CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 18 July 1905 vol 149 cc1089-137

Order for Committee read.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said that in the unavoidable absence of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax he desired in a very few words to move the instruction which stood on the Paper. He thought, if ever there was a case in which an instruction of this kind ought to be moved, it was in regard to this Bill. It dealt with two separate and distinct questions, and the point raised by the instruction was whether or not the Government had been justified in dealing with these two separate propositions at the present time and under the present circumstances. The first object of the Bill was to deal with a state of affairs that prevailed throughout Scotland and to which no Government could turn a deaf ear, and he thought there was a feeling of gratitude throughout the whole of Scotland that the Government had dealt with that unfortunate state of affairs with the least possible delay. The Bill was solely due to the decision of the House of Lords in the dispute between the Free Church and the United Free Church, and that part of the case for the Bill was, he thought, unanswerable. It was backed up by the unanimous opinion of the whole of Scotland, and the Government in the action they had taken were, he ventured to say, supported almost unanimously by both political Parties for Scotland.

The instruction dealt not so much with the merits of the Established Church as with the policy of introducing it at the present time, and he ventured to say that without this crisis with regard to the Free Church and the United Free Church the Government would never have brought the fifth Clause forward. There was no mandate for it and it had no driving force of public opinion behind it. If there had been any urgent demand for it, the Government would have found time necessary to carry a Bill, and, if they were convinced of the urgency for it, he had no doubt they would be able to find the necessary time next session to pass it. He would especially press the point that this instruction did not raise the merits of the fifth Clause. There might be many hon. Members on both sides of the House opposed to Establish- ment in Scotland who would hesitate some time before they would deny full freedom with regard to the administration of that Church. That point was not raised at the present time. The only point raised was whether the Government was wise or not, in dealing with a serious state of affairs in Scotland affecting two particular Churches, to take advantage of the crisis to introduce an altogether outside proposal. He hoped, therefore, the Government at this late hour would seriously consider whether they ought not to give the Committee the power he asked. He believed their action in doing so would be received with satisfaction by the great body of public opinion in Scotland and would tend to secure the passage of the Bill.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

seconded.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, separating the provision relating to the Established Church of Scotland from those relating to the Free and the United. Free Church."—(Mr. Dalziel.

*THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)

said he could not, as the House was perfectly aware, agree to the Motion, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it. He had lately stated the views he held on the matter. In dealing with this question they must deal with it as a whole, and to his mind Clause 5 was an essential part of the Bill for the settlement of the question. He would remind the hon. Member who had moved that the Leader of the Opposition, speaking of this very instruction, which was in the name of the hon. Member for Halifax, said, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that it was a matter which could be dealt with in Committee. He thought that was quite true.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

. Not this instruction.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said the hon. Member for Halifax had an instruction to divide the Bill into two Bills, and the Leader of the Opposition said that, whether the form in which he had framed the instruction was right or wrong, the hon. Member was perfectly right in moving, because the two things were totally distinct. That, however, was not the point. The conclusion of the matter, according to the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, was that it could be dealt with in Committee.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

That is the second barrel of the gun.

*MR. SCOTT-DICKSON

said that undoubtedly, if the hon. Gentleman's point were a sound one, it could be dealt with in Committee by moving that Clause o should be omitted.

MR. DALZIEL

said the instruction raised a question purely of policy, but, when they came to the fifth Clause, the division would be taken on that clause. The instruction simply dealt with the action of the Government and the policy of putting two propositions into one Bill.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he thought every Member—he was quite sure he might say every Scotch Member—wanted to get to the business of the Bill. The instruction was one which he could not accept, and he accordingly trusted that, without spending time on what he might be permitted to term technicalities, they would get to the Bill on its merits and see whether they could not secure such a measure as he had already said more than once, both on the introduction of the Bill and on its Second Reading, was one which concerned all the Presbyterian Churches, and had not only as regarded the first but also as regarded the fifth Clause an important effect as to the prospect of the future union of all the Presbyterian Churches. He was satisfied there was a large body of public opinion in Scotland in favour of Clause 5 as well as of the rest of the Bill; and on these grounds, therefore, he submitted that the instruction was not one which the House should assent to and that they should get to the Bill.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion urged, and he had now repeated the opinion, that the Bill should be dealt with as a whole. It was precisely because it was not a whole that the instruction was moved. There was no real substantial connection between Clause 5 and the rest of the Bill. He did not propose at that particular stage to discuss the merits of Clause 5, but he did not think it could be denied that it was a totally foreign element introduced into a matter which ought to be kept single, which ought to be treated as urgent, and which, he believed, was now practically in course of being settled to the satisfaction of most of those concerned, thanks to the concessions that the Government had made. But this fifth Clause was a foreign body altogether, and he, therefore, thought it was not unreasonable that his hon. friend should move the instruction, which he should support. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted some words that he had used. He merely expressed the opinion that this particular way of dealing with the matter might not be the usual form. He had in his recollection several occasions when the Chair had decided that an instruction was not in order for some reason or other, and that was the sense in which he said that it might not be in the proper form. He was in entire agreement with the idea of the instruction, and he thought his hon. friend was certainly entitled to bring the question forward as he had done.

MR. LLOYD - GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said it was with some trepidation that be intervened in a Scotch matter, and he only did so because it established a serious precedent for England and Wales. If this clause were to be inserted in a Scotch Bill dealing with the Scotch Establishment, there was no reason why a similar one should not be inserted in an English Bill dealing with the English Establishment. They knew perfectly well that a claim had been put forward by a section of the clergy from which they had much to fear, certainly from the Protestant point of view, and that was the reason why the Protestant section of the Church itself had already taken steps to protest against this particular clause. He thought they had been wise, because it really established a serious precedent. For the first time it gave absolute powers of self-government; it created not merely an autonomy but an independent authority. Here was a Church with national endowments, and the control of those endowments was to be absolutely given to that Church without reference to Parliament. It was undoubtedly a precedent of a very serious character. He was not going to discuss the merits of the clause; he only referred to it by way of establishing his proposition. Power was given to the General Assembly, on the voice of the majority of the Presbyteries, to alter the formularies of the Church, and that meant practically altering the doctrines of the Church.

He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had taken the same view of the Church formularies as he did of politics— that it really did not matter, that the particular formula of subscription was no indication of one's private opinion. When one said "retaliation" and "protection," it did not matter; it amounted to the samer thing. Surely when one signed a formula saying he believed in a certain Confession of Faith, it meant, amongst honourable men, that one really did believe in that Confession of Faith; and if they altered that formula in any way it meant that people who did not believe in that Confession of Faith need not necessarily be excluded from the Church. He was not complaining of that. He was in favour of giving the greatest breadth in Churches. He thought it was the only possible way in which they could develop an intelligent religion in any country; but if the Established Church wanted this freedom it ought to pay the price like any other Church. This power was given to the Scotch Church under conditions which were not given to the United Free Church of Scotland. Freedom was given to the United Free Church, but it had to pay a heavy price. Why should they make an exception in the case of the National Church, which was endeavouring to secure freedom without paying a price for it? It might not be a serious matter in Scotland where they were all more or less Presbyterians, but in England it was a very serious matter indeed.

There was no doubt a very powerful section of the Church whose motives were creating a good deal of uneasiness and anxiety amongst the Protestant community of this country. Supposing they had the same clause inserted in an English Bill, what would it mean? For the General Assembly they would substitute Convocation, and they would say that Convocation, with the consent of the majority of the rural diocesan conferences, could alter the formularies of the Church of England, and anyone who knew the condition of things in the Church of England knew what a serious thing that would be. It would mean that Convocation might convert, by a mere vote of the diocesan conferences, the Church into a Catholic Church. He did not think the House of Commons ought to create a precedent for that, and that it ought not to allow the alteration of the formularies of subscription without reference to Parliament itself. Parliament was likely to be Protestant for some time to come, but he could quite see where this had come from. It had come from Canterbury. He was perfectly certain of it. It was a suggestion from Canterbury with a view to eventualities. Probably it could not be done in the course of the present Parliament, though no one knew what might not be done, for the Government was capable of anything; but at any rate it might be done in some future Parliament. He had heard of a claim put forward by very powerful supporters of the Government. It was, for instance, exactly what the hon. Member for Greenwich had been claiming for the Church of England, and he might in the future quote this as a precedent in support of his case. It was simply a great flanking movement. It was represented as a march on Edinburgh, but its real objective was Canterbury.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

May I ask, on a point of order, whether it is proper to discuss the merits of Clause 5, or whether we are not confined to the question of whether Clause 5 should not be converted into a separate Bill? Your ruling will have some effect upon the course of debate.

MR. DALZIEL

May I further submit to you whether it would not be in order to refer to the merits of Clause 5, in so far as they are reasons for making the clause a separate Bill?

*MR. SPEAKER

The instruction cannot very well be discussed without referring to Clause 5 and the general principle it contains, but obviously it would not be right to discuss the merits of it at length. I was thinking of rising towards the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but as he began by saying he did not intend to discuss the merits of the clause, I concluded he was not going to do so.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

said the Bill arose entirely out of a private dispute between the majority and minority of the original Free Church, and Parliament was dealing with a purely private question of property which had nothing, whatever to do with the religious views of either one side or the other. Parliament was dealing with a, matter in the same way as if an educational endowment had become inoperative and it had been appealed to, and the case was the same as if they were dealing with a private Bill upstairs. Parliament was simply dealing with a question of civil property as between two bodies of a Church. What on earth had their formularies or their views on religious questions to do with that? It was merely an accident that the property belonged to a Church. Clause 5 was therefore altogether ultro, vires. It was said that the people of Scotland would be willing to give the Established Church freedom. That might be so, but it would not tend to the dignity of the Established Church to say that they found a Church in distress in regard to its funds, and took advantage of that to put into a Bill a clause giving them certain powers in order to carry out ecclesiastical views of their own. It would always rankle in the minds of the people of Scotland. The relative position of, the Church of Scoltand was in no way affected by the mere circumstance of; any division of property which would take place under the Bill. It would; have been much better for the Government to agree to the proposed instruction. They had already got a Second Reading of the clause which was a substantial matter, and while Clause 5 was being considered as a separate Bill the remainder of the measure, for which so much urgency existed, could be dealt with in the other House. The acceptance of the instruction would greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill and save the irritation which every part of the community would otherwise feel at advantage I being taken of another's distress to secure an ecclesiastical benefit to the Established Church.

SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbrightshire)

said that unless more rapid progress was made there would be little prospect of passing the Bill, and that, he thought, was sufficient justification for opposing the instruction. He believed that a great number of the United Presbyterians approved of the insertion, of this clause, and that the same view was held by s large number of Members of that House. It was unanimously recommended by the Gentral Assembly after full discussion, and, therefore, it could hardly be said to have come from Canterbury or any other similar quarter. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed, and that the House would be unanimous in endeavouring to pass the Bill as soon as possible. With the exception of this debateable clause the Bill was framed to secure, not convenience, but justice and equity, and, that being so, he hoped that no time would be lost in passing the measure into law.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

pointed out that the only impediment to the rapid progress of the Bill lay in Clause 5. With that exception the measure had. become practically uneontroversial—by which he did not mean that there were not points in regard to which the Bill could be improved, and upon which the Government would be pressed to make further concessions, but broadly speaking the Bill was not controversial as between the two sides of the House except in regard to Clause 5. The prospects of the Bill were seriously injured by the introduction of that clause, as it raised questions which ought to be considered altogether apart from the differences between the two branches of the old Free Church, and involved large issues in which England and Wales were directly interested. Those matters should be dealt with separately, in order that they might be considered on their merits. They could not be so considered under the present arrangement, and, therefore, he regretted the decision to which the Lord-Advocate had come.

MR. GUEST (Plymouth)

said, that as an Englishman who did not pretend to be an expert on Scotch ecclesiastical matters' he failed to see how Clause 5 could be an integral part of the Bill, and he did not believe that the Government would drop the measure if they failed to carry that clause. It raised points on which many Members felt very strongly, and it would be an act of courtesy to allow the House to pronounce an opinion on the merits of the remainder of the Bill, leaving this clause to be discussed subsequently if the Government thought it necessary. It was probably not the intention of the Government, but this clause might accidentally develop into a precedent for dealing with troubles in the English Church. All Establishment involved uniformity, and uniformity must be subject to that House, and in so far as the control of formulas was handed over to a Church, so far that Church ceased to be established. That was the view which he in common with many others held, and he mentioned it to show how large were the questions raised by this clause, and to urge the Prime Minister to meet the genuine desire of Member son that side of the House, so that they might assist in the carrying out of that part of the Bill with which all agreed, without having to deal with the matters involved in Clause 5.

MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

thought the Prime Minister must see that the inclusion of Clause 5 was not going to facilitate the passage of the Bill. He would not attempt to lift the veil which hung over the origin of the clause, but if it were over reached he hoped to move an Amendment raising all the issues referred to by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. The point which appealed to him in favour of the instruction was the fact that owing to its being included in this Bill it was impossible to get the unbiassed Scotch opinion on the clause. He did not wish to be offensive, but Scotch Free Church Members collectively were rather in the position of the proverbial donkey who saw a bunch of carrots in front of him which he was determined to get; their minds were thereby obscured and rendered incapable of giving an impartial judgment on this clause. English Members had a right to protest against anything that prevented the obtaining of the clear and unbiassed judgment of the Scotch intellect, which was so much valued, especially upon Church matters, and for that reason he should support the Amendment.

*MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)

was surprised that hon. Members should say there was a want of connection between this clause and the rest of the Bill. Those who held that view must have forgotten how much the subject of creed subscription entered into the judgment of the House of Lords. The clause related to the relaxation, under certain limitations, of the formula of subscription for ministers of the Church of Scotland. The subject of creed subscription was not left by the decision of the House of Lords as it had been before. There was no denying that expressions used, notably by the Lord Chancellor, gave a much more rigid interpretation to creed subscription than was generally understood and practised. All along they had had to contend against the over-scrupulousness of some persons who shrank from signing the Confession because they thought their signature bound them down to every expression in it. He could not say that he had met with many of these over-scrupulous poisons among his own friends. He himself, with others, had signed the Westminster Confession of Faith without hesitation. He had signed it in a broad and liberal sense, and he found that others had done the same. But still there were people who were disposed to put a more rigid interpretation upon creed subscription, and their views in this matter seemed to receive some support from the decision of the House of Lords. So that now when Parliament was dealing with a Bill the object of which was to remedy a very unhappy state of things in Scotland which had resulted from that decision, it seemed not unfitting to remove at the same time a grievance which the Church of Scotland complained of, and which had been aggravated by opinions expressed in reaching that decision.

Upon these grounds he saw a natural connection between this clause and the rest of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would stand firm and uphold the Bill as a whole.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 103: Noes, 203, (Division List No. 293.)

AYES.
Alien, Charles P.	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Price, Robert John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Helme, Korval Watson	Reid, Sir R. Threshic (Dumfries
Barlow, John Emmott	Hemyphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Richards, Thomas
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Rickett, T. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Higham, John Sharp	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Brigg, John	Holland, Sir William Henry	Roe, Sir Thomas
Bright, Allan Heywood	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Russell, T. W.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Horniman, Frederick John	Schwann, Charles B.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shackleton, David James
Burt, Thomas	Joicey, Sir James	Shipman, Dr, John G.
Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)	Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonsh,)	Slack, John Bamford
Cameron, Robert	Kearley, Hudson E.	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kitton, Sir James	Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR(Northants
Cawley, Frederick	Lambert, George	Stanhope, Hn. Philip James
Changing, Francis Allston	Langley, Batty	Stevenson, Francis S.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall),	Strachey, Sir Edward
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Taylor,'Austin (East Toxteth)
Cremer, William Randal	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Tennant, Harold John
Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Duncan, J, Hastings	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Dunn, Sir William	Lloyd-George, David	Toulmin, George
Edwards, Frank	Lough, Thomas	Ure, Alexander
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wallace, Robert
Fenwick, Charles	M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	White, George (Norfolk)
Foster, Sir Waiter (Derby Co.)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Fuller, J. M. F.	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway),N	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Parrott, William	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Paulton, James Mellor
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir B (Berwick)	Pease, J.A. (Saffron Walden)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Perks, Robert William	Dalziel and Mr. Eugene
Harcourt, Lewis	Philipps, John Wynford	Wason.
Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil	Pirie, Duncan V.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Banner, John S, Harmood	Chamberlain, RtHnJA (Worc.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bathurst Hon. Allen Benjamin	Chapman, Edward
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H.A.F.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Coddington, Sir William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bigwood, James	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arrol, Sir William	Bingham, Lord	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Atkinson, Rt. Bon. John	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H	Bond, Edward	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile
Baird, John George Alexander	Brown, Sir Alex. H, (Shropsh	Dalkeith, Earl of
Balcarres, Lord	Brymer, William Ernest	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Baldwin, Alfred	Buxton, N.E(YorkN'RWhitby	Davenport, William Bromley
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r	Campbell, Rt. HnJ.A(Glasgow	Denny, Colonel
Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Dickson, Charles Scott
Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J, C.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Doughty, Sir George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)	Liddell, Henry	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore	Llewellyn, Even Henry	Robinson, Brooke
Duke, Henry Edward	Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton	Long, RtHnWalter (Bristol, S	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Elibank, Master of	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Round, Rt. Hn. James
Ellice, Capt.EC(SAndrw'sBghs	Lowe, Francis William.	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Faber, George Denison (York)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Ed.	Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Fergusson, RtHn.Sir J(Manc'r	Lyttelton, Re. Hon. Alfred	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Macdona, John Cumming	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Finch, Rt.Hn. George H.	Maconochie, A. W.	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Finlay, Rt Hn SirRB(Inv'rn'ss	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW	Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks
Fison, Frederick William	Malcolm, Ian	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Flaunery, Sir Fortescue	Manners, Lord Cecil	Spear, John Ward
Flower, Sir Ernest	Marks, Harry Hananel	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Forster, Henry William	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Stanley. Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)	Maxwell,Rt HnSirHE(Wigt'n)	Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Gardner, Ernest	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Graham, Henry Robert	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Greene, W. Raytmond(Cambs)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Stroyan, John
Grenfell, William Henry	Milner, RtHn. Sir FrederickG.	Strutt, Hn. Chas. Hedley
Hall, Edward Marshall	Milvain, Thomas	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.	Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Thornton, Percy M.
Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nde'ry	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Morrell, George Herbert	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Morrison, James Archibald	Tuff, Charles
Heath, Arthur HowardHanley	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Turnour, Viscount
Heath, SirJas. (Staffords.N.W.	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Heaton, John Henniker	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Myers, William Henry	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Nicholson, William Graham	Welby, Lt.-ColA-C.E(Taunton)
Hoare, Sir Samuel	O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens	Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd
Hogg, Lindsay	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Whiteley, H. (AshtonundLyne
Hoult, Joseph	Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)	whitmore, Charles Algernon
Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hutton, John (Yorks, NT.R.)	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wilson. John (Glasgow)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks)
Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir John H	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh	Purvis, Robert	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Kimber, Sir Henry	Pym, C. Guy	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Knowles, Sir Lees	Ranales, John S.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Lamont, Norman	Rankin, Sir James	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Ratcliff, R. F.	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Reid, James (Greenock)
Lawson, Hn. H.L.W (Mile End	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir
Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham	Renwick, George	Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage:	Ritchie, Re. Hn. Chas Thomson

Question put, and agreed to.

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)

moved an Amendment having the object of leaving the whole question of the allocation of property to the Commissioners without any reservation or special instructions. If this Amendment were accepted it would, he said, very. much facilitate the passing of the Bill Why should they introduce reservations and restrictions on the discretion of the Commissioners? Why should this House endeavour to instruct them in regard to what would be, perhaps, the most difficult part of the task they had to undertake? The House knew from the general terms of the Bill that it would be the duty of the Commissioners to make an equitable division of property between the Free Church and the United. Free Church, and the general line on which they were to make that equitable division was indicated in the second paragraph of the preamble as follows — And whereas a Commission appointed to inquire into the matter have reported that the Free Church are unable adequately to carry out all trusts of the property, and that it is desirable to provide for the allocation thereof, provision being made for the equipment of the Free Church— He thought the House might fairly trust the Commissioners to make a fair and equitable division of the property. All Scotch Members would allow that the Government had selected a fair body of men to discharge the duties of Executive Commissioners under the Act. They had added to the Elgin Commissioners two gentlemen who were well known to many Members of the House—gentlemen of sound judgment, well acquainted with Scotch affairs, and admittedly impartial. He thought everyone must acknowledge the caution, wisdom, and impartiality with which Lord Elgin and his colleagues discharged the difficult task which was set to them. This Bill was based on the Report which that Commission presented to the House, and it was owing to that Report that things had gone on in Scotland without a much greater outburst of public feeling than there had been. On these general grounds he strongly urged the Government to consider whether it would not be better to leave the whole matter of the division and allocation of property to the discretion of the Commissioners.

He urged this course also on the ground that Scotch Members in the House of Commons were in a small minority, and all of them could not pretend to have complete and detailed knowledge of this question. The vast body of English Members could make no claim to a knowledge of the question. In Sub-sections 2 and 3 they were proposing to give instructions to the Elgin Commissioners, who were already possessed of considerable light, and in the course of their inquiries they would have full light on the subject. If the House indicated to them the general lines on which they were to go, they might safely trust that the Commissioners would not go beyond those lines, and that they would make an equitable settlement on those lines. Sub-sections 2 and 3 had assumed various forms since the Bill was drafted. He did not blame the Lord-Advocate for that. It showed his wisdom in endeavouring to accommodate himself to the views of those who were most acquainted with the subject, but he did say that it also showed the great difficulty there was in laying down specific instructions on this most intricate part of the work which the Commission would have to do. The Commissioners would have full knowledge of the various proposals which had been made by the Government and the suggestions made by other Members, and it was certainly to be expected that in their allocation of the property they would endeavour to meet what they had reason to believe was the general sense and opinion of the House of Commons and the Government upon this intricate question. He believed that opinion in Scotland was generally in favour of the Commissioners being entrusted with the allocation of the property, having regard to the views contained in the Report of the Elgin Commission. He thought a great deal of grievance would be avoided if Sub-sections 2 and 3 were left out, and if they left the whole matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—[Mr. Buchanan.)

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

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

said there was no doubt much that was tempting in the suggestion of the hon. Member, but it practically transferred any responsibility which this House might take upon itself to the rather heavily-burdened shoulders of the five gentlemen whom the Government had appointed to carry out the Act. He would further re mind the hon. Member that, tempting as the suggestion was, he did not think this House ought to thrust so heavy a reponsibility upon the Commissioners. No doubt the Commissioners would consider it a very sore burden to be borne but he was influenced by other considerations than merely their convenience, for he did not think this House ought to set an example in this Bill of dealing with vast sums of money and property by handing them over to the absolutely uncontrolled action of these Commissioners without either laying down conditions beforehand, which must be fulfilled, or asking to see afterwards what had been the action Taken for the purpose of approval. The last course everybody would feel to be impossible, for it would indefinitely postpone the settlement of the question, of which a rapid settlement was the very essence, and he thought they were driven to the other alternative, and that was to lay down certain principles, not too narrow, or too detailed, but principles which might enable the Commissioners to understand what was the mind of Parliament on the subject. He noticed that the hon. Gentleman himself in the course of his speech seemed conscious that the mind of Parliament ought to be considered by the Commissioners. His suggestion as to the method by which this was to be attained WAS that the Commissioners should read the debates and consider the speeches and suggestions made by the members of the Government and also by independent Members of the House, and so to form a sort of general idea of the trend, of opinion within this House and within the walls of the House of Lords. He did not deny that anybody accustomed to read between the lines of Parliamentary debates could in that way very, often derive a fairly sound conclusion of what the House intended without consulting the actual propositions which had been formed in the division lobby and which were recorded on the Statute-book, but he did not think it would be right to require any body of men whom they appointed to carry out this definite function to collect their evidence by the painful process of excogitation and criticism of the rather heavy pages of Hansard. He thought it would be simpler to lay down the lines to be followed—not in elaborate rules—as they were laid down in this Bill. He did not think that course could do otherwise than give satisfaction to the United Free Church. He thought that the legal Free Church would feel extremely bitterly if there were no pro- positions laid down which would in their opinion safeguard their interests as well as the interests of the other party to what he might call the suit. This consideration he would press with the more confidence because he did not think the legal Free Church had in the House a single person, who felt that their interests were specially in his charge. He hoped they were all animated by a sense of justice and by a desire to see fair play, but it would not be denied that the great bulk of the House, to whichever Party they belonged, were in no sense representatives of the legal Free Church, and it, therefore, behoved them, to do their best to frame the Bill in such a manner as would not give that Church any undue cause of complaint. If Parliament were to give money in bulk to the Commissioners, and leave the whole responsibility on their shoulders, he thought that would be unfair to the Commissioners and would arouse great suspicion and great misgiving in one party to the suit. He would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Member should not further press the suggestion he had made.

MR. WALLACE (Perth)

said he should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the body who had already heard the evidence on the question of the allocation of the property, and who would have further opportunities of examining the facts, were not better qualified to determine the principles on which the allocation should be made than the House of Commons, the great bulk of whose Members were absolutely ignorant of the entire matter. It was on that ground they urged the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment. The only fear he had was that they might draw the line so strictly in regard to the principles that were to guide the Commissioners that they would find themselves compelled to do what they might think an injustice owing to the strictness of the lines laid down by the House. He would urge the Government to consider whether something could not be done in order to give a wider latitude to the Commissioners.

*MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

said he wished to support what had falien from his hon. friend. He had voted with the Government in the division on the last Amendment, and in this case he also wanted as much freedom as possible. He thought it would be most desirable that the Commissioners should be able to take into consideration all local circumstances, especially in the Highlands. He could suppose a case in which the majority of the congregation were on one side, while the greater part of the church work was being done by the minority. He believed that if the Lord-Advocate allowed the Commissioners as much freedom as possible with as large powers as possible, this would do much to secure peace and harmony on all sides.

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

said he desired, if he might presume to do so, to ask his hon friend the Member for East Perthshire to withdraw the Amendment. His general view was that if the clause in the Bill had stood as it was originally framed, he should certainly have preferred that the Commission should be left a free hand. But he thought that the Government, on this matter—and he desired at once to make the acknowledgement—had behaved with considerateness since the Bill was printed. The negotiations prior to that date might have put the Bill into a different form, but looking to the body of the Amendment under which the Commissioners were to be appointed the Lord-Advocate seemed to believe that their position was to be absolutely trusted, and that they would have a statutory standard of conduct to guide them in dealing with a property so large. He did not conceal from the House that the whole proposal of the Bill was, from a Parliamentary point of view, a somewhat strong order. The appointment of an Executive Commission he had recognised from the first to be a very strong order only defensible on the ground that the complexities of the case were such that Parliamentary time would be consumed in what really were matters for a Commission. Now that they had the Elgin Commission; now that they had a desire on both sides of the House; and now that they had concessions made by the Government with regard to the line of action in relation to that Commission he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment, on the ground that it would upset the entire body of negotiations which, had, so far, made satisfactory lines for the conduct of the Commission. If he put himself in the place of one of the Commissioners he would ask himself whether, in view of the delicate situations which might arise, he would not feel more fortified in making awards under the Bill after Parliament had laid down the various lines for the Executive Commission than if there were no suck statutory powers. While largely sharing the feeling of those who supported it, he appealed to his hon. friend to consent to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. BUCHANAN

said he thought that he had pointed out a more excellent way; but if the Government and some of his friends on his side of the House would, not support him the responsibility would be theirs. Recognising that he should be in a minority he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)

said that the Amendment he wished to move was "In Clause 1, page 1, line 25, after the words 'Commission,' to insert the words 'in making their allocation of property under this Act.'" If the Committee would kindly direct their attention to lines 5, 6, and 7 of page 2 of the Bill they would see the following words:—viz., that the Commission had power— To make special arrangements where several Church building^* are situated in the same neighbourhood, and in any other eases which appear to them to require exceptional treatment. In the course of the negotiations, to which the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs had referred, it was suggested that these words, as the Bill originally stood, would apply only to the case of allocation to the Free Church, and not to cases of allocation to the United Free Church. He could not agree to that view; but the words he now proposed to insert, "in making their allocation of property under this Act," being general words were intended to, and, he believed, would successfully prevent that reading of the concluding part of Sub-section 2 to which he had referred. It was on that ground that he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 25, after the word Commission,' to insert the words ' in making their allocation of property under this Act.' "— (The Lord-Advocate.)

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

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

asked whether the Lord-Advocate was satisfied that the word "allocation" comprised both churches.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that that was undoubtedly his view. The point had been very carefully considered.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

said that, in view of the Amendment put down by the Lord Advocate immediately after his, he would not move the Amendment standing in his name.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that the next Amendment standing in his name dealt with the negotiations which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs. The effect of it was that instead of leaving the ascertainment of the members and adherents as they existed when the Elgin Commission came to make their inquiry, to one-third, the Amendment deleted that and went back to 1900, and required that one-third of the survivors of those who were members and adherents in 1900 should be taken instead of the original proposal in the Bill. Of course there were considerations on both sides as to whether that was the proper view to take. He quite understood that that was suggested by the hon. Member for Banffshire as what commended itself to both sides. On the whole the Government had come to the conclusion that the proposal he now made would meet the case.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 26, to leave out from the word 'that,' to the word 'with,' in page 2, line 4, and insert the words 'out of those who in the opinion of the Commission were members or adherents of the congregation on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred, and are at the commencement of this Act both resident in the district, and members or adherents of the Free Church or United Free Church congregation, at least one-third are members or adherents of the Free Church congregation.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)

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

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that the Amendment of the Lord-Advocate represented, in his opinion, a large improvement or amendment of the Bill in two particulars. In the first place it went back to the firm ground of the year 1900; and in doing so it would enable the Commissioners at once to extinguish, if necessary, all those scandalous cases of the seizure of churches not only since 1900 but since the decision of the House of Lords. That was a vast improvement. The other improvement did not appear so satisfactory on comparing the Amendment with the Bill as it originally stood. But they could not forget that the earliest Amendment proposed was for one-fourth, which was felt to be totally inadequate to meet the situation. One-third was a considerable improvement, and he understood it would include upwards of a score of cases of great hardship which would not otherwise have been included. He might say that he was not at all convinced that one-third was adequate to the situation. He thought, however, that it was an instalment of justice much larger than had hitherto been offered.

Question put, and negatived. Words inserted.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said the object of the Amendment he now moved was to give the Commissioners power to grant money compensation, and to raise money by bond not only on the general property, but also on the congregational property, if such an arrangement should be found convenient. Where churches were going over to the minority the Commissioners had a discretion under certain provisions of the Act. There was one kind of special arrangement which it seemed to him might be convenient, and which would prevent the feeling that otherwise might arise—that was to allow the Commissioners to arrange that a sum of money should be paid to the poorer congregations so that they might be enabled to build up a new and separate church. He did not feel sure whether under the general wording of the section the Commissioners had the power to make an arrangement of that kind. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, tine 5, after the word 'however,' to insert the words 'to give money compensation in any such case or.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that unless they specified the fund from which the Commissioners were to draw money they would get into difficulties. He thought the only plan would be for his hon. friend not to press the Amendment.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said the allocations in respect of which the hon. Member proposed to give money payments were allocations of congregational property. From the point of view of the United Free Church the position was an extremely hard one. Although they had two-thirds of the membership of congregation that two-thirds was to go out in its entirety, and the one-third was to retain the whole of the property, and no compensation was to be given to the two-thirds. From the pecuniary point of view he thought that was an injustice to which strong objection could be taken either from one side or the other. Where were they to obtain these funds from. The funds for compensation could only be contained in the congregational property, which was in the possession of the minority of one-third. What would happen would be that they would introduce a state of matters in which they would be launching into a separate existence one-third of the membership of a certain congregation with this burden of debt round its neck. There must be suffering on one side or the other, but at all events in starting separate congregations let them start them unshackled and untrammelled by debt.

MR. WALLACE

suggested that in the Bill as it stood there was power to give money compensation, the Commissioners having authority to deal with exceptional cases.

COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

said that unless certain words were struck out of the second Sub-section of Clause 2 such a thing could not be done.

MR. PAEKEE SMITH

said he thought the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had rather misconceived the effect of the Amendment. He was content with having raised the point; and knowing that the matter would lie in the hands of the Commissioners he would not press the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT REID

suggested that between the Committee and the Report stages the Lord-Advocate should give some little thought to this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BLACK

said the Amendment he now proposed was to provide that all congregational property not allocated to the Free Church should be allocated to the United Free Church.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 7, after the word 'treat" ment,' to insert the words ' all congregational property not allocated to the Free Church shall be allocated to the United Free Church."—(Mr. Mack.)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said according to his reading of Clause 1, Subsection 1, that was the effect because the Commissioners were directed to allocate between the Free and the United Free Churches the whole property. If they gave so much to the one they must give the rest to the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston)

said that the Bill stated that "adequate provision" should be made for a number of persons. He feared that the word "adequate" might lie in the hands of the Commissioners. It might take the form of an endowment which was unfamiliar to the experience of the Church. He would be ready to modify the Amendment by directing that "liberal" provision should be made. That would allow the Commissioners to have a free hand in carrying out their intentions as to what amount of endowment should be given for these purposes. There was another point in the Amendment, which was that all sources of income of the Free Church should also be taken into consideration. If the subscriptions given for congregational purposes were to be taken into consideration there was no reason why, for example, the fees from students should not also be taken into consideration or the existing endowments of the churches in calculating how much money was to be made up beyond these sources for making adequate provision for the church. The Lord-Advocate was understood to have given an as surance that the educational trusts of the church would be retained entirely for educational purposes but under the provisions of the Bill as it stood it would be possible to put a mortgage on the college buildings to be used for the general purposes of the Free Church. That seemed to many of them an objectionable form of pooling the trusts. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 8, leave out Sub-section (3) and insert the words (3) 'The Commisson, with due regard to the carrying out of the purposes for which the funds and property were respectively given, shall make such provision as they shall consider in all the circumstances to be reasonable for supplementing congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church for—(a) the theological education of the students for the ministry of that Church; (6) the support of aged and infirm ministers and of widows and orphans of ministers of that Church; (e) the support of the ministers of Free Church congregations to which the congregational property has been allocated under this Act;(d) provision for itinerant preachers; and(e) the general administrative purposes of that Church.'"—(Mr. Corbett.) Question proposed, ';That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.

MR. BLACK

, in supporting the Amendment, ventured to hope that the Lord-Advocate would meet them in this ease as he had in others. Under the clause as it stood ministers of the legal Free I Church were to be endowed out of the accumulations of the old Free Church without apparently continuing to contribute the insurance premium which by Act of Parliament they were called upon to contribute. It should be made plain that if the ministers of the legal Free Church were to participate in the widows' and orphans' fund they should continue to contribute the £7,000 which had hitherto been contributed by the Free Church. In considering, moreover, how much the United Free Church funds should be drawn upon, the Commissioners should first of all take into consideration all the sources of income open to the Old Free Church—the Sustentation Fund, legacies expected in the future, and the endowments which some of the congregations possessed. When all these sources of income were known, only then should the funds of the United Free Church be drawn upon by way of supplement.

MR. BRYCE

agreed with the object of the Amendment. Common equity suggested that the other sources of income possessed by the legal Free Church should be regarded. If a congregation's contributions were to be included there was no reason why the other sources of income should not be included also. The words of the Amendment were far safer and more elastic than the words in the Bill. What they wanted was that the Commissioners should have great latitude in this matter, and he thought the word "reasonable" in the Amendment was a sufficient direction to them. It was hardly possible to consider this Amendment without referring to the Amendment of the Lord-Advocate in the schedule which would have to be considered later. That Amendment was unobjectionable from the point of view which the Government had taken all through and which was perhaps the only principle on which they could proceed; namely, that a provision was to be made in the future for the Free Church out of what might be called the Parliamentary funds, the rest of which would belong to the United Free Church, and that so much of the property of the undivided Church as was appropriated to a particular object or trust should supply the amount necessary for enabling the legal Free Church to discharge the part of that ecclesiastical work it had to do. It was not improper in equity that the college property and funds which belonged to the old Free Church were now to be charged in the hands of the United Free Church for the benefit of the legal Free Church. That, he understood, was the Lord-Advocate's view, and to that they did not object. But the Lord Advocate went further, because he proposed to come for the second time on the college property for supplementing congregational funds. It had always been objected to that the same property should be taxed twice over, and he submitted that in this case it would be not only unfair in itself but it would be at variance with the principles which the Commission had laid down, and with the principles which the Lord-Advocate himself laid down in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, that college property after having been made to contribute to the legal Free Church students should be resorted to a second time for congregational and general purposes.

SIR ROBERT REID

said he regarded the matter as so important that he would join in an appeal to the Lord-Advocate to accept the Amendment. The very essence of everything that had been done from the beginning to the end of this controversy was to attempt rigidly to carry out the trusts. It would be a strange thing if this Bill, which was intended to do that, should take the form of alienating trusts from their original purposes. He was not sure that there was any substantial difference between the intention of the clause and that of the Amendment. What was meant when they spoke of "adequate provision" was that they should make such provision as was necessary and fair after taking into consideration the other resources of the Church and the powers of the congregation to supply their own wants. But the way in which the clause was drafted left out of consideration the ability of the Church to help itself. He thought the words of the clause "adequate provision" were unfortunate and that they might lead to serious consequences. That obviously was not what was intended. What was intended was much better expressed by the Amendment, the phrasing of which, he thought, was a great improvement on the wording of the clause.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

did not think it desirable that the Amendment should be accepted. He submitted that Clause 3, as it would stand if the two Amendments which he proposed to make were agreed to, really carried out substantially the points upon which they all seemed agreed. If they inserted the words of the Amendment, "with due regard to the carrying out of the purposes for which the funds and property were respectively given," they would imply that it was the duty of the Commissioners to ask what were the purposes for which the funds and property were respectively given, and it seemed to him that they would at once embark upon the task of discovering what the donors' intentions were. That, he thought, would be a most unfortunate result. The scheme of the clause as he proposed to amend it was not to leave that open. The scheme as he would make it would be that by a process of specification they should ensure that there would be no diversion of trusts, and the Committee would see that the schedules proposed by himself and his hon. friend respectively were practically agreed in that respect, with the exception of the last section of each. The next point in his hon. friend's Amendment was that the Commissioners "shall make such provision as they shall consider in all the circumstances to be reasonable," and he had stated that he would be prepared to make it "such liberal provision." He might remind the Committee that the recommendation of the Elgin Commission on this point used the words— That no such transfer should take place except upon equitable conditions, and especially that, the due performance of the trust being secured, liberal provision should be made for the equipment of the Free Church. Unfortunately, there was no one in the House to represent the particular views of the smaller body, although no doubt they all intended to represent them as well as they could. It seemed to him that "adequate" was a much more restricted word than "liberal," although he agreed that in "adequate," as in "reasonable," they introduced the idea of opinion. But the Government considered that "adequate" was a better term and one more suited to an Act of Parliament than the word "liberal," which would be interpreted to mean that they should be given all they were entitled to and something in addition. He, therefore, submitted that Sub-section 3 really gave effect to what they all desired, viz., to provide suitably and sufficiently for the Free Church in this matter. In regard to the suggestion that in dealing with the education of the students of the Free Church fees should be taken into account, he believed that these would come to an infinitesimal figure, but again he should think that the Commissioners would to a certain extent take them into account. In the same way, in reference to the support of aged and infirm ministers, it would certainly occur to him that the Commissioners would take into account that those who were to be beneficiaries should certainly continue the contributions they had heretofore made.

SIR ROBERT REID

pointed out that in two cases adequate provision was to be made, and only in one case were the Commissioners directed to take into consideration the supplementary contributions.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that if it was thought that the Commissioners would not necessarily take that into account he would have no objection at a later stage to provide that that should be done. As to supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of ministers, he should say that congregational contributions would in- clude all sources of income, even endowments, and if it was not sufficiently expressed he should be quite willing to make it clear. The remaining questions could be more properly discussed on the schedules. He had indicated the points upon which he would be prepared to make concessions. If those interested, and especially his learned friends, considered that any particular expression was required to give effect to them he would endeavour to meet them. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment to a division, but be content with the explanation he had given

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he thought the Lord-Advocate had met the Committee very fairly. The phrase as to adequately providing suggested most clearly a distinction between "supplementing" in certain cases and "adequately providing" in others. The I result of the proposal in the Bill, unless it were materially modified, would be to have a system of permanent endowments set up which he was sure was not the intention of the Government itself or of any Party in the House. They were all agreed that to set up a system of permanent endowments for either of the Churches, or for any of their schemes, apart from the voluntary annual efforts of the Churches themselves, would be to perpetuate a system which might in course of years exhibit a result most disastrous to the development of the ecclesiastical life of Scotland. The question of supplementing the congregational contributions was quite well dealt with in Clauses 11 and 12, but there was some defect in the language, because in many of these Free Church congregations there were not inconsiderable endowments given for the support of the ministry in these churches, and in order to be complete, the phrase would require to be "for supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of the ministers of the church and all other resources or income for a like object." He hoped that on these points the right hon. Gentleman, with the spirit he had already shown, would go a step further in the direction he had indicated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRYCE

said he wished at this stage to ask the Lord-Advocate to consent to leave out the word "adequate" in line 8, and leave the provision as it stood in the Bill. The provision already made was quite sufficient to meet the case in hand. These poor churches of the legal Free Church for which provision was to be made had been mainly supported out of the Sustentation Fund assisted by liberal contributions from other churches. The circumstances had now entirely changed, and these churches would belong to the United Free Church, and they would lose the funds which they had hitherto had. Therefore they would in the future want all the funds they could get for themselves, and it would be impossible for them to continue their contributions to the other smaller churches. It might be that in future they would only be able to make very small contributions. The word "adequate" was very difficult to construe and he urged that it should be left out. The Bill as it stood would create a number of little weak churches with small endowments all over the North of Scotland, with their adherents and members falling oft and nothing to keep up the church except the fact that there was an endowment. If the Lord-Advocate could not see his way to leave out the word "adequate" he hoped he would promise to consider the matter fully on Report.

Amendment proposed— In page 2 line 8, to leave out the word 'adequate.' "—(Mr. Bryce.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'adequate' stand part of the clause."

COLONEL DENNY

thought that the dangers which had been predicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen were by no means unlikely to arise, and the very last thing they desired was inadequate provision for these churches. It seemed to him that as they were dealing with the Commissioners, three of whom had already laid down their own opinion that liberal provision should be made, they might safely leave the matter in their hands.

SIR ROBERT REID

thought the Lord-Advocate had met them extremely fairly in regard to this matter. He was, however, of opinion that the word "adequate" Was somewhat ambiguous, and he thought some other word might be used. He suggested the word "suitable."

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

promised to consider the point on the Report stage.

*MR. AINSWORTH

thought they would have to be careful to see that these funds could be used for immediate wants in cases of hardship.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order. I do not think that that is quite in order now.

MR. BRYCE

said he would accept the Lord-Advocate's assurance that he would reconsider the matter in all its aspects, and he as ked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BLACK

said the Amendment he desired to move was merely a drafting Amendment designed to restrict the provision made for students for the ministry of the Free Church.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 9, after the word 'students,' to insert the words 'for the ministry.' "—(Mr. Black.)

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment pioposed— In page 2, line 12, to leave out the words 'that Church,' and insert the words 'Free Church congregations to which congregational property has been allocated under this Act.' "— (The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BLACK

said that had it not been for the Lord-Advocate's addition to this clause one would certainly not have supposed that provision for itinerant preachers was not included in "general purposes." This suggested the necessity for further definition. There was no very great difference of opinion between the Lord-Advocate and some of them as to what he meant. In order to see if the Lord-Advocate could suggest any more suitable definition he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 13, to leave out the words 'for the general purposes," and insert the words 'for the due management and conduct of the business and financial affiairs."—)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that what was now proposed was covered by his next Amendment. He did not think the Commissioners would have any difficulty in ascertaining what the general purposes of the church were. He did not know that the words which he proposed differed substantially from those of the hon. Member. They were sufficiently clear, and he did not think any difficulty would arise in the minds of the Commissioners as to their meaning.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said there was more substance in this than appeared at first sight. The expression "general purposes" would be much too vague. He suggested that the words "administrative purposes" should be used instead. I the words proposed by the Government were retained the Commissioners would be confronted with enormous claims for general purposes. He and his friends wanted to avoid that, and to give statutory instructions to the Commissioners which would enable them to say that this meant administrative purposes.

SIR ROBERT REID

suggested the addition of the words "of administration and management" after the words "general purposes."

*MR. MACONOCHIE (Aberdeenshire, E.)

thought the expression "general purposes" was too wide, and hoped the Lord-Advocate would see his way to adopt the sugestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

said there was no difference between the two sides of the Committee as to intention, and he thought the Lord-Advocate might favourably consider the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

accepted the addition of the words suggested.

MR. BLACK

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 13, after the word 'purposes' to insert the words, 'of administration and management.'"—(Sir Robert Reid.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 13, to leave oat from the word ' Church' to the end of the Sub-section, and insert the words 'including expenses of administration and provision for itinerant preachers. The funds and property out of which provision may be made for each of the above mentioned objects shall be those set out in the second column of the first schedule to this Act, opposite the description of the object in the first column of that schedule.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:—

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

moved to leave out the words "including interim orders having temporary effect," in order to insert, after the word "fund," the words "and may also, before that allocation is made, make interim orders having temporary effect as respects the property in question as defined by this Act." He said the object of the Amendment was to meet cases in which there might require to be interim orders before an allocation was made as to the use of the property. The Amendment would enlarge the scope of the Commissioners in this respect.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words ' including interim orders having temporary effect.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 20, after the word 'Fund' to insert the words 'and may also, before that allocation is made, make interim orders having temporary effect as respects the property in question as denned by this Act.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 21., at end, to insert the words 'and may be recorded in the usual manner in the Register of Sasines and other appropriate register, and such registration shall have the effect of vesting the property in the persons specified in the order.'"—(Colonel Denny.)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he did not think the addition of these words was necessary, for the section with which they were now dealing provided that any order which the Commissioners might make should take effect as if enacted in this Act.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that this was a very important matter; and his first impression was that something was necessary to enable a congregation to take action in future years. What was wanted was that the order should not only be clear on the statute, but should be registered in such a convenient form that it would be easily recognised.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

said that what was wanted was that the title should be placed on the register, because it was only to that register that a would-be purchaser or mortgagor could go to discover who was the real owner of the property. This Amendment had been drawn by practical men who knew what should be in the title.

MR. WALLACE

said he quite agreed that the words should be considered on Report.

COLONEL DENNY

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 22, at the beginning to insert the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 25, after the word 'Church' to insert the words 'or in favour of third parties who may advance money for the purposes of such bond or charge.'"—(Mr. Black.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BLACK

said that his next Amendment was designed to make provision for possible cases of congregational property and endowments becoming derelict. This was not an imaginary case in Scotland. He believed he was I within the margin when he stated that I there were at present about 160 endowments in Scotland that were, for all practical purposes, derelict, and which were kept up simply for the sake of the minister who enjoyed the endowments and for no real purpose affecting the necessities of the people of the district. It would be a genuine misfortune for Scotland if this was to be perpetuated. His proposal was not absolute; it only put power in the hands of the Commission to consider any particular case; and he had no doubt the Commission would consult all the parties before actually making an order.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 25, at the end to add the words 'and may provide for the disposal of any property in the event of any congregation interested in such property falling below a certain specified number of members and adherents.'"— (Mr. Black.)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that the proposal was not desirable for two reasons. The one was that the Commission should set to work as rapidly as possible, and get through their work as rapidly as possible. To give them the power suggested to keep a congregation in a state of suspended animation would not be good for anybody.

MR. BLACK

said that that was not his proposal.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he thought that was how it would work out. The Commission could not take into consideration what might happen five, ten, or fifteen years afterwards. The Commission had to take into consideration the facts as they found them at that time. The result of the proposal would be that their determination would not be final, and there would be a great state of uncertainty, which, he thought, would be most unsatisfactory.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he was not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman correctly interpreted the Amendment, which did not contemplate the continuation of the Commission. There might be certain circumstances where a proviso of this kind might be necessary, where, for instance, the population had declined, and that state of matters might result in the complete disappearance of the endowments. He also pointed out that this proviso was not compulsory, and he hoped his right hon. and learned friend would accept the Amendment.

SIB ROBERT REID

thought that the Amendment might be slightly altered to this effect that the ultimate disposal of the property should be dependent not upon a certain specified number of members and adherents, but upon the event of the trust failing or falling through. He could not help thinking that it would be rather an extraordinary thing if a ministry was to be kept up when there was no congregation, while there was a considerable want of money for a congregation in the same parish. To transfer the money, without the power now proposed, would require a new Act of Parliament for each particular case. He would rather see the Commission provide for the dedication of the money in any direction than see it wasted.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he would remind his hon. and learned friend that the Elgin Commission in several clauses of their Report suggested that it would only be fair to provide for the future development of the Free Church. Now, if they provided for the reverse process they would be able to advance the very strong argument that if they made provision against things getting worse, they ought also to leave a way open for their getting better.

MR. CALDWBLL

said that the object of the Amendment was to provide for the carrying on of the trust, and it was not a question of giving money to one Church or the other. It would be altogether contrary to the spirit of the Bill if that trust failed altogether.

MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)

said that it should be made clear in the clause that in the event of the trust failing the property should revert to the United Free Church.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said that it seemed to him they wanted the Commission to settle once and for all between the United Free Church and the Free Church, and that being so he was prepared to give way to expediency in the matter, and in order to get peace and settlement he should be inclined to suggest that it was worth letting this matter go.

MR. WALLACE

said he ventured to join in that opinion, but he thought there was a great deal in the view of the Lord-Advocate that they might have to consider the case of a church which had grown in numbers as well as that of a church which, had diminished in numbers.

MR. BRYCE

said he was afraid they might be leaving out what might hereafter cause trouble. He thought they were assuming too easily that they would not have some future legislation for extending the powers of the Commission.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 25, at the end to insert the words, 'Any congregational property allocated to either Church shall be subject to any bonds or burdens thereon, or in respect thereof, and the Commissioners may charge upon the particular congregational property concerned any money expended since 31st October, 1900, on improvements of property, or in paying off debt incurred in respect of property."'-(Colonel Denny.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PABKEE SMITH

moved to insert at end of Clause 2, page 2, line 28, "as at the date of allocation." He said the Amendment raised a large question. By means of the Bill the Free Church was making a very great and far-reaching change in its constitution. Hitherto its constitution, so far as it concerned any of its property, had been limited by a model trust deed, and the result of that deed, as they all knew, was the recent action in the House of Lords and the whole of this question. Now the United Free Church was altering its constitution so as to free itself from all the bonds of the model trust deed and to enable it to hold property for such trusts as the majority of the General Assembly might from time to time determine. That was a most important and far-reaching change in the whole position of the Free Church. They were quite entitled to ask for it; but he I wanted it to be clear that it would be a clear and final change, and that when they got the property it would be allocated to them according to the new conditions, so that no question could arise in the future and no suggestion could be made that any property held by the United Free Church would be subject to the limitation which the United Free Church was now seeking to get rid of. It was most important that that should be clear, and with a view to that he moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert the words 'as at the date of allocation.'"—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he could hardly conceive anything more upsetting to the concord of the Assembly than to press an Amendment of this kind. The suggestion was that they should stereo type the constitution, and he could not I imagine anything more fruitful of litigation than the point as to what was the exact scope and dimensions of the constitution of the various Churches at the date of allocation. They wanted to I leave the Churches to develop according, to modern ideas, seeking the light as they found it, and that they should at all evens have the powers of self-government. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.

MR. PARKEB SMITH

said the constitution of the Free Church as at the date of allocation did contain that power.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that was absolutely correct as regarded one of the Churches, but it was not correct with regard to the other. Were they going to-allocate property to Churches and bind them never in the future to have the power of altering or modifying their own constitution. He should not be a party to that at all.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. PARKER SMITH

asked permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 3, after the word 'rights' to insert the words 'duties and liabilities" (Mr. Corbett.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:—

MR. PARKER SMITH

said the Amendment he now moved was to cover the case of the Ferguson bequests and to make sure that the same position should obtain in the future as in the past. Both the United Free Church and the Free Church should get a benefit under the Ferguson bequests, and no question should arise in the future in regard to such a trust as that. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed — In page 3. line 38, after the word "Church" to insert the words "or any congregation thereof. '—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

accepted the Amendment.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said the purpose of the next Amendment was to bring a certain class of legacies within the power of the Commissioners—legacies under testamentary writings, which the Commissioners were of opinion were made before the Union, the makers of which testamentary writings having survived until after the Union. It was, in the general opinion, a proper thing to do. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert the words, "(3) Any legacies under testamentary writings made before the thirtieth day of October, 1900, by testators who died thereafter and before the commencement of the Act in dispute between the Free Church and the United Free Church, shall be allocated to or apportioned between the Churches in such manner as the Commission deem fair and equitable, having regard to what seems to them to have been the intention of the testator, and the capacity of the Churches respectively to carry out any special trusts annexed to the legacy; and all proceedings in any Court as regards any disputes between the two Churches in respect of such legacies shall be sisted or stayed."—(The Lord-Advocate.)

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

MR. HALDANE

said that the Amendment was a most wise and statesmanlike settlement of a most awkward question. He only rose to ask whether the words covered all the Lord-Advocate intended to cover. He noticed the words were confined to legacies in dispute between the United Free and the Free Church.

Would the Amendment cover the case of a legacy likely to be in dispute but not in dispute at the present time? In England no question of dispute could arise until the legacy became payable. Had the matte been made clear? If it had not he would suggest that the words "or which might he eaft r be in dispute" should be inserted so as to cover the whole ground.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

thought the addition of those words was unnecessary. In Scotland there was no difficulty in raising the question of who would be entitled to a legacy when it was payable. He might here also say, in reply to the Amendment which was down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, that he had considered very carefully the proposal in that Amendment and had come to the conclusion tha he word "legacies" was wide enough, and that it was not necessary to add after legacies "or dispositions of property." He was quite ready, however, to consider before the Report stage the question of dispositions of property mortis causa.

MR. CALDWELL

said the Amendment was only put down to make sure that the views of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out. He had put down those words because money could be left to the Church in so many ways, and only one had been covered by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. "Legacies under testamentary writings" did not cover the case of a person who had parted with money during his lifetime, with he proviso that after the death of the tenant for life it should go to the Church.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said they were all agreed as to what was meant by the clause, but the clause was very important. No less than a third of £1,000,000 was covered by this clause, and the word "legacies" seemed rather inadequate to the position, because there might be specific grants of property to which the word 'legacy' could not apply. This clause had a bearing on the other clauses in the Bill to this effect, that here was a fund which ought to be taken into account when the question of provision was dealt with. That matter had been discussed, and he referred to it only to say that adequate provision was to be made, not as if there was nothing else coming to the Church, but that the resources of the Church were to be taken into account, including such resources as might be dealt with under this clause.

MR. CALDWELL

moved to insert after "legacies" the words "or dispositions of property."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 1, after the word 'legacies' to insert the words 'or dispositions of property.'" —(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

thought the Amendment unnecessary, as the words -of the Amendment were sufficiently wide.

MR. HALDANE

suggested that the recognised legal term was dispositions of property mortis causa.

ME. SCOTT DICKSON

said he would consider that.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CALDWELL

moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment— And with regard to any legacies or dispositions of property under testamentary or other I writings made before the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred, by testators who may die after the commencement of this Act, the Commission shall make provision for allocating the same to either or to both of the said Churches as the Commissioners may think proper. He said there was no doubt about such cases as those referred to in his proposed Amendment arising. He instanced the case of a man who left property to the Church contingently on the life of another person. The property would not vest in the Free Church while I that person was alive, but, the first residuary legatee having died, the money might be vested after the Act came into operation. Another case would be that of a man who had made a will, and was not now in a condition to alter it. There was no provision in the Bill for dealing with the property in cases of that kind. Were the Commissioners to remain in office until every conceivable case had been dealt with? He suggested that the better plan would he for the Commissioners to make provision for clearing the whole matter off. Having made "adequate provision" for the legal Free Church some of the Commissioners might think that any such legacies should naturally revert to the other body, but there was nothing in the clause to bind them; the Commissioners were given full power to deal with money of that kind. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— In line 9, at the end, to add the words 'and with regard to any legacies or dispositions of property under testamentary or other writings made before the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred, by testators who may die after the commencement of this Act, the Commission shall make provision for allocating the same to either or to both of the said Churches as the Commissioners may think proper.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment,"

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said the Amendment would seem to require the constitution of a standing Commission until all the testators who existed in 1900 had been killed off.

MR. CALDWELL

said the words were specially put in to prevent the like of the case alluded to by the Lord-Advocate.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. The word "legacies" was quite wide enough to cover the cases raised by the hon. Member.

MR. CALDWELL

said that the Billmade no provision for money which might come to the Church from persons who died after the commencement of the Act, and in such a case the question would have to be decided by litigation. He would, however, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:—

MR. WALLACE

moved the postponement of Clause 5 in order that the House might first proceed to the consideration of the schedule.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That consideration of the clause be postponed."—(Mr. Wallace.)

Schedules.
First Schedule,
Object.	Funds and Property.
1.Education of students of the Free Church.	1. College endowments and bursary Funds; college buildings.
2. Support of aged and infirm ministers of the Free Church.	2. Aged and Infirm Ministers Fund.
3. Support of widows and orphans of ministers of the Free Church.	3. Widows and Orphans Fund.
4. (a) Supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of ministers of Free Church congregations to which congregational property has been allocated under this Act. (b) General purposes of the Church, including expenses of administration and provision for itinerant preachers.	4. Sustentation Fund; Home Missions Fund; Highlands and Islands Fund; any moneys which the Commission regard as applicable for general Church purposes. So far as those Funds or moneys are not sufficient, any further amount required for this object shall be provided by such bond or charge as the Commission may direct to be imposed on any land or buildings in Scotland allocated to the United Free Church other than congregational property, training colleges for teachers, schools, and any land or buildings bequeathed for special purposes.
Second Schedule."
—(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. BLACK

proposed an Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he could not accept the Amendment. Heading 4 (a) of the schedule corresponded exactly with the words which they had passed in Clause 1, Sub-section 3, of the Bill, and he thought they must adhere to the language they had already passed. The hon. Member's Amendment with regard to the funds available was hardly

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

agreed to this proposal.

Clause 6:—

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 1, to leave out the Schedule," and insert the word,

in accordance with the negotiations which had taken place, because all parties were agreed that in addition to the Sustentation Fund, Home Mission Fund, and the Highlands and Islands Fund, there were other funds which would fall properly under the short designation of funds applicable for Church purposes or free funds. There were a number of small legacies and trust funds which would fall under the designation of being applicable for general Church. purposes. The schedule was entirely in accordance with the negotiations which had taken place that the three funds which were set out in both schedules should be liable to be supplemented by such other moneys as the Commissioners should hold to be free funds.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said he was far from being satisfied with the statement which the Lord-Advocate had just made. He objected altogether to the phrase "free funds." He should like to know from the Government what they meant by free funds. The proposal was to specify all the various funds which were to be impounded for this particular object in the earlier portions of the schedule. What was proposed under the two sub-heads (a) and (b) of the fourth head in the schedule was to provide for— Supplementing congregational contributions towards the support of ministers of Free Church congregations to which congregational property has been allocated under this Act. And for General purposes of the Church, including expenses of administration and provision for itinerant preachers. The Government proposal was that after the Sustentation Fund, the Home Mission Fund, and the Highlands and Islands Fund were exhausted, the Commissioners should have power to put their hand into the general pocket of the Church and lay a mortgage on the funds of the Church in so far as a fund specifically allocated should be found insufficient. That appeared to him to be a breach of trust. It had never been anticipated by anyone who contributed to these funds that a mortgage would be laid upon them in order to supplement congregational contributions towards the support of ministers of the Free Church in the Highlands or Islands. The moment they went beyond the three specific purposes set out us the Sustentation Fund, the Home Mission Fund, and the Highlands and Islands Fund, they got completely into the region of breach of trust, and, therefore, this schedule seemed to him a schedule for facilitating the diversion of moneys specifically provided for one object in order to give them to another. He hoped the House would not permit such a diversion of funds as was here proposed.

MR. BLACK

said he could not help feeling that the Lord-Advocate had not quite grasped the original proposal he had put before the House, which was not only that the miscellaneous funds which might form the subject of some differences of opinion should be appropriated for the Sustentation Fund, but also that it might be possible for the Commissioners to put a mortgage on mission buildings in India.

*MR.SCOTT DICKSON

It is confined to Scotland.

MR. BLACK

said that might be so, but with regard to the generality of the funds he was correct in saying that the proposal was not confined to the miscellaneous funds mentioned. Under this proposal it would be possible to bond the college buildings in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, or Glasgow for the purpose of providing sustentation for ministers in the Highlands and Islands. He hoped that the Lord-Advocate would make a further concession on this point.

MR. BRYCE

hoped they would hear something further from the Lord-Advocate on this matter. He understood the right hon. Gentleman's previous reply to be confined to the earlier part of the schedule He did not understand him to be endeavouring to justify the proposal that a charge should be put on the college buildings.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he did not know that the Amendment went so far. It certainly was understood by those with whom he had had communication that there would be no objection to the bonding of the Assembly buildings on the Mound in Edinburgh by way of supplement to the other Church funds. The college property was an integral part of the Church property, and its possession had been made a question of decision in the House of Lords. The United Free Church had no right to this property, and the legal Free Church were now in possession of it; and this being the position of affairs he could not see how the conferring of this power on the Commissioners could be described as a breach of trust.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that in regard to the General Assembly Hall which had been adjudged to belong to one of the Churches, it was said that it would be strong order to grant a bond over that hall for the purposes of the other Church. There was no objection to a bond over the Mound property in Edinburgh, provided that the purpose to which the money was to be devoted was for analogous purposes in the Free Church. It would be perfectly equitable and proper that a bond or mortgage should be put over the General Assembly Hall for the purpose of erecting a new small hall for the Free Church, but it would be entirely out of the question that they should consent to a mortgage being placed on the general buildings of the Church in order to set up congregations in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. He might point out that these buildings had been erected, not only out of the general funds of the Free Church, but by special bequests to provide additional buildings, and for the adornment of the hall. The proposal made in the schedul was to divert these funds which donors had given for general administrative purposes to purposes entirely alien to general dminis ration. He hoped that the Government would consider the point he had put".

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said that, in the light of the lion, and learned Member's criticisms, he would consider the subject with the view of arriving at a settlement on the Report stage.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.