§ Mr. MAXTON:I beg to. move, in page 12, line 41, to leave out from the word "thenceforth" to the end of line 43, and to insert instead thereof the words:
cease and determine, but subject always to the following provisoes:This is a most important Clause, because it decides what the general public 1717 of Great Britain have to pay for the maintenance of the Established Church of Scotland, which is attending to the spiritual welfare of only a negligible majority of the people of Scotland. The defence for continuing these payments which has been made previously in this House and in the Standing Committee, is that the sums proposed to be paid under this Clause have always been paid for considerable periods. They are detailed on page 25 in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill. At least, certain of them are. In the Clause, however, these are the words used:
- (a) In the case of payments made under Sub-sections (1), (21, and (6) of the, Seventh Schedule, the payment shall continue as heretofore until the occurrence of a vacancy in the church and parish in respect of which it is made, but shall cease as from the date of such vacancy and shall be no longer payable, and no minister who shall be elected and appointed to fill the said vacancy shall be entitled to any payment from these sources:
- (b) In the case of payments made under Sub-section (5) of the Seventh Schedule the payments shall continue so long as the precentors and ministers occupy their present respective offices and charges, but shall in each case thereafter cease, and their successors in office shall not he entitled to any payment from this source."
The charges and payments described in the Seventh Schedule to this Act and any other payments—The "other payments" are not specified, but presumably there may be some others which are not detailed. In the Seventh Schedule we have a fair number detailed. There are six all told, and it is proposed, as the Clause stands, to continue the payment of these amounts indefinitely for the future, or, alternatively, under the Clause, for the Treasury to commute them into one capital payment. It is very questionable whether any of these payments out of the Consolidated Fund was ever justifiable in the past. It is questionable whether they were justifiable at the time of their institution, when the Church of Scotland was the Church of Scotland and dealt with the spiritual and theological affairs of a big proportion of the people of Scotland. Certainly nowadays, when the people attached to the Established Church of Scotland are a minority even of those who believe in the Presbyterian faith, and when all the Episcopalians in Scotland, without considering the huge mass in the kingdom, all the Roman Catholics, and the, Baptists, and the Wesleyans, and the Free Thinkers, and the Jews, who are a considerable portion—the Polish people—and that very considerable and increasing section of the Scottish population who find their real ethical influence in attendance at the meetings organised under Socialist auspices—when all these are considered, it is very questionable whether nowadays it is a fair thing to come to the British House of Commons and ask the whole of the English people, the Welsh people, and the whole of the Scottish people, to pay sums annually or to commute those annual sums into a lump-sum payment, for the maintenance 1718 of a religious faith under particular forms and methods of Church government which at the very best are accepted and believed in only by a minority of the Scottish people, and are accepted in any enthusiastic spirit only by a minority of that minorityOur proposal is not a proposal to abolish these payments altogether, but merely a proposal to safeguard the public purse. We say that these payments have been made, that certain persons' interests are involved in the payment of these moneys out of the Consolidated Fund; that there are salaries of certain clergymen involved, the wages of certain lay workers about certain churches involved; and that it is, perhaps, a reasonable thing that. this House and the British Treasury should say, "Well, these people during their lifetime have been used to receiving these payments and it might inflict considerable hardship on individuals if the House of Commons decided to cease these payments now." But it would not be unreasonable for this House to say, "These sums have been paid in the past and there are certain living people who are getting their livelihood from the payments in the present. We will continue the payment during the lifetime of existing holders, but when the existing persons drawing these sums are gone, the payments should cease," so that the burden on the. Treasury of Great Britain would be a steadily diminishing one year by year. The original reason for the payments has long since gone nut of existence. Even the Lord Advocate would not attempt to defend them now.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEYes, every one of them.
§ Mr. MAXTONSurely not? I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to defend
the annual payment under Royal Warrant to the Minister of Dunkeld and Dowally of an amount. fixed by reference to Fiare Prices chargeable and payable as aforesaid?What justification is there fat picking out Dunkeld from all the parishes of Scotland and giving it special direct payment out of the Consolidated Fund? I have had a steadily increasing admiration for the Lord Advocate's forensic capacity in the Committee upstairs, and I hope that the future is going to add to it; and if he is going to get up and 1719 defend that payment, I would have to start again at the bottom and work upwards in my admiration of him. I shall go through the various points item by item and make a strong appeal to the serried ranks of episcopalians who have gathered for this discussion to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers of Great Britain. I want them to remember that all these things are a tax upon industry. Every additional payment here conies out of industry. I see the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) present, and I know that on this matter he has very strong feeling. If British industry is to be able to maintain itself among the other industrial nations, every unnecessary burden must be removed from the shoulders of British industry. I urge that this is imposing an unnecessary burden on industry, if you begin payment for something for which you have no right to pay, for something which is of no value to the community as a whole. If it were of some value spiritually, I would be prepared to give it my heartiest support, but it has no value commercially, or ethically, or spiritually, or educationally, or in any other wayIn the old days the Church of Scotland did have some interest in the educational welfare of the people. It has not now; the education authorities look after education. It has no interest in the care of the poor; the parish councils look after them. For the Employment Exchanges and other bodies the Church has no responsibility. Then there is the registration of births, marriages and deaths. Again a public official, a registrar, looks after that. work. There is only one thing that the Church is prepared to look after now, and that is the spiritual welfare of the people of Scotland: and I have indicated hare. and all the Scottish Members know, that the Church does not look after a very big proportion of the people of Scotland so far as their spiritual interests are concerned. And that section which it does look after it does not look after well. Yet we are asked to make continued payments from the British Treasury to this Church which has gradually got rid of all its functions and is now attending to a very much smaller number of people. We are asked to continue a payment to look after the spiritual interests of a minority of 1720 the people of Scotland in the parishes of Dunkeld and Dowally. I know where Dunkeld is, but I never heard of Dowally until I saw it mentioned in the Schedule. I do not know that the people of Dowally will be prejudiced spiritually among all the other people of Scotland, and I certainly do not want them to be placed in any favoured position. I would like to hear, in answer to an English heckler, say, in Bermondsey, a Conservative Member of this House justify his vote of this money to maintain the spiritual welfare of the people of Dowally parish.
There is another point that arises. There are six payments mentioned in the Schedule. One of them is—
The annual sum of twelve thousand pounds on account of augmentations of stipends chargeable on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, under the Teinds Act, 1810, and the Teinds Act, 1824.There we have specific reference to specific Acts which have established this principle of the minimum wage for Scottish Established Church clergymen. Every one knows that I am strongly in favour of the principle of the minimum wage, either for manual workers or for so-called brain workers. I am absolutely in favour of the principle. This payment was established under the Teinds Act, 1810, and the Teinds Act, 1824. But the position now is entirely different, and £12,000 goes no distance among the total amount required to bring all the clergymen of the poorest parishes of Scotland up to what one considers a decent standard of living; other sums have to be paid out of the general fund of the Church of Scotland in the hands of the General Trustees after the passing of this Bill. There is no special reason why this £12,000 should be paid for these purposes, or why the Church, out of the very handsome sum they are to get under the general Clauses of this Bill, out of the advantages they are gaining by having a fluctuating grain stipend turned on to a good solid gold standard basis, and by the advantages of economy that they expect to get through the union of the two great Presbyterian Churches, which we are told—although there is no evidence in support of it anywhere—is the necessary consequences of the passing of this Bill—there is no reason why the Church should not be able to get on very well.1721 I do not know about it. I have examined the columns of the "Missionary Record," the official organ of the United Free Church of Scotland, to which I am a regular subscriber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "]—the official organ, I mean, not the Church. I have examined every issue of that "Missionary Record" during the period that this Bill has been before this House, and I have seen no reference in any page of it, either to the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, or to the question of Church union. I have questioned very closely the visitor of my particular congregation, who intrudes herself periodically into my domestic circle on behalf of the United. Free Church of Scotland, as to the steps taken in this particular congregation—in which I have a certain intellectual interest. I have tried to discover what steps have been taken, so as to find out the wishes and the views of the congregation in reference either to this Bill before the House, or the question of union, and she has assured me that, so far as she, a very intelligent and average member of the Scottish Presbyterian Church knows, there has never been any meeting of that congregation, big or little, public or private. to consider the question of Church union or of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, and the provisions of it.
I am making these points for the benefit of the members of the Church of England in this House, who are not particularly interested in the matter, but have been persuaded by the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench here that the people of Scotland are enthusiastic and shouting and demanding this Bill, and also Church union. We say that there is no public opinion for it at all in Scotland. There are one or two very clever Church dignitaries who, I may say, have a political capacity that is on as high a level as their theological capacity, who have steadily impressed upon the Members of this House that the Church of Scotland is wanting it, and they trying to impress that upon the Church of Scotland also—that the Church of Scotland is wanting it. Up to now they have not. succeeded in impressing either this House, or the Church of Scotland that either want it.
When I speak of the Church, I mean the big mass of the ordinary people who 1722 go from Sunday to Sunday and put their pennies and halfpennies into the plate. They do not want this Bill at. all. Yet we are asked to pay out of the Consolidated Fund—that is, the people of England and Wales are asked to pay—£12,000 to them under the Teinds Act of 1810 and the Teinds Act of 1824 payments, perhaps justified in those days in view of the various social activities that the Church of Scotland carried on, but which are to-day absolutely unjustied because they have got rid of a huge proportion of their social responsibilities, and they are only dealing with the minority of the people. But this is a- good Clause compared with some of the others in the Schedule because it has some legal justification. The Lord Advocate was able to cite the Teinds Acts of 1810 and 1824 and to put forward that this was quite legal and constitutional, and that everything was all right there. But take paragraph (2). It reads:
(2)The annual sum of £5,040 on account of stipends chargeable and payable as aforesaid under the Act 5, George IV, chapter 90.The date of George IV is, unfortunately, not given, but I know that there has been a considerable time intervening between the present monarch and the time of George IV; therefore, I consider that a sufficient period of time hat elapsed since that sum of £5,000 was put into the hands of the Church of Scotland. There was some justification, perhaps, in the time of George IV. There is absolutely none now. There is no reason why the people of Britain should be asked for that payment out of the Consolidated Fund when, in view of taxation, there are so many other necessary, useful, and urgent directions in which it could go. These are the first of the two paragraphs. I think the right hon. Gentleman has arranged his Schedule with great skill in placing the first and the second amongst certain items of the Schedule as the only two that have any legal support at all—the only two about which he can site Statutes to support them. We come to the third paragraph. It reads:(3) The annual sum of £2,000 chargeable and payable as aforesaid to the General Assembly for itinerant preachers.What is the justification for that? Where is the Statute of George IV, or Elizabeth, or anybody else that justifies this 1723 thing? The fact is that it is not justified. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really pleaded that there is no justification for it, except use and wont for a number of years. I have wandered through Scotland from the Mull of Galloway to John o' Groats and_ I have never run into one of these itinerant preachers. I have run into many street corner agitators, but I have never run into one of the itinerant preachers, "carrying neither purse nor script and saluting no man by the way." I have seen the Salvation Army at it, and the Plymouth Brethren at it, but I have never seen one of these others wandering round pursuing their propaganda. We are asking the people of England, the simple, kindly, well disposed people of Great Britain, to contribute in this way some of their hard earned money—I am speaking of the people outside—for the maintenance of this body of itinerant preachers. It calls up the picture of the Franciscans, one of those friars with bare or sandalled feet, clothed in sackcloth, and with ashes on his head—and with paunches —the sort of thing that, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir Henry Craik) is thinking about. The itinerant preachers transport him into his wit political atmosphere—the Middle Ages But do not let us be too hard on the itinerant preachers, because they arc not there. So far as any ordinary casual traveller can observe, the itinerant preachers do riot exist, or only exist in paragraph (3) of the Seventh Schedule of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill. Our Amendment does not propose to abolish this. If there are those in Scotland who want this sort of thing, we say, Well and good," let the payment be continued to the itinerant preachers for the course of their natural life, but when they die nobody else ought to step in to the enjoyment of this £2,000. That is a reasonable and intelligent proposetion. If we refuse to continue to pay this £2,000, we might inflict a hardship on some itinerant preacher at present unknown. If you say, "No, we are prepared to allow the continuance of the payment if there happens to be one preacher alive," and who is undoubtedly having a hard life if he is there, and at 1724 the same time you safeguard the interests of those who are paying, you safeguard his interest and at the same time you safeguard the interest of the public purse. I am hastening to a conclusion, because I know an honourable understanding has been entered into as to the time that is to be taken for the various stages of this Bill, and I do not want to take an unreasonable share of that time; but this is an important Bill where the British House of Commons has some definite contract, and ought to have some thing to say on the question of expenditure. Take the fourth paragraph:(4)The annual sum of £1,100 chargeable and payable as aforesaid towards the expenses of the General Assembly.No reference there to the origin or the method or of the existence of that payment. Take the fifth paragraph:(5)The annual sum of £86 3s. Id. land revenue allowances, chargeable and payable as aforesaid to certain precentors and ministers.Everybody who has been in the habit of exercising control over bodies of work people, either in the public service or in private service, knows that it is a most unfair thing to make fish of one and flesh of the other. It does not make for efficient work or for harmony. It does not make for good feeling on the part of either employed or employer. Why there should be this annual sum of £86 3s. ld. land revenue allowances "chargeable and payable as aforesaid to certain precentors and ministers "I do not know. Look at the sum: "£86 3s. ld. for certain precentors and ministers." We should like information upon this. What are the total number of individuals concerned here How many of them are ministers and how many precentors? In what. proportion is the £86 3s. 1d. divided amongst them?. Is it fairly and justly divided to the precentors as compared to the ministers. I do not know. I have not the remotest notion who are the favoured precentors and ministers—if any—who are getting this £86 3s. ld. There are no dates in the Schedule or in any part of the Bill which enable us to trace them clown to their lair where they luxuriate on this £86 3s. Id. Then we come to the sixth paragraph to which I referred at the beginning:(6)The annual payment under Royal Warrant to the minister of Dunkeld and 1725 Dowally of an amount fixed by reference to Fiars Prices, chargeable and payable as aforesaid.We are left absolutely in the dark as to what monarch issued that Royal Warrant. There may be a considerable sum of money. The Treasury may exercise the option that it has in Sub-section (2) of Clause 19 which reads:The Treasury may at any time contract for the redemption of it'll or any of the payments referred to in the preceding Subsection by payment to the General Trustees of such capital sum or sums as may be agreed between the Treasury and tile General Trustees.We are passing to-day the control of this Measure right out of our hands. It is left to a business deal between the Treasury and the General Trustees, who decide what the capital payment is to be that is to arrange for the redemption of these annual charges. First of all, then, there is a legal statutory justification, and the reason for a change is that legal statutory basis is furnished by the changing times and changing attitude of the people of Scotland. The justification for payments out of the public purse has now gone. Out of six items two are only on the basis of a definitely traced date where there was a definite enactment. The other four cannot put forward a basis of justification for that at all. In these later four cases there is no justification now, whatever there may have been at the time these payments were first introduced into the House of Commons as a contract, to give to the Treasury and the General Trustees either the right to consider these annual payments in perpetuity or to commute them for a capital lump sum, which will be handed over to the Church of Scotland without any further check from this House of Commons, so that the Church can do absolutely anything it pleases, either keep them to their original purposes or change them to come other purpose, as I understand it. It seems to me it would he a misuse of a public trust if we allowed that to go through without Amendment. The Amendment put down in the name of myself and several other hon. Members is not intended to wipe out provision for the existing claims under this Clause. It merely says, that if we are to continue paying these sums we should pay them only for the lifetime of the present beneficiaries, and that if they are to be commuted for a capital 1726 sum, which is going to be paid by the nation, it should be calculated not on the basis that these arc perpetual charges but are life charges in respect of existing individuals. That is a reasonable proposition, and I move it in the hope that this House, which has other interests to safeguard than those of Scottish Presbyterians, will pass it on its merits. By so doing, it will effect a great economy in public expenditure without doing any injustice whatever to the Established Church of Scotland.
§ Mr. STEPHENI beg to second the Amendment.
I am sorry that in this House we have not been able to secure the rejection of this Bill altogether. The Lord Advocate has stated that there was a majority in this House in support of the principles of this Measure and of all that is contained in it. He claimed that that was proof that if a plebisite were taken of the people of Scotland it would be seen that Scotland was in favour of this Measure. I think that if one had taken the opinion of the Scottish Members in the last House of Commons one would have had as good an indication with regard to this Measure as is afforded by the opinion of the majority of the Scottish Members in this House. He would not suggest, for example, that this Bill incorporates the Zinovieff letter which secured the return of the majority of Conservative Scottish Members to this House. He suggested, also, that the Church of Scotland is holding its various properties in trust for the people of Scotland, and that it was going to continue. to hold these Exchequer grants in trust for the people of Scotland; but when they were given to the Established Church of Scotland they were given to it because it stood in a certain definite position as compared with all the other Churches in Scotland at that time, because it was an instrument specially related to the State, and, also, because it stood for a certain body of doctrine and for a certain system of Government. But as a result of this Measure the Established Church of Scotland, which was endowed with this property, will be put in a different position altogether. With regard to those Exchequer grants, those, for instance, under the Teinds Act of 1810, and the Teinds Act of 1824, the disruption took place after those grants had been made to the Church of Scotland, and 1727 one of the reasons that brought about this disruption, which led to a big part of the people of Scotland leaving the State Church, was the fact that they were not prepared to accept the position entailed by connection with the State. The Church of those days, which hung on to those endowments, which was rewarded with those endowments, is now going to walk away with them all, and it will be in an entirely new position, a position of privilege as compared with other religious bodies in Scotland. Because the United Free Church of Scotland, with which the Church of Scotland proposes to unite, has certain definite views with regard to State connection and State endowment, there is included in this Measure a way of getting away with the booty, and yet the suggestion is made that the State is going to have no connection with or holding over the Church in connection with this money, which is public money
If the Church of Scotland wants to unite with the United Free Church of Scotland, it should have been prepared to pay the price. The United Free Church of Scotland had to pay its price for its freedom; when the Free Church \vent out at the disruption, when the United Presbyerian Church, when the Belief Church came into being, they purchased their freedom with a great sum; and the Church of Scotland should also have been willing to pay the necessary price. Provision is made here for the redemption of those grants, and afterwards the House of Commons will have a very loose connection with the Church of Scotland, and little opportunities of seeing that the Church of Scotland carries out the purpose for which those moneys were given.
I know it may be argued that these payments out of the Consolidated Fund represent property which really belongs to the Church of Scotland. I am informed that the first item is for payments representing the Bishops' teinds; and the Presbyterian Church, which believes that episcopacy is contrary to the Scriptures, is getting Bishops' teinds payments! The Amendment we have put forward is a very reasonable Amendment, it is a reasonable price to ask the Church of Scotland to pay in order to be able to consummate this union, and at the came time it will give a certain measure of justice to people in Scotland 1728 who are not going into this union, to people of other sects. Whether a man be a Baptist, or a Congregationalist, or a Roman Catholic, or a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church, he is entitled to look to the House of Commons to give him justice, to give him equality with the people of the Presbyterian denomination.
I know that the majority of the Scottish people have been inclined to take the Presbyterian view-point with regard to the government of their own church, have been inclined to support the point of view that is laid down in their doctrines, so generally held by Presbyterians throughout the world. At the same time, there have been other Scotsmen who have taken the Baptist view, or the Congregationalist view, and they arc just as much entitled to have their views respected by the State as the bigger number of people who take the Presbyterian view. While I would be delighted to see union between those two great Scottish Churches, I do not believe they are going to get it right away by continuing an injustice to the people of other denominations. Therefore, I support this Amendment, and would say to the Lord Advocate that I do not think he is acting fairly in handing all this over to his own Church, and that he has not paid sufficient attention to the view of the respectable number of people of other denominations who are protesting against this public money being given to one denomination.
§ Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELSI am not able wholly to support the Amendment. I have on the Paper an Amendment proposing that these payments, unless otherwise determined, should terminate at the end of 40 years. I had hoped to have a Division on my Amendment, but I understand the more heroic one has been preferred; therefore I do not propose to delay the House very long with comments on my Amendment. I would like to say, with regard to the amusing and interesting speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), that I think he is quite wrong in his view of the attitude of the Scottish people towards church union. I am quite satisfied that the great majority of the people of Scotland, not only in the Established Church, but also in the United Free Church and in the other denominations not immediately 1729 affected by the union, are anxious for this union; are, indeed, very tired of the long-drawn-out negotiations for union, which have disgusted most of the Scottish people. They have blamed the leaders of the churches for incompetence and inefficiency in not being able sooner to bring about what has appeared to them to be a simple proposition. The Church of Scotland has been hampered by reason of its State connection, and this Bill has been brought forward to remove some of those obstacles. For that reason I have given general support to the Bill, but I have always made an exception of this Clause 19, which, it seems to me, is rather unfortunate. There can be no blinking the fact that the State connection is definitely maintained by Clause 19. I am aware that it is the intention of the Treasury and the hope of the Church that these payments should be redeemed. But, as I have already pointed out in Committee, we all know that Governments and Government Departments are very uncertain, and we have no assurance that this redemption will take place. The Lord Advocate, in commenting on my opposition upstairs, pointed out that if redemption took place immediately, the adoption of my Amendment would not cost the Church a penny and therefore he went even further than I suggested. He also pointed out that if redemption did not take place at once or very soon, there would be a serious financial loss to the Church as time went on. That is exactly one of the reasons why I put down the Amendment, because if there was that prospect of financial loss pressure might be applied which would result in this redemption taking place.
When final negotiations for union are entered upon, as I think they will be very soon, the argument of those opposed to union will be the State connection and the fact that the Church is a permanent annuitant of the State. I wish for Church union, and therefore I desire that, if redemption does not take place, the supporters of Church union can point to a lime when these payments will finally cease. The Lord Advocate seemed to view, not with alarm, but with some complacency, the fact that there would be minorities against union in each of the two churches. He seemed 1730 to think that this was an act of Providence arising from the peculiarly thrawn and theologically argumentative character of his fellow countrymen. That may be so! We are a peculiar people! I have no desire however that these minorities should be any larger than is absolutely necessary. We do not want a recurrence of what happened a few years ago, and we want these minorities to be as small as possible, and I wish to deprive them of any substance or solid measure of justice in their opposition to Church union.
For these reasons I would urge upon the Government that they should, even at this hour, reconsider the matter. The Lord Advocate pointed out that, if the Church in the course of time found that these charges were an obstacle to union, they might consider modifying their claim. I would point out that it is a very different thing modifying opposition once it has been aroused than it is preventing it. It is more important to prevent opposition arising than to come afterwards and say there is opposition to union on account of these charges, and therefore we will withdraw our claim. That would be an unfortunate and undignified thing to do, and I think we should intelligently view the future and make provision for such a contingency. For these reasons, if the Government do not see their way to accept what I have suggested, I shall feel it my duty as regards this Clause to oppose the Government and support the Amendment which has been moved.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEThe hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. Maxton) spoke of the contents of the Seventh Schedule as if he had never heard of them before and had never had any explanation of them before, and as if he had never taken a detailed interest in any of them before. I would like to point out that in the Debate on the Financial Resolution of this Bill I fully explained historically the reference to every one of these payments, and I remember that I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. Therefore, I think I may suggest to him that his memory on this matter is very short.
§ Mr. MAXTONI am not questioning the right Eon Gentleman's statement that we have had the fullest explanation given 1731 to us, but what I do say is that the explanation left the matter exactly where it was before the explanation was given.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEAll I wish to say is that all these payments have been traced back in Debate and the documentary origin given in each case.
§ Mr. MAXTONNot in the Bill.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEThese payments stand at the present moment as a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and they are to be found stated in the usual accounts. The hon. Member for Bridgeton suggested that they had never been explained.
§ Mr. MAXTONNo, no.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI do not propose to go through these charges in detail again. There is a remarkable difference of opinion as to the true aspect in which these rights or obligations or payments should be looked at. Historically 1 take the view that they were payments, in fact undoubtedly they were all payments existing prior to the Consolidated Fund, and some of them were charged on the hereditary revenues of Scotland prior to the beginning of last century, and earlier in the case of several of them, which can be traced to grants made by the Scottish Crown. Take the example mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I will take the sixth item in the Seventh Schedule as an excellent illustration. The payments made to the minister of Dunkeld and Dowally originated in 1604 under a grant from the Crown because they held property in a sense belonging to the Church. That was the origin of this annual payment. I know there was litigation subsequently, but there was a special reason for giving this payment to the minister of Dunkeld and Dowally. This payment originated in 1604
§ Mr. BARRWe need not go into the history, but I think the beginning of the Episcopacy was before the beginning of that century.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEWe need not go into that history, but I think the origin of this payment is a good instance of a payment to a particular minister in a particular parish, and it would be very interesting to know what the result 1732 would be if it were put to the members of the Congregational Church in Scot. land whether payments of that kind which had been paid for centuries were to be taken away as a necessary part of union. It would be interesting to know, but I think a large majority would vote for their retention. I should have thought that some hon. Members opposite would have at least been reluctant to relieve any English Members in their constituency from any liability, especially when it was a payment which originated as a charge on Scottish hereditary revenues. The hon. Member for Bridgeton made some reference to the itinerant preachers, but I think he must have been singularly unfortunate if he has not met itinerant preachers in the Highlands, because they are doing their work very well, and under this Amendment apparently that stops at once.
I would like to say just a word or two as to the alternative proposal to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) has referred. The hon. Member proposed his Amendment upstairs, and I can only repeat here what I said in appreciation of his attitude towards the Bill and the aim he had in proposing that Amendment. I may be more optimistic than he is. I am speaking with a very considerable knowledge of the negotiations between the two Churches for some years past, and I am more optimistic than he is as to whether the continuation of these payments, in view of their origin, is likely to have any appreciable effect on the negotiations for union. Of course, under certain circumstances, they can be given up. The proposal made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, unless there was immediate redemption, in which case it made no difference, would only result in serious loss to the Church, because the liability in negotiating for redemption 20 years hence would only secure a sum which very naturally the Church could not possibly accept. On the main Amendment upon which we are going to divide, the issue is quite clear between us in regard to payments which have been made all this time. Are you going to regard them as mere taxation on the Consolidated Fund, ignoring their historical origin, or are you going to regard them, as I ask you to do, as part 1733 of the heritage of the Church, which I again repeat she has held in trust for the people of Scotland. For these reasons I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the Bill"
§ The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 126.
1735| Division No. 97.] | AYES. | [6.0 p.m |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir Jamas T. | Davidson, Ma|or-General Sir J. H. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) | Hutchison, G.A.Clark(M!d!'n &P'bl's) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | lirffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Dawson, Sir Philip | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jacob, A. E. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Doyle, Sir N. Grattan | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Bainiel, Lord | Drewe, C. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M | Duckworth, John | Jephcott, A,R. |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Kidd, J. (Llnlithgow) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Edmondson, Major A. J | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Ellis, R. G. | Lamb, J. Q |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Elveden, Viscount | Lane-Fox, Colonel George R |
| Berry, Sir George | Ersklne, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Locker-Lampson, G.(Wood Green) |
| Bethell, A. | Ersklne, James Malcolm Montelth | Loder, J. de V. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Everard, W. Lindsay | Looker, Herbert William |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lougher, L. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Falls, Sir Charles F. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Brass, Captain W. | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Fermoy, Lord | Lumley, L. R. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve | Fielden, E. B. | Lynn, Sir Robert J. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A.L. | MacAndrew, Charles Glen |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Fleming, D. P. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Ford, P. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Forestler-Walker, L. | Macdonald, R.(Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Forrest, W. | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Broun-Llndsay, Major H. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Maclntyre, Ian |
| Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | McLean, Major A. |
| Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Fraser, Captain lan | Macmilian, Captain H. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Bull, Rt Hon. Sir William James | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | MacRobert, Alexander M. |
| Burgoyne, Lieut-Colonel Sir Alan | Goff, Sir Park | Maklns, Brigadier-General E. |
| Burman, J. B. | Gower, Sir Robert | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com.Charles D. | Grace, John | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Burton, Colonel H. W, | Grant, J. A. | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gretton, Colonel John | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Meiler, R. J. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.b.) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane(Streatham) |
| Cazalet. Captain Victor A. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Harland, A. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Charterls, Brigadier-General J. | Hartington, Marquess of | Murchlson, C. K. |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Harvey, G.(Lambeth, Kennlngton) | Nail, Lieut-Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Christie, J. A. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Haslam, Henry C. | Neville, R. J. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hawke, John Anthony | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Cohen, Major J Brunei | Hennessy, Major J.R.G. | Oakley, T. |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hennlker-Hughan, Vlce-Adm. Sir A. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Cope, Major William | Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Couper, J. B. | Hilton, Cecil | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fltzroy | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cralg, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome) |
| Cralg, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Holland, Sir Arthur | Philipson, Mabel |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Holt, Capt. H. P | Plelou, D. P |
| Crook, C. W | Homan, C. W. J | Pilcher, G |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Hopkins, J. W. W | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Preston, William |
| Crookshank, Cpt H.(Llndsey, Galnsbro) | Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Raine, W. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | joynson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n) | Ramsden, E. |
| Dalkelth, Earl of | Hume, Sir G. H. | Rawson, Alfred Cooper |
| Rees, Sir Beddoe | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Smithers, Waldron | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Rentoul, G. S. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Watson, Sir F.(Pudsey and Otley) |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Rice, Sir Frederick | Spender Clay, ColonelH | Wells, S. R. |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (WilI'sden, E.) | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple |
| Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Ropner, Major L. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Rye, F. G | Strickland, Sir Gerald | Wise, Sir Fredrlc |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stuart, Crlchton-, Lord C. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Styles, Captain H. Walter | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Frase | Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon) |
| Sandon, Lord | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gastave D | Tasker, Major R. Inlgo | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Savery, S. S. | Templeton, W. P. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Scott, Sir Leslie (Ltverp'l, Exchange) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Tryun, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | TELLERS FORTHE AYES.— |
| Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Waddington, R. | Colonel Gibbs and Mr. F. C. |
| Skelton. A. N. | Wallace, Captain D.E. | Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hirst, G. H. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Slesser, Sir Henry H. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld) | Smilile, Robert |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston) | Johnston, Thomas(Dundee) | smith, H. B. Lees-(Kelghley) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlllery) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Smith. Rennle (Penistone) |
| Barnes, A. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Barr, J. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd) | Spoor, Rt, Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Batey, Joseph | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T.W. |
| Briant, Frank | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Broad, F. A. | Lansbury, George | Sutton, J. E. |
| Bromfleld, William | Lawson, John James | Taylor, R. A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Lee, F. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cape, Thomas | Livingstone, A. M. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Clowes, S. | Lowth, T. | Thornton, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lunn, William | Thorne, G.R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow) |
| Compton, Joseph | Mackinder, W. | Thurtle, E. |
| Connolly, M. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cove, W. G. | March. s. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Maxton, James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Vlant, S. P. |
| Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Montague, Frederick | Wallhead. Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Morris, R. H. | Warne, G. H. |
| Dennison, R. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Watson, W. M.(Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Murnln, H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Oliver, George Harold | Webb, Rt, Hon. Sidney |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Owen, Major G | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Palin, John Henry | Westwood, J. |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | Whiteley, W. |
| Greenall, T. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Potts, John S. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Groves, T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben | Williams. T.(York, Don Valley) |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Ritson, J. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Windsor, Walter |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scrymgeour, E. | Wright, W. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Sort, Alfred (Wednesbury) | TELLERSFOR THE NOES.— |
| Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Mr. Hardie and Mr. Klrkwood |