CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HC Deb 19 July 1905 vol 149 cc1209-57

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 5:—

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

moved an Amendment to omit words requiring that the subscriptions to the Confession of Faith by persons appointed to chairs of theology in the Scottish Universities, and by the Principal of St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, shall be such as may be prescribed by Act of the General Assembly. Although Clause 5 was one of the most controversial character, he thought from the rapidity with which the Bill was dealt with yesterday that the particular Amendment which he now moved was not one which raised any Party issue, and it was one which he hoped might be discussed with perfect calmness and coolness. Indeed, he did not see why the Government should not accept the Amendment, and he ventured at least to hope that, even if they did not accept it, they would feel that it was a matter to be left to the judgment of the House, and not one which they should regard as a Party issue or in which they should endeavour to secure a particular determination of the House by employing the ordinary Party methods. Let him observe further that he had not gone out of his way to raise the question. It was a question which the Government had themselves raised by the provision in Clause 5 relating to the theological chairs in the Scottish Universities. That was a matter outside the general scope of the Bill, but it was impossible for them to ignore it, and he was obliged to move the Amendment because he hoped to show the Committee that if he did not do so they would allow a novel, and in some respects a revolutionary, change to be effected in the position of the Scottish Universities.

The history of the Scottish University tests was a very long history. When the Universities of Scotland were dealt with at the Revolution Settlement they were not dealt with along with the question of the subscription to be made by ministers of the Church. The Universities were separately dealt with in 1690 by a separate statute. They were not included in the Act of 1690, nor in the Act of 1693, to which the Lord-Advocate had so often referred. They were again dealt with separately in 1707, and he wished to call the particular attention of the Committee to this fact, that whereas the Act of 1693 placed the enforcement of the test in regard to ministers in the hands of the General Assembly, the Act of 1690 did not bring in the General Assembly, but created a special Commission consisting of ministers, barons, Judges, and other persons, mainly laymen. The whole matter came up in the year 1889 when a Bill dealing with the Scottish Universities was passed.

That Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government, and on that occasion he moved an Amendment directing the Commission, which was to be appointed under the Bill, to abolish tests and to open all the theological chairs to all comers. They were then the only chairs which remained subject to tests. The Conservative Government of the day met the proposal, not by denying the expediency of opening the chairs—they did not resist the proposal on its merits—but they proposed that it should be referred to the Parliamentary Commission which was appointed by the Bill to take evidence and to report on the question of what should be done in the case of the theological faculties. They had a long debate in which the present First Lord of the Treasury and the late Mr. Gladstone took part, and the result of that discussion was that the Amendment was rejected and it was referred to a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the matter and to report what should be done in regard to these chairs.

The Commission took very full and important evidence and issued a very elaborate Report in the year 1892. If hon. Members referred to that Report they would find that few Reports dealt in a more fair manner with the relations which ought to subsist between the Universities and the national life and education of any country. In particular he would refer to the evidence of Principal Caird, who, as everybody knew, was one of the brightest ornaments of the Church to which he belonged and of Scottish theology. Principal Caird was in favour of the abolition of these tests so as to throw open those chairs to all Scottish Presbyterians. Professor Story, now Principal Story of Glasgow University, approved of the abolition of the tests; and Principal Cunninghame, of St. Andrews, also approved of the abolition of the tests. He did not think that they could have three names belonging to the Established Church more representative or more entitled to weight in this House than these distinguished gentlemen. The Commission itself, by a majority, reported in favour of the abolition of the tests. The Commission consisted of a number of eminent and distinguished men—Lord Kinnear, Chairman of the Commission, Lord Elgin, Mr. Macintosh, now Lord Kyllachry, the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich, Sir Arthur Mitchell, Mr. Crawford, Dr. Blackie, and Mr. Butcher, who was then professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh. The Committee would be good enough to observe that five of these gentlemen—he was not sure if it was not even more than five—were members of the Conservative Party, and therefore the Commission had not a political character. These five gentlemen held Conservative principles, and they did not think that there was anything in these principles against the Report which they made.

The Commission made use of the argument with which they were all familiar which showed that these tests were unfortunate. They pointed out that the tests created the impression that a theological professor could not be in a position of an independent inquirer; that tests pressed most severely and harshly on men of tender consciences, while they were no obstacle to those whose consciences were hard. They said that tests were of no value to the community; that they never ensured orthodoxy; and they added the material consideration that if they were to prevent students in the Universities from hearing opinions which might affect their theological views, they must not confine themselves to theological tests. They must impose tests on the occupants of such chairs as moral philosophy and natural science which existed at one time. Such tests had been abandoned in these latter faculties, and they were now perfectly free. How absurd it was to say that a man might be safely entrusted to hear teaching on ethics which might be opposed to the views of current theology, and that he was not to hear the views, of theological professors, especially considering that all student preparing for the Scotch ministry must attend the arts course before approaching their theological study. The Commission added also that the tests excluded a large number of distinguished men, whom tests ought not to exclude, men belonging to the other Presbyterian bodies who would be eminently fitted to adorn the chairs of theology in the Scottish Universities. He would refer to two sentences in the Report which he thought of great importance. In one place the Commission said— We agree with the opinion that the proper test for a professor is to be found in the functions to which the professor is called; his acknowledged fitness for the place, and that the character and conscience of the man afford the only proof and security for the faithful performance of his duty. The Commission also said that— We are of opinion that theological professors, like the professors in other faculties, ought to he relieved from the obligation to suscribe to any religious of ecclesiastical formula. The tribunal which the Government had invoked at that time had given its opinion, and it was fairly reasonable that the opinion so delivered should have the respect and confidence of this House. Surely the experience they had had of theological tests in many Universities, and under many conditions, established the doctrine that it was only freedom that was of any use for those who were set to teach. How could they say to a man—"Investigate the truth, study the Scriptures; study Ecclesiastical history, examine Biblical criticism, go to every source from which you can get light on ecclesiastical history and theological truth, but, whatever your investigation may be, remember you must come to only one conclusion." How could they say that to an investigator, or expect that the teaching the professor gave could have the confidence of the students and produce the impression that it ought to have on them, when he was bound, beforehand, to arrive at only one conclusion? That argument applied to any test whatever, but it would apply especially to any new test.

He dared say that if the power was given to impose a new test, it would be somewhat less stringent in its terms than the present test; but it would have to go very far indeed if it was to meet all the sentiment and conscience of our times. Many large questions had been raised which were not so frequently raised in earlier times, and he thought it would be hard to apply any test now-a-days which would not exclude men of tender conscience who would be perfectly willing because they had not come to any adverse conclusion to give consideration on lines which were in general conformity with orthodoxy, but who would hesitate to subscribe to the propositions contained in the test itself. Those who had watched the current of theological thought knew that many new questions of this kind had arisen. And it must be remembered that a new test would be, of necessity, construed more strictly than an old test, with a more careful regard to every word and without any of that easy-going spirit in which old tests were regarded. He remembered that the late Mr. Jowett said that "Old fetters gall less than new ones." Of course that was true. A new test would be more severe than a test that had been worn down by the attrition of centuries. He knew that there was every reason to suppose that, if a new test were imposed, that new test would probably be much more lax than the old one. There was, however, no security for that. If they were to follow the current that now ran they might expect the test to be easier than the subscription to the Confession of Faith was at this moment; but in ecclesiastical and religious matters there were times when the current ran towards stringency, as well as tides which Tan towards laxity. They had seen revivals of that kind in other countries, and it could not be said that it was not possible that thirty, forty, or fifty years hence—he did not say through the whole Christian world—but that in particular Churches the current might run in a different direction, and that there might be a disposition on the part of the dominant party to impose a severer test than existed at the present time. They were asked to impose a legislative test, not for the present time, but for all future time. Therefore, they must carry their minds beyond the conditions of the moment in estimating the results of their present action.

There was another objection. The decision of 1889, by the test then imposed, had the effect of sectarianising what ought to be a national institution. Their Universities were the pride of the whole people of Scotland, and the effect of that test was to narrow them. Now it was pro- posed by this Bill to take the test and formula of the subscription out of the hands of the State and away from the Legislature and to give it to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Surely that was giving it over to one particular denomination, whereas it was now in the hands of the nation. He could not conceive anything which was more calculated to denationalise the Universities of Scotland than to remove them from the position which they now held under the control of Parliament alone. In 1690 this power was not given over to the General Assembly, but given to a special commission consisting largely of laymen, and he would call attention to the fact that under the present law it was not the General Assemby that had the power to impose a test. It was the University in Court, subject to appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was not necessary that the holders of theological chairs, should be bound beforehand to curtain theological views. It had not been found necessary in other countries. The proper security was to leave the selection of professors to the electors, which was all the difference in the world from imposing a test and excluding everyone who did not belong to that particular body. There were other countries in which it was left to the electors. In the Universities of Germany and Holland there were no theological tests. Hon. Members would say that the Universities of Germany and Holland did not conform to the same standard of orthodoxy which was observed and desired by some people in this country; but he was told that a very large proportion of the students in the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland went to them. And it was not confined to Germany and Holland; it was the case in the United States also. He could give some instances. One was a very remarkable case, because the theological tests which existed were abolished two months ago by the governing body of the college in New York. All these things were considered by the Commissioners, and they came to the conclusion that it was quite sufficient for the purpose of keeping the Universities in harmony with the religious thought in Scotland to trust to the appointing authorities, those authorities being in some cases the Crown and in others the Courts. The upshot of the view of the Commissioners was summed up by the late Principal Caird, a man most generally respected for his abilities and character, when he said he was willing to leave the matter to the power of Christian truth and to the discretion of Christian men.

Another objection that might be taken was that the Churches themselves would object. He believed that was not true. There might be some ministers and some of the laity of the Established Church who would object, but he was perfectly sure that the great majority desired it. There were many who desired a change in 1902, and he was sure great progress had been made since then. If he were asked whether the change would injure the Established Church, Scotland, or theology, he would unhesitatingly answer "No." He believed it would benefit them all, for it would immensely increase the area of choice. There was an eminent professor who died a few years ago, the late Dr. A. B. Davidson, and he did not suppose there was anybody who did so much for theological learning as he did; but he was a professor of the Free Church, and could not be a professor of the University, although, he believed, even in the Established Church there would have been a unanimous wish that he should have been, because it was felt that he was at the head of theological learning in Scotland. He believed there would be a further great benefit in the change proposed in the fact that it would bring together the students of the different Churches during their years of study. It would accustom them to know one another, and it would tend to diminish and reduce whatever little jealousy there might be. English Members, he was sure, realised how entirely at one was the theology of Scotland. Neither in doctrine, discipline, or ritual were there any differences which separated the Churches of Scotland. It was desirable, therefore, that the students of these various Churches should associate together in their student years. They were in the habit of forming aspirations for union of the Churches. No one expressed them more sincerely than the First Lord of the Treasury. Here they had an opportunity of taking a tangible step towards the union of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland—a step which he believed was generally approved, and if they were sincere in those aspirations for the unity of the Presbyterian Churches, let them take the step when the opportunity offered.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 20, to leave out from the word 'established,' to the word 'shall,' in line 22.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

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.)

There are many observations scattered through the interesting speech to which we have just listened with which I am in hearty agreement, but there are one or two matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us and one or two arguments and one or two general views from which I very profoundly dissent. Nor do I think that he has made it quite clear, even to himself, exactly what it is he wants. The last part of his speech was aimed at a policy which should make the theological chairs of the Scottish Universities equally available to all Presbyterian Churches.

MR. BRYCE

No. I desire to abolish all tests. I desire what was recommended by the Royal Commission—the abolition of all tests.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The last observation of the right hon. Gentleman was that the incidental result of his proposal—I put it in that way—was that the theological chairs of Scotland would be equally available and equally useful to all the Presbyterian Churches. I desire, I should desire, that the theological chairs in the Scottish Universities should be equally useful to all the Presbyterian Churches, but I do not think it would be obtained by the path which the right hon. Gentleman desires us to pursue. I think the result of carrying out his policy would be to prevent the theological chairs from being useful to the Established Church of Scotland, but not to make them useful to the other Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. And why does the right hon. Gentleman take the opposite view? He takes it partly upon general grounds, to which I shall advert presently, but partly on what he describes as the authority of the Commission appointed in 1889. Now I am bound to tell the Committee that, in my judgment, the right hon. Gentleman has totally misapprehended the purport of that document, and when he described, as he has described over and over again, the opinion of the majority of the Commission as recommending the total abolition of tests, and nothing more, he, unwittingly no doubt, but most completely, misrepresented the view of the body whose opinion he quoted. What he quoted was accurately quoted, but he forgot to mention to the Committee that the Report, not once, nor twice, but many times in its course, clearly laid down that if you are going to abolish tests, you would have to set up a body for appointing these professors, which would be the equivalent of a test, and which, in other words, would only appoint persons who held the theological opinions that, in its judgment, would make them useful teachers of those who were preparing for the work of the ministry in the Presbyterian Church.

MR. BRYCE

said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think he had taken an incorrect view of the Report. The Commission suggested that, if necessary, other representatives might be added to the appointment board, but they recommended the abolition of tests in an unqualified way, and he did not think that the part to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was an essential portion of their proposal. For his part, he had intimated himself that if it was desired to add to the appointment authority there was no objection to that. Therefore he believed he was in accord with the recommendation of the Commission.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman is not in accord. If he will look at page 28 of the Report and the last paragraph but one, it runs as follows— That the evidence appears to us to establish that the Churches are not likely to give their confidence to an untested theological faculty unless they have themselves a voice in the selection of the professors, and we are, therefore, of opinion that in any abolition of tests provision should at the same time be made for the constitution of boards of curators, on which the Churches may be represented.

Mr. BRYCE

There is no objection to that.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

All the Churches are Presbyterian Churches. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? One other extract. The Commissioners then discuss the kind of board it ought to be. It is to consist of four members. What are the four members to be? The Commission propose that the appointment body should consist of four members, to be appointed by the University Court. One of these four members is to be a member of the Faculty of Divinity; the other three are to be representatives of the Presbyterian Churches, one to be appointed by each. A little lower down is the sentence— What we think essential for the purposes we have explained is that a special board shall be constituted, including the representative of the University Court and of the Presbyterian. Churches and of such of these Churches as may desire to have a voice in the appointment of the professors. I could multiply the quotations, but the policy of the Commissioners is perfectly obvious from the quotations I have made. They did desire to abolish tests, but they desired to substitute for formal subscription to any creed or formula a careful selection by persons belonging to the Presbyterian Churches in order that the confidence of those Churches might be secured in the persons of those who were to teach the future ministers of the Church. I do not believe that that can be attained unless you retain tests in some form, and, I hope, a modified form, as the Bill proposes, or unless you have such, a body as that which I have spoken of.

MR. BRYCE

I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that they must read the whole of this Report if they are to arrive at a just estimate of what the Commission mean.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman's interruptions are so much longer than my speech that I do not know that I shall easily get to the end of it, though I listened with great silence and respect to the right hon. Gentleman. He now says that nobody can understand this Report unless he reads the whole of it, but he did not read the whole of it. He read misleading extracts from it, and it is to correct the extraordinarily misleading effect he produced that I am obliged to road others. The other sentence which he has quoted against me really confirms what I have said. It is exactly on all fours with the quotations which I have read, which indicate that the policy of this Commission was that tests should be removed, and that, in place of tests, we should take care that the views of the Presbyterian Churches, not Christians at large, still less religious persona at large, should be secured, for the very obvious reason that it was to the professors so selected that the education of the ministers was to be granted. I think that is undeniable. I do not deny that I have great sympathy with that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he pleaded for an absolutely unfettered school of theology. He quoted an American precedent, in which he said there was a school of theology absolutely unfettered, and in a moment of carelessness he said that all that was required of a professor there was that he was to be a Christian, though he corrected that immediately afterwards, and told us what was undoubtedly the fact—that there is no limitation in the particular educational institution to which he referred on the religious belief of the professors. I, for my part, think that such an absolutely unlimited school of theology might be extremely useful. I do not deny that. But then, probably, they would not be very desirable schools from the point of view of teaching young ministers for a particular Church.

AN HON. MEMBER

Why?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Because I can quite imagine cases—and it would not be difficult to quote names—in which those who had contributed very largely both to the comparative history of all religions and to the actual discipline and development of the Christian religion, themselves relieved in no religion at all. That absolutely unlimited and dis- passionate consideration of religion is a mere phenomenon among other phenomena to be looked at from the outside, and to be regarded as one of the products of civilised humanity. I do not deny that that may be a very instructive subject of scientific investigation, but I do say that when your object is to educate those who desire to work in the ministry of a particular Church, you might have very curious results if that was one of the stages of education through which it was necessary for them to go. Whether it be a right or a wrong view, is it not the view of every Church? That is the point. It is not necessary for us to determine here whether this purely dispassionate, external, and scientific view of religion is the one on which a University chair may best be occupied or not. We need not determine that question. What we have to determine is whether, when the Church desires that there should be a school in which its ministry may be educated, it should not be allowed to make such arrangements as should give it confidence that the religion taught should be such as they desire. Of course, every Presbyterian Church in Scotland, when it comes to a practical issue, would agree with what I am saying. Have other chairs, if you like, to deal with the comparative history of all religions, or any other subject absolutely unconnected with Christianity, with one Christian Church rather than another, or with Christianity rather than Buddhism or Mohammedanism, or any other of the great religions which have influenced mankind, but do not mix that up with the other problem, which is that of providing education for a large body of the best of our young countrymen who desire to serve one or other of the great religious interests in one or other of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.

I hope, in the first place, we shall not by any Amendment to this Bill drag in this question of the reorganisation of the Universities, and I hope, in the second place, that we shall not prevent the relaxation of the test which the clause allows for professors. We are all agreed, I think, about the second proposition. It may not go far enough, but in the direction it goes every one is agreed. As regards the first, personally I think that this is not a very convenient time to deal with the reorganisation of University education. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I and my friends have been attacked for introducing Clause 5 at all, but to extend that clause from its present comparatively modest limits, so as to deal with the whole question of University tests in Scotland, would be really to give an extension to our discussions which would be deplorable on every ground, religious, educational, and academic.

MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that it was he, not I, who raised this question.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

agreed that it was extremely desirable to see that the Churches had theological schools where they could train their students with some sense of security. But that was not the point. The Bill made a great change. It proposed to transfer the testing of the professors from the hands of the State, where it was now, and to place it under a particular Church, viz., the Established Church of Scotland. It proposed to transfer national, not sectarian, institutions from the control of the State to the control of a particular Church. That was the source of the feeling there was on the Opposition side of the House. The present test was old fashioned, and had come to be regarded as a mere form, and people did not lay the same stress on it that they would on something that was comparatively new. What justification was there for what was now proposed to be done? They not only took away the test from the Government and put it into the hands of one of the Presbyterian Churches, but they put an obstacle in the way of the very thing they sought to accomplish—namely, to pave the way towards union among the Presbyterian Churches. If they made it more difficult for the students of the Free Church or the United Free Church to attend the lectures of the divinity professors, if the theological faculties of the Scottish Universities were to be faculties of one denomination, as they would be much more when this clause was passed than they were now, then certainly they would be putting a further obstacle in the way of Presbyterian reunion. He would like to see a state of things in which the students of each denomination would take their training where the best teaching was given.

It was true that the Report pointed out that the policy of tests by itself created a certain difficulty, but it went on to say that the difficulty could be got over in several ways, one being that the appointment of theological professors should not rest simply with the University Court or whatever was the appointing body at present, but should be under the control of a specially chosen body of curators. Such an arrangement could easily be made, possibly by Ordinance, and without coming to Parliament. But what the supporters of the present Amendment were asking for was that these national institutions, for such they were, should not cease to be national by being placed under the dominion of any one Church. In Scotland the course of studies for the arts faculty had been much enlarged. Hebrew was one of the subjects which might now be taken, and under this proposal it was to be taught by a professor tested by a particular denomination. That, surely, was a very retrograde step. He had got sympathy with the desire of the Government to set free the ministers of the Established Church from the test now imposed upon them in somewhat rigid terms, but he believed the matter had been somewhat hastily dealt with, and that the draftsman had found it easy to slip in the matter of the Universities. But this question of the Universities stood on an entirely different footing, and it was because they felt it was putting back the hands of the clock that the supporters of the Amendment desired to omit the words referred to. When even King's College had been abolishing its tests it was unfortunate that the Government should propose to put the test for the theological chairs in the Scotch Universities in the hands of a particular denomination, and he hoped it was not too late for one who was very friendly to the Bill to appeal to the Government to consider between now and the Report stage the grave question of principle here involved.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

entirely agreed with the proposer of the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire in their desire to get rid of the tests in theological chairs, and in their ideal that there should be one course of theological training for all theological students in Scotland. At present there was great overlapping, and an altogether unscientific distribution of theological chairs. That was put forward in the Report by no one more emphatically than Dr. Fairbairn, his idea being to weld the forces and the professorships in the colleges of the United Free Church and the Universities, and to make a single theological faculty in which the students of the different Churches should take part. That, however, could not be done by the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to have forgotten that besides the question of subscription there was the test requiring the professors to be members of the Church of Scotland. Even if the Amendment were carried that requirement would remain. That being so, was it unreasonable that the General Assembly should have the power of drawing up the words of subscription? It was not a fresh limitation. It was not putting under the General Assembly chairs which now might be held by non-members of the Church of Scotland. It simply continued that part of the qualification which consisted in the requirement that professors should be members of the Church of Scotland, but relaxed that part which consisted in subscribing verbal and literal adherence to the Confession, and put the professors in the same position as ministers would be, of subscribing a general adhesion to the standards of the Church.

He hoped the opportunity would be taken of reviving the movement for making one theological faculty in the different cities and Universities, and he believed the relaxation of the test would help the necessary negotiations between the Established and the Free Churches. What had to be done was to further the relaxation without rushing to such an extent that there might be a danger of the Churches declining to accept teaching without any test at all as a qualification for their students. Personally he did not believe in tests a bit. He agreed with the majority of the Commission that the professors should be chosen by a board containing members of the different Churches whose students were to be educated, who would consider it their duty not only to regard the scientific knowledge of candidates, but to look at them as men under whose charge future generations of ministers were to be trained. He hoped that would be the solution ultimately arrived at, and if he thought the Amendment would help forward such a solution he would support it. As, however, he did not think it would have that result, or that the problem could be satisfactorily dealt with in this Bill, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

said he felt more in harmony with the Prime Minister than with the other speakers on this occasion. It seemed to him a reasonable thing that a Church in selecting the professors who would teach her ministers should require as much security from those professors as from the ministers themselves. As far as he could see, there was no distinction between doing away with tests for professors and taking a similar course with regard to ministers. Theological professors had much more to do with the doctrine afterwards taught than had the ministers themselves, because they practically formed the views of the students, and if the professors were Rationalists the whole ministry would probably become saturated with unbelief. For Scotland to get into the same condition as Germany in that respect would not make for advance. He did not advocate over-rigorous tests. He objected altogether to the extreme severity of the test now enacted in the Established Church, believing that it injured consciences and went beyond what they had a right to exact. But there was a great difference between requiring a man to subscribe to a thousand separate propositions, as was involved in the Confession of Faith, and saying that there should be absolutely no test at all. He believed that the Christian religion rested on a basis of solid truth. He did not desire to see human interpretations put too mulch to the front. In the past the Church had suffered from a far too minute and verbal theology, but he believed there were great fundamental truths at the foundation of the Christian religion, and unless a man believed those truths he was utterly unfit to be a minister of the Gospel. In every Church there must be some security that those who taught the future ministers believed those truths, and their belief must be in accordance with the main lines of Christian tradition. It was quite clear that there must be some guidance and direction in the matter and the whole thing must not be left to chance, or they would be preparing sad days for the Church of Scotland. So, balancing one thing against another, he was in favour of the clause as it now stood unless something better could be provided which would give more solid security in the future.

MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N.W.)

thought the discussion must convince the Government of the very large question they had raised in this part of their Bill. He was bound to say that of all the remarkable parts of the Prime Minister's speech, perhaps the most remarkable part was that in which he complained that the subject introduced was not cognate with the Bill itself. It was not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen who had introduced this topic and it was not his Amendment. The topic had been forced upon them by the Government, and, as a friend not only of this Bill bat also of this special clause, he urged the Government to reconsider the step they were taking. He quite admitted what had been said by the Government and by the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire, that it was difficult within the limits of a Bill such as this to abolish tests because they had to provide some practical way of carrying on a school of theology which would ensure that it would not be left high and dry without pupils. That was an additional reason for not introducing so controversial a topic, raising and prejudicing as it inevitably did the whole question of tests and the way they were to be imposed.

He understood that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen did not wish to press his Amendment for the abolition of tests if the Government would agree not to prejudice the question of the imposition of tests by persisting in this part of the clause. There were many inconveniences in dealing with a question like the abolition of tests, and it was very difficult to deal with. He thought they had a right to insist that this question should not be prejudiced. He did not hesitate to say that this question was being prejudiced by this particular part of the clause, because it was a very much more serious matter to have a test authorised in a new Act of Parliament at this period. A new right was being given by this part of the Bill to the Church of Scotland which it had not hitherto enjoyed, which it was most inexpedient that it should have, and which would give it a claim to resist any improvement in the future towards making the occupancy of these chairs in Universities more open to all the men who were most competent to fill them. Surely it was not reasonable at this time of day to suggest that national institutions such as the Scottish Universities should be closely bound to any particular denomination, however much respected it might be, or whatever might be its hold upon the community. That was a sort of thing which ought not to be contemplated by any Government in this House. Many hon. Members on the opposite side sincerely sympathised with the desire to relax tests for professors of theology just as much as they desired to give all reasonable liberty to the Church of Scotland. Was it reasonable that a chair subsidised by this House should be made, so far as tests were concerned, the property of a single denomination. He hoped the Government would drop this part of the scheme.

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

wished the committee to note the position in which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen placed them. He proposed to leave the Bill standing in so far as it was designed to deal with the test for ministers, but to take out of it the words making it apply to professors. The result would be that whereas they would have a relaxation of tests for ministers they would have no such relaxation for professors. He confessed he did not quite follow the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington when he recalled his very recent observations, because he now said that the test was of no effect, because the Scottish professors taught theology of the widest description. That did not altogether meet the difficulty, because he remembered that on the last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington addressed the House on this matter he said something different. Speaking then upon University tests, he said— We all know the test imposed upon Scottish professors. We all know it is a test to which hardly any honest man can subscribe his name. It is a test which implies all kinds of mental reservation and puts people in a position which certainly no one occupying the honourable and elevated position of professor of theology ought to be placed in. With a great deal of that he agreed—

MR. HALDANE

I have seen so much since then of professors of theology in Scotland that I am convinced that I misjudged them. In the latitude and liberality of their view there is nothing to complain of.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said it was not the latitude and liberality of their view; it was the honesty. The right hon. Gentleman said it put men in a position which no one who occupied the honourable position of a professor ought to be placed in. There was a great deal of force in that view, and he thought there should be some relaxation. He could mot understand the position where they were dealing, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Partick reminded them, with a class of professors who must be ministers of the Church for Scotland. If they took this out of the Bill, the result would be that they would have power to relax the formula for ministers of the Church and they would retain that rigid and severe form of subscription which the right Gentleman the Member for Haddington had referred to in the quotation he had read. If the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen was carried out and they had a scientific and non-religious faculty in the colleges—

MR. BRYCE

No; not non-religious.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

Then scientific, which need not be Christian.

MR. BEYCE

I said it was not to be subject to tests.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

Of course they might be Agnostic or Socinian or Buddhist or non-Christian. The result would be that if they had that kind of scientific teaching in the University the Established Church would set up its own form of schools and they would not have a school for the ministry of any of the Churches just for the very reasons that induced the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church to set up their halls. Other students could attend there and there was no distinction between the theology of the Presbyterian Churches, which were all of the same character. He was confident that the Divinity students of the Established Church would go to their halls and they would find these faculties attended only by scientific students and not by those who intended to become practical ministers of the Church. He submitted to the House that the position suggested by this Amendment was not one which would conduce to harmony in Scotland, and by adopting it they would be taking the wrong step to bring about reorganisation. He urged the House to allow this relaxation to be applied not only to ministers but also to professors.

MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)

was entirely in favour of the relaxation of tests, and he was also in favour of the clause. His difficulty was that it was not a question of relaxation of tests but a question of transferring authority from the Universities to the Established Church. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen was intended to meet this difficulty and what the Amendment proposed was the course he would like to see taken. The Lord-Advocate had said that if they took out the words suggested they would leave a very inconvenient state of matters, because while ministers would have their test relaxed, professors would not. That would be inconvenient, but how long would it remain so? No longer

than till the Government could find some means of a lowing the Established Church some voice in the selection of professors. That could be done by an ordinance, but if it required legislation he thought there would be no difficulty on either side of the House in obtaining it

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 298.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Lowe, Francis William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Arrol, Sir William	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fellowes, Rt. Hn Ailwyn Edward	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Baird, John George Alexander	Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r)	Macdona, John Cumming
Balcarres, Lord	Fielden, Edward Brockleburst	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Baldwin, Alfred	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Maconochie, A. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r	Finlay, Rt Hn Sir R B.(Inv'rn'ss)	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Fisher, William Hayes	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fitzroy, Hon, Edward Algernon	Malcolm, Ian
Banner, John S. Harmood	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Flower, Sir Ernest	Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H.E.(Wigt'n
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Galloway, William Johnson	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-	Mitchell, William (Burnley)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Gorst, Kt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Bigwood, James	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bingham, Lord	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)	Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hain, Edward	Morpeth, Viscount
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Hall, Edward Marshall	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Brassey, Albert	Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hardy, Laurence(Ken t, Ashford	Murray, Charles G. (Coventry)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Myers, William Henry
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Brymer, William Ernest	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Bull, William James	Heaton, John Henniker	Parker, Sir Gilbert
Butcher, John George	Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow	Hickman, Sir Alfred	Percy, Earl
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)	Hogg, Lindsay	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hoult, Joseph	Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Howard, John (Kent, Faveraham	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Pym, C. Guy
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton	Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Bandies, John S.
Chapman, Edward	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.	Rankin, Sir James
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Coddington, Sir William	Kimber, Sir Henry	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Coghill, Douglas Harry	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Renwick, George
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Knowles, Sir Lees	Ridley, S. Forde
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North.)	Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(MileEnd)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Davenport, William Bromley	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Denny, Colonel	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dickson, Charles Scott	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wilson, John (Glasgow
Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.	Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv.	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.
Seton-Karr, Sir Henry	Thornton, Percy M.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Sharpe, William Edward T.	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew	Tritton, Charles Ernest	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Sloan, Thomas Henry	Tuff, Charles	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanark	Tuke, Sir John Batty	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset	Wards, Colonel C. E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd	and Viscount Valentia.
Stone, Sir Benjamin	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Stroyan, John	Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)
NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Partington, Oswald
Allen, Charles P.	Findlay, Alexauder(Lanark,NE	Paulton, James Mellor
Ambrose, Robert	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rea, Russell
Baker, Joseph Allen	Grant, Corrie	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Barlow, John Emmott	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Richards, Thomas
Benn, John Williams	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Rickett, J. Compton
Black, Alexander William	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Harcourt, Lewis	Robertson Edmund (Dundee)
Brigg, John	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Roe, Sir Thomas
Bright, Allan Heywood	Harwood, George	Russell, T. W.
Broadhurst, Henry	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)	Helm, Norval Watson	Schwann, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Shackleton, David James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Higham, John Sharp	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Holland, Sir William Henry	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burns, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Sheehy, David
Burt, Thomas	Horniman, Frederick John	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Caldwell, James	Hutton, Alfred E. Morley	Slack, John Bamford
Cameron, Robert	Jacoby, James Alfred	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Joicey, Sir James	Spencer, Rt Hn C.R.(Northants
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	Tennant, Harold John
Chance, Frederick William	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Channing, Francis Allston	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Toulmin, George
Cheetham, John Frederick	Kearley, Hudson E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Clancy, John Joseph	Kitson, Sir James	Ure, Alexander
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Labouchere, Henry	Wallace, Robert
Cremer, William Randal	Lamont, Norman	Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.
Crombie, John William	Langley, Batty	Walton Joseph (Barnsley)
Dalziel, James Henry	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Dobbie, Joseph	Levy, Maurice	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Lewis, John Herbert	Whileley, George (York. W.R-
Duncan, J. Hastings	Lloyd-George, David	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dunn, Sir William	Lough, Thomas	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.
Edwards, Frank	Lyell, Charles Henry	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Elibank, Master of	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw's Bghs	Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)	Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose	Yoxall, James Henry
Ellis, John Edward Notts	Muldoon, John
Emmott, Alfred	Newnes, Sir George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Fenwick, Charles	Parrott, William	Mr. Causton.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

I that the effect of the Amendment standing in his name was that in order to make any change in the doctrine or discipline of the Established Church of Scotland, the consent of two-thirds of the presbyteries in Scotland would be necessary. He quite admitted that, at present, any Act of the General Assembly must have the consent of a majority of presbyteries if that Act dealt with a change of formula. At present the State prescribed the formula by Act of Parliament, and that made the contract between the clergymen of the Established Church and the State. That contract affected not only the ecclesiastical but the civil rights of the clergymen. It was altogether different dealing with a State Church and a voluntary Church; because in the former there were State endowments and in the latter none. In the Church of Scotland the presbyteries consisted equally of clergymen and elders or laymen. But some of the presbyteries were large and many small. Obviously, therefore, a majority of the presbyteries might not really represent the opinion of the whole Church in a matter of such great importance as a change in the formula. He did not know of any question which might give rise to more dispute in the Church as a whole than a change of formula, and he doubted the wisdom of giving to the Church the right of throwing this bone of contention, into the presbyteries where, though there were not High Church and Low Church parties, as in England, the evangelical party might object to any change in the formula and so cause dispute in the Church. Where parties were pretty evenly divided, the question in dispute might be reopened over and over again and the interests of the Church would suffer. If any question of a change of formula could only be decided by a majority of two-thirds of the presbyteries, then the chances of a final settlement would be secured. The present formula was being signed by most ministers of the Church of Scotland without much "boggle," and so far as he could see there was no great hankering for any change. Everyone knew that the Confession of Faith was a very old formula and was only understood in a very general sense; and that old Acts of Parliament were never construed in accordance with the strict language of the Act, but in accordance with the opinions of the present time. In cases of heresy, in which a clergyman was charged with not conforming to the Confession of Faith, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was the ultimate Court of Appeal; and no disadvantage was found in that now. There was, therefore, no hardship in asking that when any change was proposed to be made in the formularies that that should be decided by the vote of two-thirds of the presbyteries. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 24, to leave out the words 'the majority,' and insert the words 'not less than two thirds.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'majority' stand part of the clause."

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. The clause had been framed on the analogy of the Barrier Act, which was passed in 1697 for the regulation of serious changes in the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which had regulated its procedure ever since, and which had been adopted by the Free Church—he could not speak positively as to the United Presbyterian Church—as sufficient to safeguard the interests of that Church. According to the Barrier Act it was provided that for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice of the Church doctrine, worship, discipline, or government thereof, it was appointed and enacted that before any General Assembly of the Church should pass any Act to be binding according to the rules and constitution of the Church, the same must be made by overture to the General Assembly, and then, having been passed by the General Assembly, be sent down to the presbyteries and come back to the General Assembly for final decision. So that the change had to be before the General Assembly once, with an interval to go to the presbyteries to be passed by the majority of the presbyteries, and then come to the General Assembly to be finally disposed of. The presbyteries numbered eighty-four and they were made up of the number of parishes in the district. He agreed that some of them were small, with only five parishes; but some ran up to as many as 100 parishes.

The constitution of a presbytery was made up in this way: every minister within the bounds was a member, and he was accompanied by an elder from his own session, so that the presbytery was composed equally of clergymen and laymen corresponding to the number of parishes. The Bill secured that any proposed change of formula should be first passed by the majority of the General Assembly, that that proposed change should be sent down to the presbyteries, that it must be passed by a majority of the eighty-four presbyteries, composed equally of clergy and laity, and that it must then come back to the General Assembly to be approved by a majority of its members. He, therefore, submitted that the terms of the Barrier Act, which was passed to prevent any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of Scotland, and which had had that effect for more than 200 years, was sufficient guarantee against serious change in the constitution or doctrine of the Church of Scotland. The precautions which already existed were sufficient to meet every case, and he asked the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.

MR. CALDWELL

said he felt perfectly certain that, if this power were given to the Church of Scotland, they would find as much variety of opinion in that Church as ever there was in the Free Church, and he felt certain that in that way they were throwing an apple of discord into the Church which had not existed before. He had suggested a remedy. If the State were to hand over the power to alter the formularies, they should at least take care that the decision was not left to a snap division. Everybody knew that every few of the elders attended the presbyteries at all. [Cries of "No, no!"] He had been to the presbytery of Glasgow many times, and he knew what he was talking about. The lay element was really not very much concerned in what went on in the presbytery, and he thought they would find that experience would show he was right in wishing to prescribe that two-thirds should be in favour of any change.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said they had to scrutinise the matter very carefully, because it would probably form an important precedent for England and Wales. It was with some I difficulty that he had been able to follow the discussion about presbyteries and elders, and he was much obliged to the Lord-Advocate for explaining the composition of the Established Church. As he understood it, it would be quite possible for the minority of the Church of Scotland to alter the doctrine of the Church. He candidly confessed he might be wrong, but that was how he understood it. The Lord-Advocate said there was great disparity between these presbyteries. In one they might have 100 parishes and in another four parishes. If, therefore, they were going to leave it to be decided by the majority of the presbyteries, they might have about a dozen presbyteries containing a majority of population overruled by seventy-two presbyteries containing a minority of population. He knew it was subject to reference from the General Assembly, but he was not sure that the majority of the General Assembly might not represent the minority of the Church as well. As he understood it, the General Assembly consisted, roughly speaking, of the ministers of the Established Church and of an elder from each presbytery; and a bare majority of the General Assembly, representing a small minority of the adherents and members of the Church, might alter the formula of the Church in the teeth of the majority of the Church itself.

*MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said the representation of presbyteries in the General Assembly depended upon their size.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the original point he was about to make still held good, because they might have one church with 150 members with the same representation in the General Assembly as a church with 1,000 members. That was not one vote, one value. It was just like the Redistribution scheme of the Government. Therefore, a bare majority in the General Assembly, with a bare majority of the presbyteries, might carry a very important change of doctrine in the teeth of the vast majority of the people of Scotland. That seemed to him grossly unfair; and, if it were a precedent, and of course it was, it was a very serious one, as people in this country were beginning to realise. If that were the basis on which it was to be done, they might find in the Church of England a number of clergy, representing the minority, changing the doctrine in a particular fashion. He did not mind that so long as they were Free Churches and had their own property, created by the devotion of their own members; but when they were dealing with national property it was a different matter, and he thought it behoved the House of Commons to temper the sweeping proposal of the Government. It was very remarkable that the Government should introduce a proposal of that kind when they considered that by the judgment of the House of Lords, which the Bill was introduced to amend, a small minority was able to give its veto to a vast majority of a Church. Yet they were prepared to leave it to a bare majority to alter the formula. He should have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said he did not think the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanarkshire had correctly represented the attendance at the presbyteries.

MR. ELLIOT (Durham)

said he would make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to insist on these trifling Amendments. Really, after the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who confessed that his knowledge might not be correct, he felt that the time of the Committee was being wasted at the expense of action which he should have thought would have commended itself to ninety-nine out of every 100 Liberals.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he could not allow the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down to pass. He had made a thoroughly irrelevant speech. He talked about wasting time, and of his knowledge of the General Assembly. He took his information from the Lord-Advocate, and he accepted the correction he gave him.

MR. ELLIOT

I did not say it was not correct.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the hon. Gentleman said that it was a trifling Amendment. Would he regard it as a trifling matter if the documents of the Church of England were altered by a mere chance majority. ["Question."] It was the question, surely. If it were not the question, then the speech of the hon. Member was completely out of order. If his speech were in order, then his (Mr. Lloyd-George's) speech must also be in order. Did he mean to say he would regard it as a trifling matter to allow he Convocation of the clergy, representing the minority, to alter the formula of the Church of England? If he did not, then it was no trifling matter in this case. Was it because he regarded Presbyterians as beneath his notice? If it were important in the case of one Church it must be important in the case of another, and, therefore, the observations of the hon. Member were without justification.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 290.)

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Brymer, William Ernest
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bull, William James
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Banner, John S. Harmood-	Butcher, John George
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Buxton, NE (York. NR, Whitby
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.	Beach, RtHnSir Michael Hicks	Campbell, Rt.Hn.J. A. (Glasgow
Arrol, Sir William	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Carson, Ht. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cautley, Henry Strother
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H	Bigwood, James	Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Bingham, Lord	Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Baird, John George Alexander	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Balcarres, Lord	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Baldwin, Alfred	Bowles, Gibson (King's Lynn	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Brassey, Albeit	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Wor.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton
Chapman, Edward	Hunt, Rowland	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred	Renwick, George
Coddington, Sir William	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Ridley, S. Forde
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Kimber, Sir Henry	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Knowles, Sir Lees	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lamont, Norman	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Laurie, Lieut-General	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Crombie, John William	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Davenport, William Bromley	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Denny, Colonel	Lookwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dickson, Charles Scott	Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)	Sannderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Doughty, Sir George	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Lowe, Frames William	Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks
Ellice, Capt KC(S.Andrw's Bghs	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Doulgas	Macdona, John Cumming	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fardell, Sir T. George	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward	Maconochie, A. W.	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leirh)	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Mane'r	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst	Malcolm, Ian	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Marks, Harry Hananel	Stroyan, John
Finlay, Rt Hn Sir RB(Inv'rn'ss	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fisher, William Hayes	Maxwell, RtHn Sir HE.(Wigt'n	Talbot, Rt.Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Maxwell, W. J.H.(Dumfriesshire	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Tennant, Harold John
Flower, Sir Ernest	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.	Thornton, Percy M.
Forster, Henry William	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.	Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Galloway, William Johnson	Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow	Tuff, Charles
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Morpeth, Viscount	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morrison, James Archibald	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Warde, C'olonel C. E.
Hain, Edward	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton
Hall, Edward Marshall	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry	Myers, William Henry	Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)	Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Parkes, Ebenezer	Wilson-Todd, Sir WH.(Yorks.)
Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW	Pemberton, John S. G.	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Heaton, John Henniker	Percy, Earl	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Plummer, Sir Walter R.	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Pretyman, Ernest George	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hogg, Lindsay	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Hoult, Joseph	Purvis, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Howard, John (Kent Faversham	Pym, C. Guy	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Randles, John S.	and Viscount Valentia.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Pankin, Sir James
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Reid, James (Greenock)
NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Broadhurst, Henry	Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton
Allen Charles P.	Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Causton, Richard Knight
Atherley-Jones, L.	Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Chance, Frederick William
Baker, Joseph Allen	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Channing, Francis Allston
Barlow, John Emmot	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Cheetham, John Frederick
Benn, John Williams	Burns, John	Cremer, William Randal
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Burt, Thomas	Dalziel, James Henry
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Brigg, John	Cameron, Robert	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh-
Bright, Allan Heywood	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Dobbie, Joseph

Duncan, J. Hastings	Kearley, Hudson E.	Schwann, Charles E.
Dunn, Sir William	Lambert, George	Shackleton, David James
Edwards, Frank	Langley, Batty	Shaw, Charles Kdw. (Stafford)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts).	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Emmott, Alfred	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Slack, John Bamford
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Levy, Maurice	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Fenwick, Charles	Lloyd-George, David	Spencer, Rt.Hn. C. R. (Northants
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE	Lough, Thomas	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lyell, Charles Henry	Tomkinson, James
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Toulmin, George
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Markham, Arthur Basil	Ure, Alexander
Grant, Corrie	Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)	Wallace, Robert
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Harcourt, Lewis	Newnes, Sir George	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Harwood, George	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Parrott, William	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Helme, Norval Watson	Partington, Oswald	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.	Paulton, James Mellor	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Higham, John Sharp	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Holland, Sir William Henry	Pirie, Duncan V.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Horniman, Frederick John	Richards, Thomas	Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'.
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rickett, J. Compton	Yoxall, James Henry
Hutton, Alfred E.(Morley)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Joicey, Sir James	Robson, William Snowdon	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	Roe, Sir Thomas	Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Hunter Craig.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Russell, T. W.
Tones, William (Carnarvonshire	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

moved in line 24, after "thereof," to insert "any formula so prescribed shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days resolves that the formula ought to be annulled it shall, after the date of that Resolution, be of no effect." He said that this Amendment would, to a certain extent, meet the two points which had already been discussed, viz., that of the professorial tests, because it would retain a certain measure of Parliamentary control, and that of the majority of the presbyteries, because it would add to those already existing another presbytery in the shape of the House of Commons which would approach these questions from a more detached point of view than the existing presbyteries, and could be relied upon to give a more impartial and unbiassed opinion. But it should be clearly recognised that the Amendment raised also the much larger question of whether an Established Church was to be allowed to have a blank cheque in the matter of its formula of Subscription. He knew that this description of a "blank cheque" would be contested; but he was certain that they were giving to the Church of Scotland a blank cheque in respect of its formula of subscription, and if it was a blank cheque in the matter of the formula of subscription it was a blank cheque in the mutter of the doctrines and the standards of the Church. The point, therefore, to consider was whether it was possible to give that liberty in the case of an Established Church and still to consider it as having any special relationship with the State.

On the Second Reading of the Bill the Prime Minister said that religious bodies would always find in him an advocate of freedom and of union. They could all subscribe to those words, but after all it was rather a cryptic utterance, which depended on the formula of subscription. The immediate problem before the Committee was not the general question of freedom and union in religious bodies, but the question of reconciling the freedom of an Established Church with its union to the civil power. That was a very difficult problem, and, as the Prime Minister had said, no formula had ever been found or probably over would be to fit all Churches or all countries. He was perfectly clear, however, that the principle of an Established Church is we knew it in England and Scotland was that there should be some relation between Church and State, not only in regard to temporalities, but in regard to doctrine and creed professed. The only question the Committee had to consider, having regard to the condition and constitution of the Church of Scotland, was as to the degree and rigour with which that principle should be applied, and he submitted with confidence that the words he proposed were the very mildest application of the principle of union between Church and State. In the matter of the Church of England the circumstances were entirely diff rent, and it was impossible to argue from the one Church to the other. At the same time, the principle was the same, and they had to consider the precedents from the point of view of the Church of England, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Carnarvon that when Parliament came to deal with the Church of England from a constructive point of view, if ever that day arrived, they would have to deal with the precedent the Government were creating by this Bill. He was sometimes charged with being an Erastian. He did not know anybody who was not an Erastian; certainly the Prime Minister was one, because only the other day the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was impossible to separate the relations of Church and State, or to prevent the spiritual from perplexing the temporal power or the temporal power from interfering with the spiritual.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In all Churches.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

Yes; and I say that that is Erast anism.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I merely want my hon. friend to quote me accurately, and I am not sure that he was doing so. He seemed to think that the doctrine I laid down referred only to the Established Church, whereas it is of universal application to all Churches.

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR

said he quite recognised that, and it was merely an extension of the principle. If it was true of non-Established Churches it was certainly true of Established Churches, and it was because of the impossibility of divorcing the relations of Church and State in regard to Established Churches that he submitted that they were all, whether they liked it or not, Erastians. The Church of Scotland itself was Erastian. He would not trouble the Committee with the Confession of Faith in detail, but he held in his hand a statement prepared— On behalf of the Church Interests Committee of the Church of Scotland with a view to explain the legal and historical position of the Confession of Faith and the formula in the Church of Scotland, and the scope of the proposed legislation in regard to the formula. And, while he did not accept their line of argument, he would quote as an illustration what that Committee said on the question of Parliamentary interference— The objection is urged against the proposal to leave the formula to the Church that the formula may be so conceived as to abrogate important parts of the Confession, and that Parliament could not interfere if the Church took that course. This can only mean that Parliament could not consistently or in fairness interfere. But this criticism proceeds upon a misapprehension. The Confession remains ratified by Parliament as the public and avowed Confession of the Church, and Parliament gives no licence to the Church to frame a formula which is inconsistent with that enactment. The liberty given to the Church under the proposed measure must fall to be construed under reference to the Act of 1690, and if the Church were to take any action in relation to the formula inconsistent with that Act, there would clearly be ground for Parliamentary interference. He submitted, therefore, that there should be an end to all talk about complete spiritual independence as regarded the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland did not take up any such position in the latest memorandum upon the subject. The Church of Scotland accepted the principle, and declared that even if a formula were proposed without consent of Parliament it must still be on the lines of the Act of 1690 or Parliament would have the right to interfere. Therefore, he thought his argument held good that the Church of Scotland accepted the principle of State interference in certain contingencies even in matters spiritual.

He wished to develop that argument further, and to point out that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to what would really be the effect of this clause. This clause would give a blank cheque to the General Assembly to make whatever formula, it liked from time to time. They knew that, a formula made to-day by the General Assembly would be in the direction of relaxation, but fifty years hence it might be in quite another direction. Therefore, they were leaving to the General Assembly power to make a formula which might be changed from time to time and about which Parliament would know nothing whatever. No doubt it would be argued that the formula would be governed by the Confession of Faith. So far from that being the case, he thought the formula would govern the Confession. How had the demand for this formula arisen? It had arisen because of the extreme precision and definite doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was so precise and clear, so rigorous, and so hopelessly unflinching in all its definitions that this demand for relaxation had naturally arisen in the Church of Scotland. That being so, it was quite clear that it was the formula of subscription which was going to govern the Westminster Confession, and not the Westminster Confession which was going to govern the formula. It was not by altering the Westminster Confession that the Church of Scotland was going to modify its position, but by the more easy and practical way of substituting a relaxed formula which placed a different interpretation upon that Confession.

He thought the Committee would recognise that what they were dealing with now was that they were being asked to give to the Church of Scotland full liberty to vary its doctrines and standards by the direct application of a modified formula of subscription to its ministers, and therefore they were making an entirely new departure in the relation between Church and State. He objected to that on two grounds. In the first place, as regarded the Church of Scotland, it seemed to him that while it was eminently desirable to give the Church liberty, it was not desirable to carry that to the point of depriving the State of all connection with the spiritual development of the Church of Scotland. It was desirable that the Church and State should be kept at least in contact as regarded the development of the Church, and he submitted that the words which he now proposed were eminently fitted to keep the State really cognisant of what was happening in the Church. He fully recognised the difference between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, but he objected to this clause from the point of view of the Church of England. He was aware that a great many of his Scotch friends thought that he was needlessly alarmed, and that no precedent would ever be applied from the Church of Scotland to the Church of England. But while it was quite possible that no direct precedent could be quoted because the circumstances were different, the principle between Church and State was identical although its application might be different. Therefore he viewed a clause which was a breach of that principle with the greatest apprehension from the point of view of the Church of England.

He would probably be told that the constitution of the Church of England was entirely different from that of the Church of Scotland. Of course that was evident to anyone who knew anything of the history of the two Churches. But while that was perfectly true, they were bound to recognise that not only was the Church of Scotland in a state of transition, but the Church of England was also in a state of transition, not only as regarded its doctrines, but in regard to a movement which in some directions was of the most reactionary character; and it was also in a state of transition as regarded its form of government. There was in the Church of England to-day a distinct movement in the direction of self-government, and therefore they had to consider in the future whether or not what was now being done was going to be a precedent in dealing with the Church of England. In the case of the Church of England he freely admitted all the difference alluded to in regard to its constitution, but, as he had already said, the Church of England was in a state of transition, and he wished to protect, in advance, this Church against the application of a principle which he believed was wholly unsuited to its present condition. Therefore, while the relations between Church and State were what they were at present in England, those who thought with him, that it was of supreme importance that the spiritual connection between Church and State should be maintained in England as well as in Scotland, were bound to protest against a proposal which they thought would be dangerous if applied to the Church of England.

The words which he suggested were, he thought, the very mildest form that could be used if anything whatever was to be inserted in modification of the clause. He was sure that hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House would not accuse him of a desire to be provocative in regard to the Church of Scotland or the non-Established Churches, but he felt that if this clause were allowed to go through they were parting with something which they should never recover—something which might be a loss in the national life of Scotland, and which might lead to a loss in the national life of England. Therefore he felt bound to do all that he could to prevent the loss taking place. The words of the Amendment had been carefully considered. It might be fairly contended that the contingency which he suggested would never arise. He thought it was extremely improbable that in the case of the Church of Scotland any necessity for Parliamentary action would or could ever arise. The constitution of the Church of Scotland was so democratic that he did not believe that, except under most exceptional circumstances, a case for Parliamentary interference under the Amendment could possibly arise. But he did not think that ought to be an argument to any Member of the Committee who sympathised with the views he was now expressing for not inserting the words. These words were, after all, an assertion of the principle of the connection between Church and State in matters spiritual which he thought most important, and the importance of which would be more and more realised. The members of the Established Church who desired to maintain it as an Established Church would surely do well to recognise the desirability of having the changes in their spiritual development registered. The High Commissioner was part and parcel of the ecclesiastical machinery in Scotland, and it was surely desirable that whatever they did in the region of their doctrinal development should be laid before Parliament in some shape or other. He trusted the Amendment would receive the careful and favourable consideration of the Government. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 24, after the word 'thereof,' to insert the words 'any formula so prescribed shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days resolves that the formula ought to be annulled, it shall, after the date of that Resolution, be of no effect.'

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am sure the House is very anxious to come to a decision on this point, and I shall therefore abstain from yielding to the temptation of dealing with that part of my hon. friend's speech in which he criticised something which fell from me some days ago. The hon. Gentleman asks us to refuse to give to the Scottish Church a boon which he does not deny that Church desires, and which he does not deny would be a benefit to the Church, because the time may some day come when somebody in this House or the other House will point to this clause as a precedent. I do not think that is a sufficient ground for rejecting or modifying the clause. The danger, if it be a danger, is remote and uncertain, and the fact of quoting a precedent of this kind from a Church which in history and tradition is quite different from the English Church will not strengthen the case for change in regard to the English Church. If changes are made in the relation of that Church to the State or in its internal constitution, they will be made upon the intrinsic merits of the question then before the House and the country, and they will not be modified one way or another by any policy we may adopt in favour of a Church which by its history and tradition is so widely separated from its sister Established Church in this country.

My hon. friend appears to think that there is a principle, a single principle, of establishment. But the smallest consideration of the constitution of the Scottish Church and its relation to the State will show that that is historically inaccurate and that can he proved by a mere appeal to history. The appeal to history is equally conclusive with regard to this particular case. My hon. friend has said over and over again that we are now taking a new departure. The new departure is a reversion to the Act of 1690, which first established the Church in Scotland. How can that be called a new departure? It is a reversion to the old original constitution of the Established Church, It is true that is modified by the Act of 1693, as the House is aware, but it was not modified with the view of drawing tighter the bonds between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Church. It was not intended to carry out those Erastian doctrines which my hon. friend very inaccurately ascribed to me. It was carried out for a perfectly different object, and in reverting to the condition of things after the Act of 1690 we are not starting a new question. We are not embarking on some unknown voyage. We are not travelling over unmapped continents. We are only giving the Church liberty in one department which it has enjoyed absolutely in another department with regard to the subscription to the Confession of Faith. As my hon. friend is probably aware from this debate, if not from a study of the question, the Scottish Church has had freedom to determine what are to be the terms of subscription for lay elders who have as integral and as inevitable a share in Church government as the clergy. The Church has exercised that power from time immemorial. It has exercised it with wisdom, discretion, and moderation, and all that this clause asks—all that my hon. friend desires to take away from it—is that the Church should be allowed to revert to its original constitution and allowed to exercise over the whole field of subscription a liberty which it has enjoyed, and never abused, with regard to a large portion of that field. I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

I have always thought it a great pity when the House of Commons is asked to express its opinion on religious matters. The hon. Gentleman has put forward his Amendment practically on the ground of the ultimate possible effect of the Bill on the Church of England. I entirely decline to take the view that the ultimate possible effect of the Bill upon the Church of England or the clergy of the Church of England ought to have any relation whatever to the discussion and the decision of this House on any question relating to the Church of Scotland. No one who knows the history of the two countries-and of the two Churches can fail to know that in their origin, constitution, traditions, and attitude towards the State they are totally different. That is one of the reasons why I cannot follow my hon. friend. Another reason is that my hon. friend proposed that any formula which might be here-after adopted by the Church of Scotland might be annulled by the vote of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. Supposing that there was a universal wish in Scotland to vary the formula of the Church of Scotland, is a vote of the House of Lords to annul that formula? I object to that as a Scotchman entirely on principle; and, quite apart from the theological question,, on which I have no intention to enter, I think it will be a great misfortune if the Amendment of my hon. friend is carried.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

said he was sorry to intervene on this subject, especially as it was a Scottish one; but really the English worm must turn at last. He thought that English Members had a perfect right to intervene in this matter when they believed that a principle was involved which was wider than Scotland. The Prime Minister had said that his hon friend's Amendment would deprive the Scottish Church of a boon. His hon. friend did not propose to do anything of the kind. The Church had a perfect liberty to draw up its own formula, but what the Amendment proposed was that the change should he laid on the Table of the House, and that it might be annulled within forty days. But did anyone suppose that that would ever happen in practice? It was said that the Amendment would be a restriction on the freedom of the Church. They were all in favour of freedom, but they were also in favour of order. The time might come when there would be another temper in the public mind which was not in favour of freedom. The question was, was the House once and for all to part company with the principle involved in establishment, so far as the Church of Scotland was concerned? The Prime Minister had said something about different principles of establishment. Now, he contended, that there were different degrees of establishment, but there were not different principles of establishment. They all knew that the degree of establishment in the Church of Scotland was very different from the degree, of establishment in the Church of England. He was old enough to remember that the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland were divided on the question of establishment, and it was that question which divided the Wee Frees and the United Frees.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was not in order in pursuing that line of argument.

MR. HARWOOD

said he only wanted to reply to the Prime Minister. The one thing which had brought this Bill into existence was the very principle which the Prime Minister had tried to make light of. He himself was in favour of the principle of establishment, but this was not a question of whether they held with Established Churches or not. It was a question whether if a Church was established and continued to be established, it was to stand in a proper relation to the nation. The established Church had duties to perform to the State, and the State had duties to perform to the Church. The nation through Parliament was bound to see that an Established Church did not offer a religion of which the nation could not approve. Let them do away with the Established Church if they liked, but so long as they had such an institution the principles of the establishment must be maintained. He asked the House seriously to consider before parting with the great principle of establishment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 219. (Division List No. 300.)

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman Left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.