The Lord Chancellorsaid, he held in his hand a Petition from the Synod of Glasgow; and he had also a great many other Petitions very numerously signed by many of his Majesty's subjects in the northern part of the kingdom, all relating to one subject—the question of Church Patronage—a subject, indeed, upon which much discussion had of late taken place. He ought not to say, that parties were divided upon it, for all were of opinion that it was a matter which ought to be brought to a speedy determination. The late proceedings in the General Assembly had done more, he was inclined to believe, towards facilitating the adoption of a measure on that subject, to set at rest a question which had been long under consideration, than any other circumstance that had recently taken place—he meant the important resolution which had been passed and promulgated. [The noble and learned Lord here presented the Petition, as well as forty-six others, from various parts of Scotland, all of a similar character, adopting the general principle recommended by the General Assembly, though they might differ in the mode of carrying it into effect.] It was impossible for him to close the remarks which he felt it to be his duty to offer on the present occasion, without calling the attention of his noble friend at the head of the Government to the subject, and without also earnestly beseeching their Lord- 364 ships to carry into effect the recommendation of the General Assembly. He also thought it his duty to call the attention of the House and Government to the condition in which Scotland stood with respect to its want of Church accommodation. In England the deficiency, in this respect, had been in a great degree supplied; but such was not the case, he regretted to say, in Scotland. The population of Scotland had increased so rapidly of late years, particularly in the large manufacturing districts, that parties wishing to become members of a religious community could not be admitted (on account of the want of accommodation) in the parish churches; and if he added to that the accommodation of the chapels of ease that were here and there scattered over the country—and if he also added to these the chapels of dissenting congregations, he meant the seceders (and he might here say that the seceders were dissenters rather from the form than the doctrines of the Church), there was still a great deficiency of accommodation. Taking in the whole amount of accommodation in relation to the number of people, it was vastly inferior to that which existed in England. For instance, he would take the city of Glasgow, selecting it as being a tolerably fair criterion of the truth of his assertion. He would, in the first place, take it as an admission, that there ought to be accommodation in places of religious worship for one half of a population. In a population of 200,000 (Glasgow, he believed, was 195,000) there ought to be seats for about half that number; but in Glasgow there was a deficiency of accommodation of 33,000, the whole amount of accommodation in that city being only about 60,000; and that, too, including all the accommodation furnished by the churches, by the chapels of ease, by the seceders, including the Anabaptists, and the Roman Catholics; and of the latter body there was a large number, there being many Irish resident there; nevertheless the accommodation furnished by all the churches, chapels of ease, Dissenters, and Roman Catholics, left a deficiency, such as he had described, of seats for 33,000 persons who could not be accommodated in places of religious worship. This was about one-third of the half of the population of that city who could not be provided for. He would now take the case of fifty-nine principal towns and 365 cities, but he would, in round numbers, call it sixty; the population of which amounted to 940,000, and the half of which was 470,000, who ought to be accommodated with seats in places of worship. Instead of that, however, there was accommodation only for 170,000, leaving a deficiency of 295,000, say 300,000. Now, their Lordships would perceive that the case of Glasgow was not so bad as other parts of the country, for there the deficiency was not so great as the average of these sixty towns and cities. Their Lordships saw, therefore, how necessary it was, that something should be done. The want of accommodation in England, though grievous, was not so grievous as that of Scotland. Their Lordships need not be told that, a sum of money which had been received some years ago on account of the Austrian loan, and which had been most aptly designated by a noble friend whom he did not then see in his place (the Earl of Ripon) a "God-send," had been very properly appropriated to building churches; but he (the Lord Chancellor) was at a loss to know why Scotland did not partake of this "God-send." Scotland had as much right as this country, having contributed her portion of the original sum, to a portion being applied to the same praiseworthy object as had been applied in England, viz., the erection of churches. To what extent his Majesty's Ministers might accede to the prayer of the General Assembly, it was not for him to say. He would proceed to the statement of a single fact, showing the necessity of attending to render better accommodation for public worship, as it bore upon the education, and, consequently, upon the morals of the people. The inhabitants of the district of Paisley, consisting of 31,000 persons, had a deficiency of church accommodation, more in proportion than the average to which he had called their Lordships' attention. The melancholy result of this was, that the average of scholars attending schools in that district was only about one-thirteenth or one-fourteenth, whilst in other parts of the country the average was one-seventh or one-eighth; making a falling-off of nearly one-half. This he considered to be a very strong fact illustrative of the necessity of interference to supply the deficiency. He thought it his bounden duty, in stating these facts, to call the attention of his noble friend opposite to the subject, 366 in the hope that his noble friend would endeavour to supply the deficiency of which he had complained.
§ The Earl of Harrowbywas not aware until now that no share of that money called a "God-send" had gone towards furnishing Church accommodation in Scotland. He had understood, that manses for the ministers, and churches had been built to a considerable extent in that country; but be had also understood, that in England Church accommodation was more deficient than in Scotland, until he heard the reverse from the noble and learned Lord's knowledge on the subject.
The Lord Chancellorintimated that he spoke from information which he had received, and not from his own personal knowledge.
§ The Earl of Harrowbythought, however, from the noble and learned Lord's statement, that the deficiency in England was quite as large as that of Scotland; for out of a population of 940,000 there was only a deficiency of 340,000.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to point out an inaccuracy which the noble Earl had fallen into. What he stated was, that of a population of 940,000 (the half of which he assumed to be all that was requisite to find accommodation for), that was to say, out of a population of 470,000 there was only an average accommodation of 130,000, thus leaving a deficiency of 340,000; so that the deficiency was much greater than the noble Earl apprehended.
§ Viscount Melbourneregretted the circumstance of the deficiency in Church accommodation, and admitted that the subject was one of great importance, and added, that undoubtedly it was essential that some assistance should be afforded to obviate the evil.
The Duke of Hamiltonexpressed gratification on hearing from the noble Viscount, that his Majesty's Government was disposed to afford that facility to Divine worship which was so much needed in Scotland.