ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.

HL Deb 09 May 1871 vol 206 cc454-60

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

asked, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session a measure dealing with the law of Ecclesiastical Patronage in Scotland? After referring to the numerous Petitions on the subject that had been presented that evening, the noble Earl said he thought it was hardly necessary to go at length into this question of patronage in Scotland. Patronage had been twice abolished in Scotland, and again by a solemn declaration in the Act of Union, although that declaration was afterwards revoked by a Jacobite job. The Church of Scotland had suffered materially in consequence. There had been several secessions; and even within the present century one-fourth of the people of Scotland and one-third of the ministers had seceded from the Established Church on this very point. The Church of Scotland considered lay patronage to be a great grievance, because it was alien to the very spirit of her existence: and it was a great grievance at the present moment, because many patrons were not members of the Established Church. Although the pressure of business might prevent the Government from dealing with the subject this Session, yet he was encouraged to hope that on some future occasion—perhaps next Session — the Government would be able to take it up. The Crown had set a good example in this respect. It was the patron of 319 livings, and he had reason to believe that in all those cases the selection of the ministers was in the hands of the heritors and the communicants. One of the Petitions which had been presented that evening came from Queensferry, and that place would afford to their Lordships a good example of the evils inflicted on the Church of Scotland by the present law of patronage. The patrons of Queensferry were the town council, nine in number, of whom seven were Dissenters. A vacancy taking place last year, the communicants presented two Petitions, praying that they might be allowed to appoint their own minister. The town councillors, however, refused to allow the petitioners a voice in the matter, but presented a Mr. Thomson—a gentleman who contested the Kilmarnock Burghs at the last General Election. He knew nothing else of Mr. Thomson, except that he was at present drawing large audiences to his lectures in the principal towns in Scotland; and that he described himself as a person endowed with remarkable wit, eloquence, and pathos. He did not say that there was sufficient cause for objection against Mr. Thomson; but he believed that had St. Chrysostom been appointed in this manner he would have had an equally unfavourable reception, and this appointment had created great ill-feeling. This matter might be thought an unimportant one, because Queensferry was not a large town, but the question affected the general body of the Scotch nation, and the case exemplified the evils of the law of patronage and of its arbitrary exercise.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

said, he believed the Queensferry case would be settled next week, and that Mr. Thomson would probably leave Queensferry for ever. The question of lay patronage in Scotland lay deeper than might be supposed from the speech of the noble Earl—it was a social question originating in the fact that nearly the whole of the nobility and landed gentry of Scotland had "seceded from" the Church which the majority of the people maintained. There were very few of the landed proprietors who were members of the Presbyterian Church—he (the Marquess of Huntly) was not himself—and the people of Scotland did not like the idea of their ministers being appointed by persons who did not hold the same faith as themselves; and this was natural enough. The question could not be considered in the light of a party question. It was well put by Mr. Gordon, the Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities, in a speech made by him in the General Assembly in 1870. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said— I support abolition of patronage because I consider that it is expedient in the interests of the Church and the religion of Scotland that it should be abolished, and that the appointment of ministers should be vested substantially in the people belonging to the several Churches. Instead of that being the case, at present the patrons, if they did not exercise the right themselves, entrusted it to their factors—a great Scotch bugbear. The passing of the Benefices Act of 1843 did not introduce a very improved state of things. It had produced nothing but disputes and litigation; and it was the opinion of an eminent minister of the Church of Scotland, who wished for the abolition of patronage, that a return to Queen Anne's Act, and patronage pure and simple, would be an improvement on the present state of the law. There was another grievance. By Queen Anne's Act, Roman Catholics were excluded from presenting ministers to livings in the Church of Scotland. But Lord Aberdeen's Benefices Act had repealed that proviso—and now Roman Catholic patrons could present to livings in Scot- land, while they could not do so in England. Why should the Presbyterians of Scotland be compelled to receive into their churches ministers selected by Roman Catholics? Two years ago, a numerous and influential deputation waited on the Prime Minister and presented to him a numerously signed petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the abolition of lay patronage. The Prime Minister said to them— Supposing I abolish patronage, what shall I do with the Free Churchmen? By the arrangement of 1842, they are entitled to some consideration. If patronage be abolished, I cannot see how we can refuse to divide the value of the patronage with the Free Church. I should like to know your opinion on this point. The deputation was staggered—they had no immediate reply to give. But the Prime Minister seemed to have laboured under some misconception with regard to the causes which led to the secession of the Free Churchmen in 1843. They left the Established Church simply because of their love for independence, and their repugnance to having their religious affairs subject to the powers of civil laws. A good deal had been said from time to time about voluntaryism. Now, that leader of the Free Churchmen, Dr. Chalmers, was satisfied that voluntaryism in religion was not a thing that should be encouraged by the friends of the Church. If voluntaryism were allowed to grow unchecked, it was feared that heathenism would extend itself, and that Christianity would be seriously impaired. All the people of Scotland wanted was to get the power of nominating and electing their own clergy, and he could not understand on what grounds of justice or policy the power was withheld from them. He thought there was a general feeling that the affairs of Scotland did not receive from the Imperial Parliament the attention their importance deserved. There were very few Members of their Lordships' House who knew much of Scotland, and its wants, and the complaint held good with regard to the Members of the other House. The consequence was that many questions of great importance to Scotland were allowed to be passed over. He earnestly hoped that an intimation would be given that the Government would introduce a Bill for the abolition of patronage.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he would not now go into the question of the abolition of patronage in Scotland, because no doubt an opportunity of discussing the matter would be afforded. He must, however, protest against the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly), that it was the practice for Scotch proprietors to hand over all the patronage to their factors, and for the latter to appoint to the Church any gentleman they thought fit. There might be one or two instances in which that had been done; but he ventured to state, without fear of contradiction, that such was not the practice of the proprietors of Scotland taken as a body. As to the complaint of the noble Marquess as to Imperial legislation, he (the Duke of Richmond) did not think the interests of Scotland were neglected in Parliament; and in this House there would soon be brought forward that measure of education which the Scotch were regarding so anxiously. He could answer for himself, and those who sat on that side of the House, that they would not shrink from taking their part in that debate, and expressing their views upon the measure which would then be brought forward.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he was afraid he must answer the Question of the noble Lord behind him at once in the negative, for reasons which, he thought, he would find fully explained if he read The Times of that morning. The Government had already performed, at an earlier period of the Session than usual, that operation which was called "the Massacre of the Innocents," including in that doom, however, some measures which many noble Lords might think not innocent. With regard to the question of lay patronage in Scotland, his two noble Friends were perfectly aware of his own individual opinion. About this time last year he thought it his duty to intimate that opinion to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He informed the General Assembly that though he was one of the largest holders of patronage in Scotland, he was willing to act in the sense of the resolution to which they had come. He trusted that when this question did come before their Lordships, they would remember that patronage stood in a very different position in Scotland from that which it occupied in England. In Scotland, ever since the Reformation, there had been no absolute patronage. During the whole of this period, by the law of the Church, and during a great portion of it by the law of the State, the communicants and parishioners had an almost coequal right with the patron in the appointment of the ministers. At all times they had been largely consulted, and at no time had it been possible, without serious danger to the interests of the Church, for the patron to exercise an arbitrary choice, as he could have done in England. It was perfectly true that at the Union, when a solemn engagement was entered into by Parliament to undertake that nothing should be done to affect injuriously the interests of the Established Church, lay patronage did not exist, ministers were appointed by the heritors—that was, by the proprietors of the land—and by the parishioners jointly. And that was one of the conditions of the Church Established which the Act of Union was intended most sacredly to defend. It was also perfectly true that the subsequent Act of Queen Anne, passed in 1712, was introduced against the protest of the whole Established Church of Scotland, and against the wishes of all who were interested in the maintenance of that Establishment. He believed there was a deliberate intention on the part of those who introduced it to injure that Establishment, and bring about a change in the Established Church. These were historical facts, and he believed his noble Friend had stated them with perfect fairness. As to existing facts, he did not believe that patronage was arbitrarily exercised. He agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that patrons in Scotland did not generally leave the appointment of ministers to their factors, but considered it as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people. He was bound, however, to say, as a matter of historical fact, that lay patronage had been the one and sole cause of all the subsequent disruptions and secessions in the Established Church of Scotland. It was the cause of the disruptions of last century, and of that later and most melancholy disruption which he regarded as a reproach to Parliament and to the great Government of Sir Robert Peel. It affected the Church of Scotland very injuriously; but until a very late period there had been no clearly expressed opinion with regard to it on the part of the authorities of the Established Church who remained therein after the secession. He was bound to say now, in consequence of the votes which had been taken in two successive meetings of the General Assembly, and the very powerful expression of opinion which had been brought before their Lordships in the numerous Petitions that he had presented during the present Session of Parliament, that he was now thoroughly convinced that it would be necessary to deal with that question whether it was taken up by the Government or not. It was perfectly impossible for the Government to undertake it in the present Session of Parliament. His own opinion was that, although legal patronage in Scotland could never be abolished without some compensation being given to those who held it, it was in that country considered a sacred trust for the benefit of the people and of the Church; and whenever it was proved, as he thought it was, that it was acting injuriously upon the interests of the Church, then he thought it ought to be abandoned; and, for himself, he would be ashamed to accept one single farthing in compensation.