Baronet represents claims to be a free Church, as free as any other of the Churches of Scotland. He has informed us that this is not a question of disestablishment, and has nothing whatever to do with the Establishment of the Church. We maintain that the fact that the Church has, to come to Parliament to ask that powers should be given to the Court of Session to deal with ecclesiastical property does prove that it is very directly associated with the question of the Establishment. And so long as the great majority of the people of Scotland maintain, and believe, as conscientiously as the First Lord of the Treasury and any of his supporters maintain their belief, that the teinds are not the property of one section of the Christian Church of Scotland, but of the whole community, so long must we protest against any attempt to bolster up this one section of the Christian Church at the expense of the other free dissenting Churches of Scotland. If the Government should deem it their duty to pursue the course of pushing this Bill through its various stages it will be our duty to put down numerous Amendments, in order, as far as possible, to prevent such a result.

MR. J. PARKER SMITH

I deeply regret the decision at which the Leader of the House has arrived, but I fully recognise that it is inevitable he should come to that decision. But, Sir, there is one thing I wish to press upon him. It is perfectly clear that there are a certain number of Members of this House whose objection to the Establishment is so great that they will endeavour to prevent the removal of any abuse, however gross, in the Establishment, whether in England or Scotland. Now, Sir, it is perfectly useless to allow Bills to hang up till the end of the Session against opposition of that kind, and then to bring them on. The only way in which the most necessary Measures for the removal of the most obvious abuses in either Church can be carried is by having the Government take them up, bring them in early in the Session, and then let them pass, through Grand Committee. There is no occasion whatever to go into the merits of the Bill, but I do think that the Church of Scotland, in regard to this Measure, has as strong a claim to the attention of the Government as the Church of England had in regard to the Benefices Bill, and I hope when next Session comes the First Lord of the Treasury will remember that.

DR. CLARK

I think, after the explanation of the First Lord of the Treasury, it is unnecessary to discuss the Bill any further. There is no possible chance of the Bill passing, because of the character of the Measure. But it seems to me, Sir, that in another Session, if the Government are going to bring in a Bill of this kind again, they will require to give us some evidence, some reason, for such a course. The only two cases given in the Memorandum are at Glasgow and Edinburgh, but, as far as the churches in Edinburgh are concerned, my honourable Friend has pointed out that each of these churches has an average of over 1,200 communicants, and then there are adherents and younger members, so that each of these churches will have congregations of at least 1,500 or 1,800. Then, in Glasgow, the average of the five old churches is about 700 communicants. These are not facts stated by us from any dissenting source, but they are claimed by the Church of Scotland in its official handbook, issued yearly. So, taking it that in Glasgow and in Edinburgh you have that condition of things, there will be no need there at all for the Bill. So far as other cases are concerned, you have got the old parish churches. You had these parish churches before your mining industry was developed. Now that your mining industry has left these districts, you still want the parish churches for the agricultural population. I for one have very great respect for the Church of Scotland. I think we are all proud of the work she has done. I think, of all State Churches in the world, she depends more than any others on voluntary contributions by her members. Her members have subscribed wonderfully, and in one district that I know, with which at one time I had official connection, out of 24 churches, 22 have been built and endowed by the free offerings of the people there. It has done its work nobly, and it has not required aid from Parliament. I cannot see, in the slightest degree, why this Bill should have been brought forward at all. The two cases given in the Memorandum do not prove that the Bill is required, but prove the very reverse.

MR. BUCHANAN

I do not want to disturb the comedy that has been played between the two Front Benches, for it was a comedy, as everyone could see. What could be more absurd than that after the two speeches delivered on this side of the House against this Bill the right honourable Gentleman should get up from this bench, and be followed by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, who stated, in his most solemn tones, that owing to the very serious character of the opposition to the Bill, which had been contained in two short speeches, which had lasted not more than a quarter of an hour each, he, as the head of the Government, must abandon all thought of passing it this Session? The reason is not to be found in the two speeches we have heard tonight, but in the fact that this 26th day of July is the first day we have had set apart for Scottish legislation in this Session of Parliament; and that this Government, which professes to do so much for Scotch interests, has never, during the five or six months that have elapsed, thought it worth while to set apart a single sitting of the House for Scottish legislative business. It is upon their shoulders that the blame must be laid, if blame is to be laid anywhere.

Motion made— That this Bill be now read a second time".

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 28.—(Division List No. 261.)

AYES.
Arnold, Alfred Fisher, William Hayes More, Robert Jasper
Arrol, Sir William Fry, Lewis Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C. of Lond.) Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Gordon, Hon. John Edw. Nicholson, William Graham
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc'r) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds) Gretton, John Purvis, Robert
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Greville, Captain Renshaw, Charles Bine
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'I) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Heaton, John Henniker Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Bethell, Commander Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hill, Arthur (Down, W.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Johnston, William (Belfast) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.) Knowles, Lees Smith, J. P. (Lanark)
Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.) Lawrence Sir E Durning-(Corn.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) Thornton, Percy M.
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray
Charrington, Spencer Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. R. Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lorne, Marquess of Wylie, Alexander
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Lowther, Rt. Hn JW(Cumb'land) Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas-Shadwell, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Denny, Colonel Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sir William Walrond and
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers McKillop, James Mr. Anstruther.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Malcolm, Ian
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Milton, Viscount
NOES.
Asher, Alexander Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Billson, Alfred Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Tennant, Harold John
Brigg, John Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Wedderburn, Sir William
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kilbride, Denis Williams, John C. (Notts)
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Wilson, John (Govan)
Channing, Francis Allston Macaleese, Daniel Yoxall, James Henry
Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Colville, John Morley, Chas. (Breconshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Crombie, John William Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Hed-
Doogan, P. C. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) derwick.
Dunn. Sir William Soames, Arthur Wellesley

The Bill was read a second time, and committed.

*MR. SPEAKER

On what day?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Thursday.

MR. BUCHANAN

Do the Government really intend to go on with this Bill?

*MR. SPEAKER

The question is that Thursday be the day fixed for the Committee stage.

MR. DALZIEL

Then on that point I assume, after the declaration of the First Lord, that it is only a formal Motion, and that he will immediately report Progress.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

Sir, I stated—I am afraid on only too well-founded grounds—that if the sort of opposition manifested against the Bill were maintained it would be impossible to pass the Bill. The Bill may stand till Thursday, when we may see by the Amendments on the Paper what sort of opposition is made to it.

MR. DALZIEL

You said the Bill was abandoned.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I said I had no hope of passing it if the sort of opposition threatened was carried into practice.