CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL

HC Deb 26 July 1905 vol 150 cc369-410

As amended, considered.

MR. THOMAS SHAAV (Hawick Burghs)

said he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, "In Clause 1, page 2, line 14, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'having regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church.'" He might say that this Amendment was substantially a part of the bargain which they had been able to effect with the representatives of the Government. He believed that it contained all that they, on his side, wished to see in regard to the actual terms of the agreement. He expressed the hope that when all the circumstances and various matters were set forth, and considered by the Commissioners, it would never enter into the mind of the Free Church itself, far less into the minds of the Commissioners, as be was sure it did not enter into the mind of either Party in that House, that there was to be a system of permanent endowment of congregations, apart altogether from their self-supporting position.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 14, after the word shall, 'to insert the words' having regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw). Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

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

said [he agreed with the statement which his hon. and learned friend had made, viz., that they had endeavoured, as far as possible, to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He did not intend in the slightest degree to profess to be able to enter into the minds either of the Free Church or of the Commissioners. He desired that both bodies should have the fullest liberty given to them by the terms of the Amendment, when the Bill was passed into law.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

expressed his approbation that the Government had accepted some small step in the direction in which many on that side of the House desired to go; though he was not quite sure whether the words they had agreed to insert now did carry out what was in his mind when he made the suggestion to the Prime Minister, that it was not a kindness but a cruelty to a Church, which called itself a Free Church, to endow it so that the need for congregational contributions should no longer exist. While he understood that this form of words in the Amendment had been agreed to on both sides of the House, although not entirely meeting the views of his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs, he suggested to the Lord-Advocate whether he could not agree to the insertion of three words in the Amendment to make it read "having regard to the proper maintenance of the congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church." What he desired to do was this, to provide that in this redistribution of the funds of the Churches, the Free Church, as it called itself, should be left with the same proportion of voluntary effort required from its supporters as had been required previous to 1900. That was not the result of the Bill. He, therefore, took it that all the money that came beyond that amount to the Free Church would be a harm to it, and not a benefit; and this Bill would be one which would kill and not kindle the interests of religion, which both Churches were endeavouring to promote. He would suggest to the Lord-Advocate whether he might not be able to accept a slight strengthening of the words of the Amendment; but for his part, having got the principle acknowledged in the words of the Amendment, he did not intend to enforce his own particular words on the House.

MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

said that the Amendment which he had put on the Paper did seem to him needed. Of course, he recognised that a very considerable improvement had been effected in the Bill in the manner indicated by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the Border Burghs. He agreed that the improvements which had been effected in the Bill, and which were to be effected by other Amendments which the Government had accepted, would diminish the danger against which he desired to guard by leaving out the word "adequate." Notwithstanding these improvements it seemed to him that a danger did exist from that word and the sense that might be put upon it by the Commissioners. He felt that the word was vague and that it might lead to harm; but if he attached so much importance to his opinion as to divide upon it, and was not successful in the division, he might find his last state worse than the first. Although he wished that the Lord-Advocate could have found another word to take the venom out of the word "adequate," he did not want to see the discretion of the Commissioners fettered, and there fore he would not move the Amendment standing in his name.

MR. SCOTT DICKSON

confessed that to his mind, the word "adequate" had not the fault attributed to it by his right hon. friend; but he was quite certain that all of them had complete confidence in the Commissioners, and though the word differed from the word in the Elgin Commission Report, which was "liberal," he thought "adequate" more clearly carried out the wishes of all of them. He was sure that they wished to give-the Commissioners a free hand.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that the picture he had in his mind was a picture of the state of things that might be produced, particularly in the North and West of Scotland, where they had divided forces, by the granting of anything in the nature of a permanent endowment. What was wanted was to allow Church development to go on on its normal and natural lines, and not to give perpetuity to a system which would become a common mockery and a byword. They had had far too much of that in times past. He agreed with his right hon. and learned friend that the Commissioners should view such a situation by way of making the adequate provision to which he had referred. He-would remind his right hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen that the word. "adequate" must now stand in the Bill unless they were to go back on the arrangement which had been made, with perfect freedom, on both sides.

Amendmont proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 15, after the word 'support,' to insert the words 'subject to payment of the usual annual contributions (if any).'"—(The. Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the-words 'supplementing congregational contributions towards.'"—(Mr. Tkomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 20, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'for itinerant preachers.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 21, to leave out the words 'and for itinerant preachers.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'and any orders so made,' and insert the words 'Any such orders.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 32, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'may be recorded in the usual manner in the Register of Sasines or other appropriate register.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 41, to leave out the first word 'or.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 41, after the word 'burdens,' to insert the words 'or debts.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 2, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'that.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 3, after the word 'of,' to insert the word 'that.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'executions on any judgments,' and insert the word 'execution.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 16, after the word 'be,' to insert the word 'permanently.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 21, after the first word 'the,' to insert the words 'orders or other.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 21, after the word 'such,' to insert the words 'orders or.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 16, after the first word 'was,' to insert the words 'vested in or.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 23, after the word 'shall' to insert the words 'notwithstanding anything that has taken place since said date.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

moved to leave out of Clause 4, page 4, line 25, the words "properly made," and to insert "made in good faith." He said he had no doubt that his suggestion was in accordance with the intention of the Committee, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words 'properly made' and insert the words 'made in good faith,'—(Mr. Black)—instead there of.

Question proposed, "That the words 'properly made' stand part of the Bill."

MR. SCOTT DICKSON

said he would like to have time to consider the question. For the present he thought the Bill should stand as it was.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that "payments properly made" must be "made in good faith," but payments "made in good faith" might be improperly made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 35, after the word 'legacies' to insert the words 'bequests or conveyances of property.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 4, after the word 'be,' to insert the word 'permanently.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

asked if he might suggest that the same procedure should be followed as in the Committee stage, and that they should postpone Clause 5, so that they might be able to complete the remainder of the Bill. It would be a great convenience.

THE SPEAKER

I am afraid that course cannot be taken on Report. We must deal with the Bill as a whole.

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)

moved to omit Clause 5 from the Bill. He said he felt justified in once more giving the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the clause, because it seemed to him that the position was somewhat altered from that when the Bill appeared before the House on previous occasions. It now appeared that, so far as the other clauses were concerned, they were practically settled between the parties most immediately concerned, and he thought he might say, speaking for those who took the same view as himself, that they desired to take no step whatever that would interfere with those portions of the Bill. In this Bill they had an important factor which did not often exist, and that was that an important clause might be omitted without in any sense destroying the object for which the Bill was brought in or the value of the Bill itself. He thought that must be admitted to be the case. If Clause 5 were omitted, it would not affect in the least degree the objects of the Bill. That, he thought, was itself a justification for the action he proposed to ask the House to take.

Might he remind the House what the object of the Bill really was? Difficulties in respect to a large amount of property existed between two Free Churches in Scotland, and an appeal was made to another place to have those difficulties settled, and a decision, which was admitted, he believed, on all hands, to be more or less a technical decision, made the position an intolerable one. Consequently, an appeal was made to that House to redress by an Act of Parliament the difficulties to which those two Churches had been brought by the decision of the House of Lords. The question at once arose why those two Churches were not alone dealt with in the Bill. That appeared to him to be a very natural question to ask. The matters affecting those two Churches were all that needed to be dealt with, and why should another quite outside matter have been introduced? If it had not been introduced, the question would have been a purely Scotch one, and he was sure none of the English Members would have desired to interfere in any degree. It appeared, however, that certain clerical minds looked upon this Government as an ever present Providence to dispense gifts to them whenever a favourable opportunity occurred, and they appealed to the Prime Minister, who, with a ready response that requited that confidence, inserted Clause 5. That clause was very far-reaching in its character. It dealt with the State Church; the other clauses of the Bill dealt with the Free Churches. If he understood rightly, it was held on a previous occasion that the object of Clause 5 was to do justice to another Church, and to place it in a position of equality with the Churches most immediately concerned by the Bill. But be would ask to be allowed to point out to the House that the property in question certainly belonged to one or other or to both of those Churches, whereas the property of the Established Church belonged to the State. That altered the position altogether.

Why was the Established Church put into the position of a State Church? As he understood it, it was because it was desired that the State should acknowledge some special form of religion which had been embodied m the formulas of that Church, and had been made the religion of the State. The question now arose, after this clause, how far a Church so established would be able to alter its creed or its formula of subscription independent of the State. The Prime Minister, he believed, said on a previous occasion that he desired to remove a handicap from that Church.

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

I never used that expression.

MR. GEORGE WHITE

said the expression was used, but, if it was used by the Lord-Advocate, he begged the Prime Minister's pardon. What he desired to point oat was that to give the Established Church independence, as was now desired, would be really to increase the inequality which already existed between the State Church and the Free Churches. If that Church desired freedom of belief and of subscription, which they were told the consciences of many of its ministers required, then it could have it on the same terms as the Free Churches, but he contended that it was unjust to put a clause into a Bill like this by which it would be allowed to retain property attached to it as a State Church and yet gain freedom in those matters which belonged to the Free Churches themselves. If real justice were to be done, it appeared to him that it could only be done by placing all the property in one common fund and allowing Parliament to dispose of that property as fairness and justice demanded. Otherwise, if a minority objected to the alteration of the formula of subscription, where would it be placed in regard to the property? He contended that under Clause 5 the privileged Church would have its privileges increased, and that the Bill was therefore one of a retrograde character.

South of the Tweed they could not, of course, regard such a Clause without apprehending certain effects which might ensue if it were to be taken in any sense as a precedent. If the Established Church could change its formulas by vote of the Ecclesiastical Assembly, they knew what the constitution of the ecclesiastical assemblies were in connection with the State Church of England. Though no doubt in Scotland they were more largely composed of laymen than in England, and that was a safeguard, still they could not see a clause like Clause 5 without some forebodings as to what might follow in regard to another Church. It seemed to him that the very foundation of the claims of a State Church were gone if such a clause were permitted to be used by that Church. A State Church was established with a certain belief, with a certain formula of religion considered advisable for the country, and if that form of belief was liable to be altered absolutely independently of Parliament, then the very foundation of the claims of a State Church were gone altogether. It was contended that the clause only referred to alterations of formula of subscription, and that the creed was retained. He felt that this was treading on dangerous ground. He should be sorry to make any uncharitable remark, but was it contended that it was a right thing that the formula of subscription might contradict the doctrine of the creed, or might evade that doctrine? Why should they alter the formula if it were not to enable those who could not conscientiously teach the doctrine of the creed to subscribe to the formula with certain reservations. It seemed to him that that would be extending what was already admitted to be a great evil. He rejoiced in a tender conscience, but in matters of belief he felt it must be outside the State Church, and, if that Church desired to have free play, it must get rid of those bonds by which it had been made a State Church. He was bound to say he had heard no evidence given that the Church of Scotland as a Church had made any great and pressing demand for the change, and he felt that the least they could demand was that, when the State Church desired to change its formula of belief, it should have to apply to Parliament for its sanction. He did not in any way wish to imperil the passing of the Bill, which he knew was desired on both sides of the House, but Clause 5 could be omitted without in any way imperilling the objects for which the Bill was brought in, and without in any sense making it unable to deliver the Churches from the difficulties in which they were placed by the judgment of the House of Lords. It brought up by a side issue the most important ecclesiastical question that could possibly be discussed in that House.

MR. COMPTON RICKETT (Scarborough)

seconded. He said that it seemed to him that in the interests of the members of the Established Church of Scotland there was very much to be said in favour of the omission of Clause 5 at the present moment. It was left open to a bare majority to make the Confession of Faith merely a pious expression of opinion which should not be obligatory upon teaching and preaching. The idea that the inclusion of laymen in the government of the Church of Scotland makes for greater liberality was doubtful, for they found that in most Churches where there was a demand for liberality irreligious expression, that the demand came from the clergy and ministers and not from the laymen, who were, as a rule, less informed and more fearful of any change. Moreover, he had heard no reply to the suggestion that the interests of the minority were not protected from a simple majority making a change vast and far-reaching in a matter of conscience. Surely a clause of that kind should have contained some security for a revision of the first decision and for some time to elapse before that decision was made permanent. At least two-thirds or three-fourths of the presbyteries should be called upon to approve of a grave alteration. There was no certainty that change would always work in the desired direction, and there might be a drift of reaction which would result, instead of striking off fetters, in making them more severe. Then the clause extended to the Universities. He imagined that theology in the Universities of Scotland might be supposed to interest other Churches beside the Established, that the Universities belonged to the nation, and in that case it was rather a serious matter to bring these seats of learning within the scope of the clause.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 8, to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. George White.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in page 5, line 10, stand part of the Bill."

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

said there was no desire in the Church of Scotland to change, alter, or withdraw from the creeds common to all Churches and held by all bodies of Presbyterians, in Scotland. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said there was no evidence of desire in the Church of Scotland for this relaxation, but. if he had followed the proceedings, he would have been aware that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, by unanimous vote, had desired that relaxation. The seconder said that no time would be allowed for consideration and revision, and that it might, after all, be an actual minority or a small majority of the Church which expressed itself in favour of any change. That showed how very loosely the hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject and how very little informed he was upon it, because the Barrier Act provided that such questions should be sent down for the opinion of the presbyteries, and that they must be approved by the majority before being accepted. Then they had again to be confirmed by the General Assembly "When an unanimous vote of the General Assembly had been confirmed by a majority of the presbyteries and confirmed by another General Asssembly, it could not be said that there had been no time for consideration, and so complete a confirmation of the vote was an adequate proof of the actual desires of the Church. This was a matter which he would have thought gentlemen with free ideas about Churchmanship would welcome and encourage, but he supposed the odium theologicum or dislike of an Established Church induced them to attempt to prevent such a Church from obtaining a relaxation of the subscriptions which were a hindrance and stumbling-block to many consciences, and a release from which would in no sense be used to obtain exemption from the creed which the Church had always held, but would tend to increased sincerity and true religion in the Church.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said that, while he admitted Members had a right to oppose this clause inasmuch as the Bill dealt with the result of the Elgin Commission and the matter referred to in the clause formed no part of that inquiry, personally, he thought there were strong reasons for its retention, with the exception of that portion which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had mentioned. He was strongly in favour of the retention of the portion which dealt with the formula of subscription, though he freely admitted there was no logical reason for the inclusion of the clause in the Bill, and, as a member of the Church of Scotland, he had always disliked the feeling that support of the clause might be interpreted as an indication that the Church of Scotland was using the difficulties of the Free Church in order to get the freedom which, he held, they rightly claimed. In Scotland they had always claimed freedom for their Church Courts, and if they had not had it it was largely due to the influence of this House and of English Members who had not thoroughly understood the system, and did not understand how the Church, though an endowed Church, could hardly be said to be attached by very tight bonds to the State. It would be difficult to call it an Established Church. It was certainly an endowed Church, but when this clause had been added to the Bill the plea for continuing it as a State Church would be a very slender one. He believed in disestablishment as the basis of complete Presbyterian reunion, and he thought this Bill would take them a considerable way towards that basis. But without freedom for the Church Courts the way to complete Presbyterian reunion was barred. Under the un- fortunate judgment of the House of Lords no Church could safely enter into union with another unless, as Lord Young put it, it went landless and. penniless, which was not the way of Established Churches.

The House of Lords judgment had. undoubtedly affected the. Church of Scotland. In the great centres of population it was mainly a voluntary Church; there were four and a half millions of subscribed money which, under the recent decision, any enterprising solicitor could attack. As to the creed, he doubted whether many a heritor would not have a perfectly good case against paying the stipends of Established ministers, as there were few ministers who could sign the whole Confession of Faith, believing every word, and unless they so signed it they were not entitled to their stipends. What was true of ministers was also true of elders. Many an elder who had to sign this document was in the position of a hypocrite. Anyone who signed the Confession of Faith in its entirety was a hypocrite, unless he believed in the six days creation of the world, the babes of a span long being condemned to everlasting fire, the infernal regions, and so forth. The best that could be said of those who signed it was that for the greater part they did not believe in it. The Scotch people were being invited to remain hypocrites, as they could not serve as elders or ministers unless they signed a Confession of Faith in which, as reasonable men, they could not wholly believe, and they were being asked to do this for the convenience of England. That was a very wide extension of the Unionist principle to which he for one had no intention of subscribing. On these grounds he sup ported the inclusion of the clause, with the exception of the portion most properly attacked by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for South Aberdeen. Scotch Members might well appeal to the House to be allowed to settle this matter for themselves. They had never interfered with others in matters of faith or religion—

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

What about the Prime Minister?

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON

thought his hon. friend would admit that the great body of Scotch Presbyterians had mot tried to judge of the claims of any other portion of the kingdom by Scotch standards; they had not distinguished themselves by attempting to force others to adhere to their standards, and he thought they were entitled to ask that the tolerance which they had always endeavoured to show to others should be extended to themselves.

MR. ELLIOT (Durham)

said that while he agreed with much of the speech of the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, he did not think the disestablishment of the Scotch Church was involved in the question under discussion, nor did he recognise the great distinction that the hon. Member had tried to draw in the matter of independence between the Church Courts belonging to the Establishment and those of the voluntary Churches. In both cases they were limited by the law of the land, and the same authority would be supreme in the case of difference between the two institutions—the Church and the State. The clause in question dealt with the subscription to the Confession of Faith by ministers, and with the subscription by professors appointed to chairs of theology in the Scotch Universities. To his mind those two sets of persons stood on somewhat different ground. In introducing the Bill the Lord-Advocate reflected somewhat severely on the Act of Parliament which made subscription for ministers of the Church recessary. But all professors in the Universities, all teachers, and all parish ministers in Scotland were required to conform to the test of their belief in the Confession of Faith, and that was not merely the enactment of this Parliament; it was due to the Act of Security, which was embodied in, and made part of, the Act of Union between the two kingdoms. It was impossible to touch on this subject without noticing the difference between the way in which matters of this kind were regarded now, and the way in which our ancestors regarded them. The whole foundation of the present mode of looking at these questions was to consider it as natural that in succeeding generations there should be modifications or changes in belief. That was distinctly opposed to the old idea under which it was supposed that rules were laid down for all time. They had to deal with a reasonable desire for laxity on the part of those who wished to become ministers and teachers. Surely it would be right to assist tender consciences. Wherever they found a number of honourably minded, intelligent men, who wanted to do their work well, they were hampered; and, after all, they were in sympathy with the great majority of the people. It was a scandal to keep out, by statute, persons who were willing to give their best service to the Church.

With regard to University chairs, he agreed with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He was quite prepared to trust the responsibility of those appointments without any test at all to the Crown. Surely it was unnecessary to go beyond that; and let them exercise their responsibility as they did over the Universities and the people of Scotland generally. He rejoiced to think that one of the most distinguished historians of the country was appointed Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, although he was a Roman Catholic. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman who advised the Crown in regard to these appointments would do so with a due sense of his responsibility. Having got responsible persons to make these appointments they ought not to hamper them and tie them down by means of tests. The people of Scotland were entitled to judge Scotch affairs according to their own lights. When the hon. Member for Leith said that Scotch Members did not interfere with the religious questions of other parts of the kingdom he would remind him that they took a prominent part in disestablishing the Church of Ireland. In the case of Ireland the Church was reconstituted, and a governing body was set up consisting not only of priests but also of laymen, and they had equal power with the clergy not only to arrange the formula but actually to revise the creeds and catechisms. Was the Church of Scotland to have nothing at all until it was ripe for disestablishment? He should give the most cordial support to this clause, although he should prefer it improved in the way he had suggested. He did not think it was quite satisfactory that national institutions like the Scottish Universities should have their formula drawn up for them by the Established Church General Assembly. Still he recognised that this clause constituted a very great improvement, and he hoped the House would very soon pass it into law.

MR. BEIGG (Yorkshire, W.R., Keighley)

said he wished to say a word or two in favour of leaving out this clause entirely. England, after all, was very near to Scotland, and the principle involved in this clause was one which they had been taught to look upon with grave suspicion, namely, disestablishment without disendowment. There were sections of the English Church which would be glad if they could be disestablished and not be disendowed at the same time. If the endowment of the Scotch Church was continued it should remain subject to some public directing control. He did not advocate the formation of creeds, but this Clause 5 was doing for the Established Church in Scotland what the High Church Party wanted in England. The position of the three bodies in Scotland was illogical, because one was endowed and two were not endowed, and yet all had equal freedom as to creed. With regard to what the hon. Member for Leith had said, if the Church of Scotland wanted to be free it should give up its endowments and be honest.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said he thought it was rather significant that all the serious opposition to the clause that day came from English Members who spoke as disestablishes, bearing in mind the effect this clause might have both in regard to Scotland and England. There were many men in Scotland who supported disestablishment, but he did not think that either the Members of that House or of the great religious bodies of Scotland, who in principle were in favour of disestablishment, in the least degree desired to make capital against the Church of Scotland by forcing upon it the con- tinuance of this injustice. The objection had been taken to this part of the clause that it might endanger the passing of the measure, but it was now quite clear that the insertion and passing of this clause would not endanger the Bill They all felt that in order to settle the differences which had arisen between the United Free Church and the legal Free Church this Bill was necessary and inevitable. But there was a much closer connection between this clause and the rest of the Bill than had up to the present been pointed out.

The proposer of this Amendment spoke as if the whole question dealt with in the Bill was a matter of the redistribution of property between the two Churches, and as if the only bearing of the Bill was as to the tenure of the property. But the Bill had a far wider effect, because it would entirely alter the constitution of the Church. The United Free Church had a certain constitution under which it considered that it had power to make alterations in its formula, in regard to its ideas of Church government, and in regard to the relations of Church and State. The decision of the House of Lords had shown that the United Free Church was mistaken in considering that it had that power. By this Bill all the property was handed over to a Commission with power to reallocate it to the United Free Church upon totally new terms. The United Free Church was at liberty to draw its own model trust deeds, and to make for itself the conditions upon which it intended to live as a community in the future. It was also relaxing the restrictions which had held it back in past years. No such questions could ever arise again under the terms upon which the United Free Church would receive back its property. It would be free to make what changes it liked in its formula. That made an enormous difference in the position of the United Free Church, apart from the mere question of how a certain amount of property was to be distributed. That change was bound to react on the whole condition and position of the Established Church. The Established Church, in its last General Assembly, had demanded greater freedom than it had had in the past in.

its formulas in order to meet the change in the United Free Church. He did not think any man could deny the reality of that claim. That was the reason for Clause 5 being included in this measure, and for the whole being treated as one subject.

His hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs spoke as if everyone, minister and elder, was bound to the terms of subcription, which it was the object of this clause to set free. The hon. Member did not seem to be aware that the lay office bearers never had been constrained to this statutory subscription—to exact formula. In regard to them there had been just that latitude in the General Assembly, subject to the provisions of the Barrier Act, which was now claimed in the term of ministers also. The term of subscription remained for a long time rigid, but public opinion changed and relaxed the terms of subscription for lay members. There had not been, and there never would be, any possibility of abuse in regard to the terms of subscription. What was now asked for ministers was a freedom corresponding to that which was granted forty years ago to the Church of England, though not in identical form. English Members did not seem to understand that the Presbyterian principles in Scotland in regard to Establishment were entirely different from the Episcopal principles and the system of fixed formularies which obtained in the Church of England. He did not consider that any precedent they might create in accordance with the principles of the Church of Scotland for their own guidance would really have the slightest effect on any question that might arise in the Church of England. He thought the fears of English Members in regard to the possibility of evil consequences resulting from this liberty were absolutely imaginary. He believed that this form of repealing the Act of 1693 and returning to the great principle of the Act of 1690 was a method for giving to the Church of Scotland the freedom which public opinion in that country demanded and which was most consonant with the history and traditions of that Church.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said he should be sorry to admit that the views which the right hon Gentleman had expressed were a correct or adequate exposition of the attitude of the Scottish Members generally towards this question. In the first place, he took exception to what the right hon. Gentleman had told the House when he said that this Bill in some way changed the constitution of the United Free Church. The constitution of the United Free Church was never questioned before the House of Lords at all except on the question of property. The jurisdiction of the Courts had to do with nothing but the property, and where the House of Lords differed from the contention put forward on behalf of the United Free Church was entirely with reference to its power of dealing with such property. The United Free Church had reaffirmed its own contention with regard to its constitution and it had never departed from that.

MR. PARKER SMITH

It will receive back its property from the Commission on fresh and different trusts.

MR. HALDANE

said the Commission was dealing with property and not touching the constitution of the Church in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that those who supported this clause were in a different attitude of mind on the question of disestablishment in Scotland from those who were opposed to it. He did not think that was so. He had always been of opinion that the principle of establishment in Scotland was one that lent no strength to any Church and he had always been in favour of its removal.; The truth was that the question in Scotland was totally different from the question in England. In Scotland the question of the retention of Church and State was a question of very attenuated relationship indeed. There was very little substance in it, but in England there was great substance in it. The men who went into the Scottish Churches were men of the same training, coming almost from the same houses, and men who looked at things in very much the same fashion. To-day that was peculiarly so. After the great movement known as the Disruption in 1843 there was no doubt that a majority of the most eminent men in Scotland went out and joined the Free Church. They took with them a great deal of the life of the establishment principle, and the result was that for many years there was a real difference of disposition and doctrine between the two Churches. Time had gradually removed that difference, and to-day his had no hesitation in saying that the young Free Churchman and the young Established Churchman were nearing each other very much. That was one reason why he looked upon the proposal of this clause as a step not away from disestablishment but towards disestablishment. In Scotland they were dealing with the question from with in and not attacking it from outside. The young United Free Churchman was free, by Tea son of the struggle through which his Church had gone, in a manner in" which the young Established Churchman was not. The difference separating them on the question of establishment was. getting to be more and more a theological difference. He looked forward to the time when the last shred of that difference would disappear. It was the duty of that House, as interpreting public opinion, to remove obstacles which might prevent those Churches drawing closer and closer together. If they took the generation of young men under thirty-five, containing some of the most distinguished people in the United Free Church, they would find very little opposition to this clause, while among the younger men there was a very strong body of opinion in favour of it. That was why he found himself unable to approach the consideration of the clause in any spirit of hostility, and why, he said frankly, he was in favour of it.

MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)

said that this Bill was in the first place to settle a dispute in regard to property, hut its secondary object was to reform the Scottish Established Church on a thoroughly new basis. The main principle of all the Established Churches was the establishment of a creed, but it appeared to him that the principle of Clause 5 was to establish not a creed hut a set of men—the General Assembly—who had power to make and unmake creeds. What this clause really proposed was to convert the General Assembly into a mild form of Scottish Curia. He did not blame the Government for introducing this Bill and in particular this clause. They had acted according to their principles. The right hon. a ad learned Member for Dumfries had mad3 a very earnest speech in favour of this very clause, and the right hon. Member for East Fife, who had introduced a Bill to disestablish the Welsh Church, had not a single word to say against the development of this very fair form of establishment in the country which he represented. Even the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who spoke with affected passion on the establishment question almost whispered approval of this clause. He had had some connection with hon. Gentlemen opposite on the education question, and he was bound to say that their speeches and their silence and their votes in regard to this Bill boded ill for the reform of the Education Act, should they be returned again to Office.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said that those who did not agree with this clause, yet most heartily agreed with the declaration made by some Scotch Members that such freedom as was conferred by this clause on the Church of Scotland would never be conferred on the Anglican Church of this country. That was a declaration which was gratefully accepted by him and his friends and would be gratefully remembered. But what had puzzled some of them was, what on earth this clause had got to do with the present Bill? They looked upon this Bill rather as benevolent and necessary effort to distribute between the two conflicting Churches in Scotland a certain amount of funds and property, one of which Churches had been declared to be legally entitled and the other not to be entitled to the revenues and the property in dispute. He had looked very diligently into this Bill to discover whether there was any attempt to define the doctrines upon the holding of which these two religious communities should be entitled to the large funds or properties involved in the case. He found no such power contained in the Bill. That seemed to justify the opinion which he, and those who agreed with him, held that the Bill was simply a property Bill for the distribution of the funds and properties between the two conflicting Churches. That might command the sympathy of everybody, but his right hon. friend below him had stated that there was an approximation in ecclesiastical opinion between the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland and the other Presbyterian Churches. Nobody would welcome that tendency more than the Free Churches in this country; but it was impossible for them to stand aside when this very important question was raised and treat it merely as a local question affecting Scotland alone. Supposing that in the next Parliament the question was raised as to the position of the Welsh Church. Would the new doctrine then be accepted that Scotland and England were not to interfere at all with the ecclesiastical position raised by their friends in Wales? There were several Gentlemen opposite, who had been loud in their denunciation of the Nonconformists of England who would be the very first to say that the relation of the Church in Wales with that of the Church of England was a question which vitally affected the English, Scotch, and even Irish Members.

But there was another part of the Bill with which some of them were not satisfied. It seemed to him to denude the parishioners in Scotland from some of the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed, and to confer these rights on an exclusive section of the parishioners. Let him apply that to an English parish. In England the Established Church was at present as much a Department of the State as the Post Office, or the Army or Navy; and the clergymen of that Church had certain duties to perform to the parishioners. They were bound to bury them, to marry them, to preach to them, and there was a place provided nominally for every parishioner in the parish church. But what was proposed by this specific clause was to vary this position of the parish minister', so far as his doctrinal tenets were concerned, in Scotland at the instance of one particular section of the parishioners. He was told that in Scotland the parishioners had a right, totally separate from the particular section to which the Church of Scotland was appropriated, to demand those services; and he thought, in view of the fact that this clause might be quoted as a pre- cedent for any important alteration of the relations of the Church of England with the State, and, particularly in view of the fact that there was a growing section of the Church of England which had been asking for that spiritual freedom without the surrender of the emoluments of the State—he thought it was the duty of those who were opposed to a State Establishment to vote against this clause.

SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcudbrightshire)

said that this was a question in which he himself and his constituents had taken a great deal of interest. He thought that it would have a very great effect in uniting the different Presbyterian denominations in Scotland. These were already almost united in form of doctrine and Church government. This was not a question for the General Assembly itself. From a constitutional point of view the General Assembly had access to the lay mind of Scotland in a very remarkable degree, and he maintained that the lay elders were not likely to be silenced in regard to Biblical criticism or in regard to the interpretation of the standards of the Church. But during the last forty or fifty years all the Presbyterian Churches had made great progress. All had got their sphere of usefulness in Scotland; and he thought that to talk of disestablishment was only to use a political phrase to destroy that usefulness. He believed in the good which had been accomplished by the United Free Church, but the Church of Scotland had also made great progress during the last few years. He hoped that the effect of inserting this clause in the Bill would not be considered as a Parliamentary manoeuvre, but intended, as a set purpose, to promote the union of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, which would promote the cause of religion in Scotland He was sure that the predominant feeling in the minds of the younger generation in Scotland was in favour of such a union. He was aware that a few of those who were accustomed to the old ways might regard the insertion of this clause with disfavour; but he was quite satisfied that, from the opinions of those with whom he had talked, there was a strong opinion in the vast majority of the people of Scotland, that this clause was the best for the Church of Scotland and the whole people of Scotland. Not one amongst the Scottish Members who had spoken wanted to see this Bill wrecked, and everybody knew the unanimous importance attached in Scotland to getting it through with as little delay as possible. He had no doubt that when the Third Beading of the Bill was passed—as he was sure it would be passed—that it would go forth to Scotland that the Scotch Members were, for once, determined to pass a measure which had in its origin the desire to do good to their country.

MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)

said that if this was a question that affected Scotland and Scotland alone, no English Liberal Member in the House would oppose the clause. But the principle struck at the root of the Established Churches of England and Wales as well as Scotland, and therefore they ought to be very careful, in adopting the policy now recommended, to take into account its influence upon the policy of Parliament if it should be demanded to be applied to the Church of England. This was not a question of establishment or disestablishment only, but whether the House should continue to control the trust committed to its charge. When in Committee, the hon. Member for Morley endeavoured to take away from this clause the wider issue, by moving that the formula desired should be subjected for the assent of Parliament. In supporting that he had endeavoured to express sympathy with the generous development of thought within the Church, and at the same time to retain the control of Parliament in this matter. But they must have regard to the deeper issues that arose out of the decision that would be taken on this clause, and whilst they sympathised with the growing feeling of friendship between the several Churches in Scotland, they should not support such development at the expense of justice and equity in dealing with the wider matters for which they were responsible in the other Churches.

MR. BRYCE

said that this was a large question which raised a great many different issues which were regarded from different points of view by various hon. Members. It was too large a question to be discussed on one evening at the close of the session and should have been made the subject of a separate Bill. It had been said that the loss of this clause would wreck the Bill. On the contrary, he believed that dropping this clause would eliminate foreign matter and make its passage easy. The hon. Member for Durham had argued as if this were merely a question of relieving an Established Church from a subscription which was grievous to its members and a burden to their consciences. But that was not the proposal of the clause. The proposal was to empower the General Assembly of the Established Church to prescribe a new formula. That was a totally different thing. It was quite impossible to resist the course of theological development in any Church. Even the Roman Catholic Church had been obliged to resign itself to the development of theological thought. Therefore, let it not be thought that opposition to that proposal was to be attributed to a desire, which he repudiated, to impose a burden on the consciences of Churchmen. The right lion. Member for Haddington supported the clause from a different point of view, thinking that it took a step towards disestablishment. That was not the opinion of the hon. Baronet who had recently spoken, nor of the Lord-Advocate, nor of the First Lord of the Treasury, nor of the General Assembly. He could not support the Bill on either of these grounds put forward with such ability and candour by his right hon. and hon. friend.

This was a Bill which affected the interests of the laity. In every parish the laity had a clergyman who had made the subscription they desired. It was not easy to see what formula could be devised which could completely ease the consciences of all. There was a great deal in the Confession of Faith which many might think was not agreeable to the Word of God, and who might interpret the Word of God in quite a different sense to that in which it was interpreted by those who sat in Westminster two and a-half centuries ago. Therefore he might remind the House that when they talked of relieving consciences they were talking of entering on a task of which it might be easy to see the beginning but not the end, or even the road by which they must travel. That was what this clause would effect. He did not know that it would bring them any nearer to, or any further from, disestablishment, but it would give to the Established Church of Scotland what no Established Church ever had enjoyed in this country and no Established Church enjoyed in any other country—it would give it the power of prescribing its own formula and of determining what purported to be the creed of the nation. The Church of Scotland was established through Parliament because it held the creed of the nation. The Established Church could not have it both ways. They could not have all the freedom for their own Church Courts which the voluntary Churches must have and yet claim the privileges which an Established Church enjoyed. The Lord-Advocate had spoken of giving a fair platform to the different Churches. Such language would be fitting from the lips of a disestablisher. The Established Church of Scotland enjoyed property, State assistance, and patronage, which the other Churches did not, and to talk of a fair platform for the different Churches was simply to suggest the disestablishment of the State Church. This clause would denationalise the Church, and to hand it over to the General Assembly would be to destroy its claim to be the national Church of Scotland. The proper way to relieve the clergy would have been to bring in a Bill similar to the English Act of 1865, giving the General Assembly power to submit amendments to Parliament. But he protested against this hasty device for introducing a momentous change when it could not be fully considered.

MR. LLOYD - GEORGE

said that complaint had been made that hon. Members who were not Scotch and who were not Presbyterians had interfered in a question of Presbyterian doctrine. If that was to be the doctrine all round, well and good, but he might point out that there was a Scotchman and a Scotch Presbyterian, in the person of the Prime Minister, who was rather interfering with the people of England and Wales. This after all, was not a Scotch question. That was the peculiar position of the clause, that although this was in a Scotch Bill it was a great deal more important to England and Wales than it was to Scotland. If this was a Scotch Parliament he quite agreed that it would be out of place to interfere with a Scotch measure, but this Parliament represented the whole of the United Kingdom, and once they subscribed to this clause they would be bound not only so far as Scotland was concerned but also as regarded England and Wales. Upon the previous occasion when the Bill was discussed, the Prime Minister laid it down that he did not consider that this Bill could be used as a precedent for dealing with the Church in England and Wales. Declarations of that kind were wanted in the country, because they could not be sure that the Prime Minister would not at some time or other, under pressure of the extreme clerical Party in the House, incorporate this clause in an Act for England and Wales.

This was not an imaginary danger, because at this moment it was being suggested to the Commission on Church Disorders that the identical remedy of this Bill should be adopted. The question was not whether these gentlemen had to subscribe to all the statements made by Moses, but whether it was a national Church, and whether the machinery of the nation should not be brought to bear upon formulas of that character. It was all very well to say that it was a national Church when they wanted tithe, but that the moment a favour was wanted it had ceased to be a national Church and was Presbyterian. If a Church were maintained as a national Church for the sake of privilege and patronage, it must be a national Church also in respect of the control of Parliament. They could not have it both ways. The Government were treating this Church as a sect for the purposes o1: its formulas but not as a sect for the purposes of its endowments. It was said that this was done in the name of freedom. If Churches were to be progressive, they must pay the price of progress. Let them give back to the nation the emoluments and endowments that came from the State connection if they wished to be free of State control. An agitation had already begun in the Church of England against this "narrow theology," of which hon. Members had spoken. Presently the Athanasian Creed would be attacked, and let the First Lord of the Treasury remember this, that if the Athanasian Creed was attacked the whole moral basis of retaliation would be gone. As a member of the national Church he claimed to have a voice in determining the meaning of the Athanasian Creed. The object of this agitation was not to get rid of rusty creeds, but to give more power to the clergy, to free them from lay control, and to shed the Protestant character of the Church.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

regretted that this olause had been introduced into the Bill and thought it would have been of better augury if the Church of Scotland had not consented to take advantage of this opportunity to raise a question which of itself was well worthy of consideration. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had unintentionally misrepresented the point of view from which Scotch Members regarded the interposition of English Members in these debates. All they asked was that English and Welsh Members should judge of the questions at issue by Scotch standards. Nobody complained in the least of the interposition of English or Welsh Members, particularly Nonconformists, as it was well known what they had in mind. They apprehended that the position and doctrines of the Church of England might be affected by this clause. Personally lie did not see how the treatment of this particular Scotch question could be regarded as having any bearing whatever on the Church of England.

Hon. Members spoke of the establishment, and the relation between Church. and State. What was the relation between Church and State in Scotland? In England appointments from the Archbishop of Canterbury down to the vicar or rector of a parish were made by the Crown or the lay patron. That was the strongest form of connection between Church and State. But in Scotland there was not a solitary person in the Church in whose appointment the Crown had so much as a whisper. In England the doctrine of the Church might come up for adjudication before the King in Council, and the decisions of the Privy Council were binding on both laity and clergy. In Scotland nothing of the kind obtained. There was no supervision or control by the temporal Courts over spiritual doctrine. There was control over property, but that obtained in regard to every Church, established or disestablished. Wherever a trust was created the Courts were bound to administer that trust, and if the trust depended upon doctrinal considerations the Court was bound to take note of doctrine. There was no analogy between the General Assembly and Convocation. The General Assembly consisted of ministers and laity, and it controlled both. Convocation ever since a statute of Henry VIII. had been unable to bind the laity under any circumstances, and he doubted whether anything they did could bind themselves. No fresh canon could be made by Convocation, nor could one even be recommended without the express licence of the Crown. On the other hand, when the General Assembly met, the Lord High Commissioner, appointed by the Crown, made an address. The debates were carried on under the presidency of the moderator; everything was done by him, and no power of any sort whatever rested with the Lord High Commissioner. Indeed, the Church of Scotland had never recognised that the Lord High Commissioner of the Crown had the right even to fix the date on which the General Assembly should meet. That was the sum total of the connection with the State; whether it was worth while to maintain it he would not now discuss.

He was in favour of disestablishment, because he believed in absolutely unquestioned freedom in all matters of this kind. What was the origin of its being called an Established Church? Between 1682 and 1688 approximately there was a great persecution in Scotland, and the statutes of 1690 and 1693 were passed for the purpose of binding the State to the Church, to assure the people that Episcopacy would not be forced upon the Church of Scotland, as was intended in the reign of James II., and those statutes were recognised under the Act of Union in 1707. The connection between Church and State was the slenderest imaginable, and it was impossible for anyone who had regard to the history of the country to suppose that what might be done in connection with the Church of Scotland would afford any precedent in regard to the Church of England. It was perfectly right, fair, and legitimate that English Nonconformists should wish to assure themselves on the point, but it was impossible to suppose that out of such circumstances as now existed there could arise a precedent which could be used for the Romanising of the Church of England. Historical considerations should dispel any such alarm. As he had said, however,

he regretted the inclusion of the clause as it raised controversies which might have been avoided, and he should not support it, but he could not say that the fears expressed by hon. Members had been sustained by the debate, or any cause shown for their entertaining them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he had refrained from speaking, not from any want of respect to the House, but because the matter had been discussed on a previous occasion. The question had now been fully debated, and he appealed to the House to come to a decision.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes,157. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte I	Butcher, John George	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Buxton, N.E. (York, NR, Whitby	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A. (Glasgow	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Allhusen, AugustusHenryAden	Campbell, J.H.M. (DublinUniv.	Duke, Henry Edward
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Carlile, William Walter	Dunn, Sir William
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Amold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.	Cautley, Henry Strothei	Elibank, Master of
Arrol, Sir William	Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.),
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Faber, George Denison (York)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)	Fellowes, RtHnAilwynEdward
Bagot, Capt.- Josceline FitzRoy	Chamberlain, RtHnJA. (Worc.)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith),
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Chance, Frederick William	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Baird, John George Alexander	Chapman, Edward	Finlay, Rt Hn SirRB. (Inv'm'ss
Balcarres, Lord	Coates, Edward Feetham	Fisher, William Hayes
Baldwin, Alfred	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose-
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Coddington, Sir William	Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Flower, Sir Ernest
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Forster, Henry William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Gardner, Ernest
Beach, Rt. Hn. SirMichaelHicks	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North),	Garfit, William
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.	Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Crombie, John William	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Bigwood, James	Crossley Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets
Bingham, Lord	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Dalkeith, Earl of	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bousfield, William Robert	Davenport, William Bromley	Graham, Henry Robert
Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)	Denny, Colonel	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Brassey, Albert	Denny, Colonel	Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Grenfell, William Henry
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Gretton, John
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)	Dickson, Charles Scott	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Brymer, William Ernest	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hambro, Charles Eric
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Dorington, Rt. Hon. SirJohn E.	Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Doughty, Sir George	Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'ndeiry
Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th	Maxwell, Rt. Hn RirHE. fWigt'n	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW	Milvain, Thomas	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Heaton, John Henniker	Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew)
Haider, Sir Augustus	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)	Mantagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)	Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks.
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hill, Henry Staveley	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose	Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Morpeth, Viscount	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Hoult, Joseph	Morrell, George Herbert	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)
Houston, Robert Paterson	Morrison, James Archibald	Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart)
Howard, John(Kent, Faversham	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Stroyan, John
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv)
Hunt, Rowland	Myers, William Henry	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.	Nicholson, William Graham	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)	Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)	Tuff, Charles
Keswick, William	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Kimber, Sir Henry	Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington	Ure, Alexander
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Peel, HmWrn. Robert Wellesley	Walkei, CoL William Hall
Lamont, Norman	Percy, Earl	Wallace, Robert
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Pierpoint, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Dawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE. (Taunton)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pretyman, Ernest George	Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. INotte.)
Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Liddell, Henry	Puryis, Robert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Rankin, Sir James	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Ratcliff, R. F.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.	Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)	Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol. N.)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. B.)
Lowe, Francis William	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Wison, John (Glasgow)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Renwick, George	Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)
Lueas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Ridley, S. Forde	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Macdona, John dimming	Robinson, Brooke	Wylie, Alexander
Maclver, David (Liverpool)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Maconochie, A. W.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
MTver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.	Round, Rt. Hon. James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Malcolm, Ian	Rutherford, John (Lancashire).	and Viscount Valentia.
Marks, Harry Hananel	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Clancy, John Joseph	Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Allen, Charles P.	Cogan, Denis J.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Ambrose, Robert	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Crean, Eugene	Farrell, James Patrick
Atherley-Jones, L.	Cremer, William Randal	Ffrench, Peter
Baker, Joseph Allen	Cullinan, J.	Field, William
Barlow, John Emmott	Dalziel, James Henry	Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Boland, John	Delany, William	Flynn, James Christopher
Brigg, John	Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Fuller, J. M. F.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Furness, Sir Christopher
Burt, Thomas	Dillon, John	Gilhooly, James
Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar	Donelan, Captain A.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn
Caldwell, James	Doogan, P. C.	Goddard, Daniel Ford
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Duffy, William J.	Grant, Corrie
Channing, Francis Allston	Duncan, J. Hastings	Griffith, Ellis J.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Edwards, Frank	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Hammond, John	Mooney, John J.	Shackleton, David James
Harcourt, Lewis	Moss, Samuel	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil	Moulton, John Fletcher	Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)
Harrington, Timothy	Muldoon, John	Sheehy, David
Harwood, George	Murnaghan, George	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hayden, John Patrick	Murphy, John	Snclair, John (Forfarshire)
Helme, Norval Watson	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Slack, John Bamford
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid	Soares, Ernest J.
Higham, John Sharp	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants
Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Sullivan, Donal
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan E.
Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea	O'Dowd, John	Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower
Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Toulmin, George
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Malley, William	Tully, Jasper
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W	O'Mara, James	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Kilbride, Denis	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.
Kitson, Sir James	O'Shee, James John	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Langley, Batty	Paulton, James Mellor	Warner, Thomas C'ourtenay)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Perks, Robert William	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Layland-Barratt, Francis	Philipps, John Wynford	White Luke (York, E. R.)
Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington	Power, Patrick Joseph	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Price, Robert John	Whiteley, George (York, W. R)
Levy, Maurice	Reddy, M.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lloyd-George, David	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lundon, W.	Richards, Thomas	Wood, James
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rickett, J. Compton	Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf d
MaeVeagh, Jeremiah	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Yoxall, James Henry
M'Fadden, Edward	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Roche, John (Galway, East)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
M'Kenna, Reginald	Russell, T. W.	Mr. George White and Mr
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles.	Henry J. Wilson.
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, H.)	Schwann, Charles E.

MR. BRYCE

said he desired to move the Amendment which stood in his name. He felt bound to submit the question again to the House. He noticed that on the last occasion this Amendment was supported by a considerable majority of Scotch Members. He objected to the part of the clause which he proposed to leave out because it was not necessary, and it put the professors of Scotch Universities in a worse position than they stood in at the present moment. He was not raising this question because the Government proposed to alter the present conditions and put the professors under a burden which they were not now subjected to. The professors now had Parliament to appeal to, hut under this Bill they would have to appeal to an ecclesiastical body. The proposal in this clause was distasteful to the professors, and the General Assembly had never expressed any desire to have this power over the professors. With regard to the persons who should be entitled to sit on the board which nominated these professors, he suggested to the House that it was perfectly possible to deal with that question in a way which would be satisfactory to public opinion in Scotland and to this House. If it was essential to alter the appointing body and bring in clerical representatives, all that was necessary might be done in one or two ways. It could be done by altering the ordinance of the University. He thought it was a tenable view that the ordinance might be altered in that form. The other way would be to bring in a Bill which would empower the Privy Council to create such a board, or which would create such a board directly. The Government knew perfectly well that a Bill of that kind would be passed without any controversy, and that no difficulty would arise. The Government, having in 1889 empowered a Commission to deal with this question, became morally bound to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. He believed that an immense body of opinion in Scotland was in favour of freeing the professors from tests. That could be done with perfect ease. The Government ought either to omit this part of the clause or give an undertaking that they would at the earliest possible moment endeavour to remedy this injustice and carry out the recommendations fo the Commission. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word 'established' to the word 'shall' in line 12.'"—(Mr. Bryce.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 313)

AYES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Heath, SirJames(Staffords. NW
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.	Heaton, John Henniker
Allhusen, AngustusHenryEden	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Helder, Sir Augustus
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hill, Henry Staveley
Arrol, Sir William	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Hoare, Sir Samuel
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Davenport, William Bromley-	Hoult, Joseph
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.	Denny, Colonel	Houston, Robert Paterson
Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy	Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Howard, John(Kent, Faversham
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Dickson, Charles Scott	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir JosephC.	Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil
Baird, John George Alexander	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Balcarres, Lord	Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.	Hunt, Rowland
Baldwin, Alfred	Doughty, Sir George	Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Jessel, CaptainHerbert Merton
Balfour, Capt. C, B. (Hornsey)	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohnH.
Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW. (Leed)	Duke, Henry Edward	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.)	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Keswick, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.	Kimber, Sir Henry
Banner, John S Harmood-	Faber, George Denison (York)	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Beach, Rt. HnSirMichaelHicks	Fellows, Rt. Hn. AilwynEdward	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Finlay, RtHnSirRB. (Inv'rn'ss)	Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham.
Bigwood, James	Fisher, William Hayes	Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)
Bingham, Lord	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Llewllyn, Evan Henry
Bousfield, William Robert	Flower, Sir Ernest	Long, Col. CharlesW. (Evesham
Brassey, Albert	Forster, Henry William	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Gardner, Ernest	Lowe, Francis William
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)	Garfit, William	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Brymer, William Ernest	Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick	Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth
Butcher, John George	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow	Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rHamlets	Macdona, John Cumming.
Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Maclver, David (Liverpool)
Carlile, William Walter	Goschen, Hon. George Joacbim	Maconochie, A. W.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cautley, Henry Strother	Graham, Henry Robert	M'lver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Malcolm, Ian
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Grenfell, William Henry	Marks, Harry Hananel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Gretton, John	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc.)	Greville, Hon. Roland	Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton	Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Melville, Beresfoid Valentine
Chapman, Edward	Hambro, Charles Eric	Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton
Coates, Edward Feetham	Hamilton, RtHnLordG, (Middx	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nd'rry	Milvain, Thomas
Coddington, Sir William	Hardy, Laurence (KentAshford	Mitchell, William (Burnley)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley	Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow
Morpeth, Viscount	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Morrell, George Herbert	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Thornton, Percy M.
Morrison, James Archibald	Robinson, Brooke	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye	Tuff, Charles
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Round, Rt. Hon. James	Walker, Col. William Hall
Myers, William Henry	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.
Nicholson, William Graham	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury	Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse	Welby, SirCharlesG. E. (Notts.)
Parkes, Ebenezer	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles	Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne
Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Percy, Earl	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Pierpoint, Robert	Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew)	Wills, Sir Frederick; (Bristol. N.)
Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Sloan, Thomas Henry	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside	Wilson-Todd, SirW. H. (Yorks.)
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, Rt. HnJParker(Lanarks	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Purvis, Robert	Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Ratcliff, R. F.	Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset	Wylie, Alexander
Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, James (Greenock)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Remnant, James Farquharson	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Renwick, George	Stroyan, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ridley, S. Forde	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (OxfdUniv).	and Viscount Valentia.
NOES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Doogan, P. C.	Jacoby, James Alfred
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	JonesDavidBrynmor(Swansea
Allen, Charles P.	Duffy, William J.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Ambrose, Robert	Duncan, J. Hastings	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Dunn, Sir William	Jordan, Jeremiah
Atherley-Jones, L.	Edwards, Frank	Kearley, Hudson E.
Baker, Joseph Allen	Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw'sBghs)	Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W
Barlow John Emmott	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kilbride, Denis
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	Kitson, Sir James
Black, Alexander William	Esmonde, Thomas Sir	Lamont, Norman
Boland, John	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Langley, Batty
Brigg, John	Farrell, James Patrick	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Layland- Barratt, Francis
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Ffrench, Peter	Leese, S r Joseph F. (Accrington
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Field, William	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Burke, E. Haviland-	Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE	Levy, Maurice
Burt, Thomas	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lloyd-George, David
Buxton, N. E. (York, NRWhitby	Flynn, James Christopher	Lundon, W.
Buxton, SydneyCharles(Poplar	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	MacNeill, John GordonSwift
Caldwell, James	Fuller, J. M. F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Furness, Sir Christopher	M'Fadden, Edward
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Gilhooly, James	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Chance, Frederick William	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Clancy, John Joseph	Grant, Corrie	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Cogan, Denis J.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Mooney, John J.
Crean, Eugene	Hammond, John	Morley, RtHon. John(Montrose
Cremer, William Randal	Harcourt, Lewis	Muldoon, John
Crombie, John William	Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)	Murnaghan, George
Cullinan, J.	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Murphy, John
Dalziel, James Henry	Harrington, Timothy	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Hayden, John Patrick	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Delany, William	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid
Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway	Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.	O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dillon John	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

O'Dowd, John	Russell, T. W.	Wallace, Robert
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds, S.
O'Malley, William	Shackleton, David James	Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.
O'Mara, James	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)	Whte, George (Norfolk)
O'Shee, James John	Sheehy, David	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Perks, Robert William	Shipman, Dr. John 6.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Philipps, John Wynford	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Slack, John Bamford	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Price, Robert John	Soares, Ernest J.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Reddy, M.	Spencer, Rt. HnCR. (Northants)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Reddy, M.	Stanhope, Hon. Philip James	Wood, James
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Straehey, Sir Edward	Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersfd.
Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Richards, Thomas	Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomas, JA(Glamorgan, Gower	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Toulmin, George	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Tully, Jasper	Mr. Causton.
Rocho, John (Galway, East)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 21, after the word 'and,' to insert the words 'unless the context. otherwise requires.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 1, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'supplementing congregational contributions towards the.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 2, line 13, to leave out 'the words' General Church, 'and insert the words' these or similar.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 1, line 15, 'after the word Act,' to insert the words 'and for itinerant preachers.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 1, line 16, to leave out paragraph (b), line 16 to end, and insert the words '(5) General purposes of administration; and management.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 1, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'of the church, including expenses.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'provision for itinerant preachers,' and insert the words 'management of the Free Church.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the. Bill— In page 6, column 2, line 23, to leave out the words 'for teachers.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 2, line 23, to leave out the word 'training.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, column 2, line 24, at end to insert the words 'or given.'"—(The Lord-Advocate.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SCOTT-DICKSON

I ask the House to consent to the Third Reading of the Bill being now taken.