Lords Sitting of 17 June 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Children's Employment in Dangerous Performances * (162).
Second Reading — Admission to Benefices and Churchwardenships, &c. * (153); Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders (139); Local Government Provisional Orders (Nos. 2, 3, and 4) * (135, 142, 143).
Report —Sites for Places of Religious worship (159).
Third Reading—Municipal Corporations Evidence * (129); Railways Provisional Certificate* (111), and passed.

SITES FOR PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL—(No. 159.)
(The Lord Romilly.)

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
THE EARL OF POWISdesired to point out that an Amendment, introduced by Lord Cairns into the first clause, would have the effect of preventing anyone granting a site for a parsonage, unless as part of a grant for the site of a church. There might be a district furnished with a chapel-of-ease, which it would be desirable to erect into an independent parish, but no landowner could there make a grant for a parsonage, the grant of the church site having been already made.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the alteration would not have the effect the noble Earl supposed. At the same time he admitted the desirability of empowering gifts of sites for parsonages only, and would accept any Amendment which the noble Earl might propose at the next stage for that purpose.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKhoped the noble and learned Lord would himself frame the Amendment suggested.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—PATRONAGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIErose to call the attention of their Lordships to the Law of Patronage in the Church of Scotland. He assured their Lordships that it was with some reluctance that he submitted to them the Resolution of which he had given Notice, but the post which he had had the honour of holding during the last two years of Her Majesty's High Commissioner presiding over the meetings of the General Assembly, had given him the opportunity of ascertaining the feelings and wishes, not only of the clergy, but also of the laity of the established Church of Scotland on the subject of patronage. When he found that an hon. Member of the House of Commons (Sir Robert Anstruther) had given Notice of a Motion on the subject, he (the Earl of Airlie) thought it might be well if their Lordships, who were fully competent to discuss a question of that kind, should

  1033
  also have the opportunity of debating it. There was one convenience in eliciting an expression of opinion from their Lordships on the subject, because in this House the interests of patronage were largely represented. He supposed there was in that House scarcely a noble Lord connected with Scotland who had not the patronage of one or more livings, and some Members had in their gift a large number of benefices. The subject was so closely interwoven with the ecclesiastical history of Scotland that it would be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships at some length; but he would state his case as briefly as possible, and he would only touch upon what appeared to him to be the salient points. About 40 years ago this question of patronage, having lain dormant a considerable time, began to attract the attention of Parliament, and in 1834 a Committee was appointed by the other House to inquire into the subject. That Committee was composed of the unusually large number of 40 Members. amongst whom were such eminent men as Sir George Grey and the late Sir Robert Peel. In their Report, which they laid on the Table at the end of the Session, they did not make any specific recommendation—and he believed they did not ask to sit again—but they had taken a large and valuable body of evidence. The very first witness examined was Mr. Dunlop, a member of the Scotch Bar, who afterwards sat for many years in the other House of Parliament. He gave a very interesting and clear statement of the state of things as regarded patronage before the Reformation. He said:—
  "The parochial churches of Scotland were prior to the Reformation, divided into two classes. The one class was of "patronate churches," which were subject to the patronage either of the King or of private laymen, or of Bishops or ecclesiastical bodies, such as abbacies, priories, and chapters. The ministers of such patron-ate churches were presented by those patrons, and enjoyed the right to the tithes of the benefice as proper rectors or parsons. The rest of the parochial chinches had, prior to the Reformation, been conveyed absolutely by the patrons to bishops, to abbacies, and to the different ecclesiastical communities, and annexed thereto, whereby they became what was termed patrimonial, The Bishop or ecclesiastical establishment to which they were thus conveyed drew the whole tithes of the benefice, and stood in the place of the parson or rector, while the cure was served by a substitute appointed by the Bishop or ecclesiastical community, or sometimes
  1034
  merely by a member of such community. The appointment of these stipendiary substitutes was not a civil right of patronage, but an ecclesiastical right of nominating a substitute to perform the duty of these charges whereof the Bishop or ecclesiastical community hold the proper title of parson. As to these patrimonial churches, consequently the patronage no longer existed, and there could be no room for its exercise, because the parochial benefice never became vacant, being always filled, either by the Bishop, as attached to his Bishopric, or by the ecclesiastical community—an undying corporation. The right of patronage therefore of all these annexed or patrimonial churches was in fact sunk, and the right of the original patron entirely relinquished."
  In support of this position Mr. Dunlop quoted Lord Stair, whom he termed the highest authority on the subject. The whole number of parochial benefices at the time of the Reformation was about 940, of which only 262, or between one-third and one-fourth of the whole number, were in the gift of patrons. This distinction was of some importance, because of the legislation which followed thereupon. An Act was passed in 1567, which provided "that the examination and admission of Ministers within this realm be only in the power of the Kirk now openly and publicly professed within the samin." Subject to reservation, the presentation of the kirk patronage always reverted to the just and ancient patrons. But by the first Book of Discipline, which constituted the law of the Church (1560), each congregation was to elect its own minister, subject to examination by the Presbytery. In 1581 this mode of appointment appeared to have been reversed, and the presentation was made by the Presbytery, subject to the assent of the congregation. On the accession of James VI. to the Crown of Scotland, he began to erect those prelacies which were not bishoprics into temporal lordships, and he conferred on the "lords of erection" as they were called, the patronage of the livings which were annexed to those prelacies. In 1591, to put a stop to these proceedings an Act was passed which declared all such erections, with certain specified exceptions, to be null and void. Notwithstanding the Act, and in spite of the remonstrance of the kirk, the erection of those lordships went on. When he came to the throne of England under the title of James he took a further step, and in 1606, when he attempted and partially succeeded in forcing episcopacy on Scot-

  1035
  land, and in restoring the prerogatives of the Bishops, he gave back to the Bishops the rights of presentation which had been taken from them. Charles I. endeavoured to continue the policy of his father, but he was not successful. He became involved in difficulties with both his English and Scotch subjects—their Lordships would remember the picturesque relation by Sir Walter Scott of the story of Jenny Geddes. He was sorry to say that the latest historians of Scotland threw much doubt on the story, and though not denying the old lady's existence, described her, not as a staunch Presbyterian, but as a red-hot Papist—but in 1638, when Presbyterianism was again established, the appointment of ministers to livings was placed on the same footing as it had been prior to 1606—that was to say, Presbyteries were substituted in the place of Bishops as to the appointment of ministers to bishopric churches on the suit and calling of the congregation. In 1642, when Charles I. found himself in great difficulties with his Parliament, and when he was ready to promise almost anything to the Presbyterians in order to conciliate the Scotch, he agreed that as to the churches under His Majesty, as patron, the Presbytery, with the consent of the congregation, should tender a list of three candidates, of whom His Majesty was to choose one; and he further agreed that as to the highland parishes of Scotland they should present only one person—that was, the Presbytery and the congregation should in fact appoint to the living. In 1649 an Act was passed which abolished the right of patrons to present, and vested the right of election in the people and the Presbytery. By these successive Acts, taken together, patronage might be said to have been entirely abolished. At the Restoration all the Acts from 1640 downwards were repealed, and the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters was declared; and in 1662 all the ministers who had been appointed since 1640 were ejected. He (the Earl of Airlie) had now traced the course of events with perhaps somewhat tedious minuteness, because he wished to show that this question of patronage was one which had long engaged the attention of the Scotch people, as well as of their clergy; that the controversy about it was not trifling or superficial, but one whose
  1036
  roots lay deep, and because he wished to show also that from a very early period the strength of patronage had varied with the strength of Presbyterianism; that when Presbyterian principles were triumphant, patronage was in abeyance; and that when, on the other hand, the power of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters prevailed, patronage revived. If they marked what followed, their Lordships would not fail to perceive the same close connection between patronage and the power of the law in ecclesiastical affairs. At the Revolution, William III. declared his intention of placing the affairs of the Kirk of Scotland on a footing which should be satisfactory to the people; and immediately on the Convention of 1689 being turned into a Parliament, Prelacy was abolished, the Acts declaratory of the King's supremacy in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical were repealed by an Act of 1690, and the provisions of the Act of 1592, whereby Presbyteries were bound to appoint any minister who might be presented by the King or by a lay patron, were repealed. Patronage was regulated by a subsequent Act of 1690, and the right of presenting was given to the elders along with the heritors of the parish, being Protestants. They were to present a person to the congregation, who were to approve or disapprove, and the whole matter was then to be referred to the Presbytery, who were to decide. The patron was to receive all teinds to which no one else could show an heritable title, and a payment of 600 merks in lieu of the right of presenting, and on obtaining this sum he was bound to execute a renunciation of his right in favour of the parish. Patronage was restored by the Act of Queen Anne. The Act of 1712 passed through the House of Commons almost before anything was known about it in Scotland, and before any effectual steps could be taken; but a strong remonstrance was sent up by certain ministers, and afterwards adopted by the General Assembly. In that remonstrance it was stated that the Act was in violation of the Treaty of Union, by which the constitution of the Kirk was secured. For many years—up to about 1780, he believed—the Assembly continued to protest and remonstrate. The Act was so unpopular that for many years it was hardly ever put in force.

  1037
  When patrons began to avail themselves of their strict legal rights a very large secession took place, caused in a great measure, though not entirely, by the exercise of patronage. Among the many distinguished Scotchmen who considered that the Act of Queen Anne violated the Treaty of Union were Sir David Dalrymple, Solicitor General, and Lord President Dundas, both of them Commissioners for the Treaty of Union. That opinion had been held by many eminent Scotchmen, amongst whom he might mention Dr. Begg, one of the most distinguished leaders of the Free Church. He, in a pamphlet recently published, stated that—
  "The Church of Scotland took instant alarm, being convinced that her worst fears were realized when she saw this Bill first introduced. At a meeting of the Commission of the Assembly, Carstares, Blackwell, and Bailie were sent to London with a strong remonstrance, and instructions to offer the utmost opposition to the measure. But so rapid were the movements of the enemy that by the time they reached London in those days of slow travelling, the Bill had passed the Commons and been taken to the House of Lords. The Lords consented to hear them by counsel on the subject, and although their plea was as righteous as any ever submitted to a human tribunal, so determined were the enemies of the Church that they heard the counsel for these Commissioners, read the Bill a second time, committed it, reported it, and read it a third time, all in one day—namely, the 12th of April. On the 14th it was returned to the House of Commons with Amendments, which being agreed to without opposition, the Bill received the Royal Assent by Queen Anne on the throne on the 22nd of April, the whole transaction completed in little more than a month."
  For many years the Assembly never ceased to protest against the restoration of patronage. Without pretending to decide whether the eminent men to whom he had referred were right in the construction they put on the Treaty, it was impossible for anyone who looked back on Scottish history from the Reformation clown to the time of Queen Anne, not to see that patronage was most flourishing' precisely during those periods which a zealous Presbyterian would regard with the greatest dislike and antipathy. It was abolished at the Reformation in respect of the great majority of livings; it was restored by James I. when he endeavoured to force Episcopacy on Scotland; it was abandoned by Charles I. when he was so hard pressed that he was ready to promise anything to the Presbyterians; it was renewed at the
  1038
  Restoration; it was suppressed by William III. more completely than at any previous or subsequent period; and. it was re-instated by the Act of Queen Anne at a time when the doctrine of passive obedience and the highest of High Church dogmas were in full vigour. Looking at these circumstances, there need be no wonder that in the minds of zealous Presbyterians patronage was identified with those things most hateful to that which they designated Erastianism and Prelacy, nor that fervent Presbyterians of the present time should look back to those periods when patronage did not exist as to the palmy days of the Kirk. For about 50 years subsequent to 1780 the subject of patronage seemed to have dropped a good deal out of sight. It was very natural, calling to mind the great and exciting political events that were taking place towards the end of the last and the beginning of this century, that there should not have been much room in men's minds for controversies as to form of Church government. But about 40 years ago it became clear that in Scotland the attention of the people was again being turned to the question of patronage. Then followed in rapid succession the contest about the induction of a minister which was known as the Auchterarder Case, the case of the Strathbogie Minister, and the great Disruption of 1843, when many of the most zealous, ablest, and most learned and distinguished, both among the clergy and the laity, left the Church rather than acquiesce in a state of things which they looked upon as intolerable. Shortly after the mischief had been done Parliament endeavoured to apply a remedy by passing the Act commonly known as Lord Aberdeen's Act. Under that Act, which was now in force, the members of a congregation might object to a presentee, and might lay their objections before the Presbytery, from whom there was an appeal to the Synod, and in the last resort to the General Assembly. These Church Courts might reject or approve of the presentee. No doubt Lord Aberdeen's Act might have checked the abuse of patronage to a considerable extent, but he did not think it could be said that the state of thinge which it had brought about was altogether satisfactory. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the cases which arose from

  1039
  time to time under the operations of this Act went far to justify the misgivings which Lord Aberdeen's published correspondence with the late Dr. Chalmers showed that he entertained with respect to the probable working of such a law as that which was now in force. Every presentee was liable to have his settlement disputed in a long and costly litigation. He was liable, moreover, not only to have his abilities and opinions, but also his manner, his voice, his temperament, even his personal appearance, made the subject of most insidious and offensive popular attacks, and this publicly, formally, and in a legal Court, before which every dissatisfied parishioner had a statutory right to bring for ward every conceivable objection which might reflect injuriously on the personal fitness of the candidate for his work. It was not too much to say that the working of this statute, so far as it came into actual operation, was most damaging to young ministers, most demoralizing to congregations, and most embarrassing to Church committees, who were invested with a very difficult discretion. Probably many of their Lordships recollected the very amusing speech which was made last year by the Earl of Rosebery on the subject of the Queensferry Case—but such a proceeding was a scandal to the Church. It was not too much to say that a state of law which encouraged proceedings of that kind was most discouraging to young men entering the ministry, was injurious to the Church, and extremely disagreeable to the patrons. The position of a patron was rendered the more unpleasant by the circumstance that in many, probably in most cases, his religious persuasion was not the same as that of the congregation. This state of things, together with some cases of especial scandal, resulted in repeated votes of the General Assembly, carried at first by large majorities, but of late years unanimously, praying that Parliament would relieve the Established Church from the evils of a system which kept up a merely nominal right of patronage at the sacrifice of the best interests of all concerned. There was a recent precedent on a small scale for dealing with patronage. When the Annuity Tax was abolished in Edinburgh a few years ago the town council was deprived of the patronage of certain city churches, which were then vested in
  1040
  the congregations. The compensation was fixed at first at one year's stipend, but he believed the right of presentation by the council had since been abolished, as nobody could be found who would give anything for the rights. But though he had referred to what was done in the case of the Edinburgh churches by way of illustration, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to indicate that or any other arrangement as the precise kind of arrangement that should be adopted. He had contented himself with pointing out the evils of the existing state of things, and urging the Government to take it into consideration. He did not think he was called upon to indicate the precise mode in which a remedy should be applied. It was clear that any measure dealing with patronage should be brought forward by the Government—for this reason, if for no other, that it was impossible to touch patronage without also touching in some degree the rights of the Crown. It was true that in the exercise of Crown patronage, great regard was always shown to the wishes of the congregation; but still, if they were to deal with patronage, they must to some extent interfere with the strict legal rights of the Crown, and therefore the preliminary assent of the Crown would be necessary. Therefore he said that it was no part of his business to elaborate a scheme for amending the law; it was enough for him to show that the law in its present state had led to serious evils and ought to be altered, and if he had succeeded in doing so, he contended that it was for Her Majesty's Government to take the matter up, and to bring forward definite proposals on the subject. He could not pass from this subject without referring to an interview which took place three or four years ago on the subject of patronage between the present Prime Minister and a deputation on the part of the Established Church. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have asked what would be the position of the Free Church if patronage were abolished? He regretted very much that he had no authentic report of the interview, for everything that fell from the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of this kind was of such importance that it was most desirable to have a distinct and clear exposition of his views. So far as the position of the bodies outside the Esta-

  1041
  blished Church—who differed from it only on the ground of patronage was concerned, he thought—and he wished to explain that he was only giving his own individual opinion, and had no right to commit or pledge any one else—that if the barrier of patronage were removed, the Free Church or any portion of that body would be justly entitled, if they saw fit, to urge the claims to be placed as nearly as possible in the same position as regarded their rights, their privileges, and their ecclesiastical status as the members of the Established Church. Whether any of them would desire to put forward such a claim, he was not in a position to say; nor did he desire to speculate as to the probable effects of the abolition of patronage on any ecclesiastical body outside the Established Church; but as regarded the Church of Scotland, he believed that her just and legitimate influence would be greatly strengthened if the powers of the congregations were not limited simply to the right of objecting to a presentee, but if they were invested also with the right of taking part in the appointment. He did not wish to indulge in anything like exaggeration, and he did not pretend that the existing law had been the occasion of any very strong excitement, or any violent manifestations of public feeling, but he had endeavoured to show that undoubtedly in very early times patronage was exercised in the case of a few churches both by the Crown and by lay patrons, yet that the tendency of Presbyterian opinion had always been adverse to it, and that the developments given to patronage in the reigns of James I., of Charles II., and of Queen Anne had been denounced almost with one consent by zealous Presbyterians as innovations at variance with the principles of religious liberty, and had been the cause from time to time of most deplorable secessions from the Church. He had endeavoured to show that the law of patronage in its present form was most injurious to the Church, and had given rise to great scandals. He thought it was a most worthy object for Parliament and Her Majesty's Government to propose to themselves that they should endeavour to put an end to those scandals, that they should seek to heal, if they could not repair, the breaches that had been made, and they should try to restore to the Church that mode of ap-
  1042
  pointing her ministers which the history of Scotland proved to be most in accordance with the wishes of her people. He used the word "restore" advisedly. He sought no novelty; he desired no innovation. He stood upon the old ways of the constitution of the Church. He wished to see abolished that system of patronage, which he believed to be itself an innovation and an encroachment on the ancient rights of the people; and if they should succeed, after many wanderings, in finding their way back to the old path which their fathers trod before them, then perhaps they might hope to see realized in our own land that noble ideal of the great Italian statesman—"a free Church in a free State."
  Moved to resolve, that whereas the presentation of ministers to churches in Scotland by patrons under the existing law and practice has been the cause of much division among the people and in the Church of Scotland, it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should take the whole subject into consideration with the view of legislating as to the appointment and settlement of ministers in the Church of Scotland.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,after thanking his noble Friend the Lord High Commissioner for having officially raised the question, said, it might seem a trivial and uninteresting one to Englishmen, but in Scotland the temper and disposition of the people prevented any ecclesiastical matter from being trivial. He lived in what two years ago was the focus of a disturbed ecclesiastical district, and if he went out at one door met with the Queensferry settlement, while at the other he encountered the Cramo d'harmonium case. In Scotland there was no compromise in religious matters, a thing being either true and right or false and wrong. On a former occasion the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) gave an eminently discreet answer, avowing sympathy for the subject, but pleading want of time for its consideration. His own short Parliamentary experience, however, had satisfied him that where there was a will there was a way. That measure had been waiting 160 years. Its history was a crying grievance, and it seemed to him that the Government never had a more gratifying opportunity of dealing with a great question and conciliating a great nation than they had at this moment. They would be backed up, he believed,

  1043
  by the opinion of the country. There was hardly the shadow of an argument against dealing with it. The Government had among them a Minister with a great historic name, and from whom the Scottish people would gratefully accept any measure on that subject. An ancestor of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), some two centuries ago, said he was willing to concede his own patronage; the noble Duke himself had done the same; and it was to be wished that he could leaven other noble Lords with his views on that question. The origin of the Act of 1712 had been graphically described by Lord Macaulay in a speech on Scotch University Tests. It originated in a Jacobite conspiracy, and the head of the Jacobite plot avowed that he was anxious to push the measure forward so as to stir up the resentment of the Scotch people and make them rise on behalf of the exiled dynasty. It was hurried through Parliament in a few days at a period not of railways but of coaches, and those slow coaches, when it was utterly impossible in such a short space of time to obtain any expression of popular opinion from Scotland on the subject. The measure was, moreover, in its language offensive to the Church, being eminently dictatorial, and in its spirit abhorrent to the Scottish nation. The consequence was, that a year afterwards a measure for the repeal of the Union was brought forward in that House, when the numbers were equal, and the Union was only saved by a majority of four proxies. That was soon followed by secessions from the Established Church, until the great disruption of 1843 occurred, when nearly 500 ministers left the Establishment in order to protest against the system of patronage. He did not know how any argument could be brought forward in defence of that monstrous measure. The very preamble of the Treaty of Union showed that there could not be any treaty on the subject, because the Scotch would not suffer any discussion upon it; and so far from the Commissioners having any power in that matter, an Act was passed by the English Parliament to secure for ever, as a fundamental pact of union, the inviolability of the discipline and doctrine of the Scottish Church. The word "discipline" there contained the core of the matter. It was provided by the same Act that every Sovereign
  1044
  after the death of Queen Anne should take at the moment of accession a solemn oath to observe as inviolate the discipline of the Scottish Church as established by the Act of 1690. If it was urged that patronage had pretty nearly ceased to exist, then there would be no danger in immediately doing away with it by legislative enactment. But if, on the other hand, districts of the country had been set by the ears for a considerable period because of these disputed settlements, it could not be fairly said the system was practically abolished, and they were bound to redress that grievous injustice and that historic wrong. The Act of 1712 had made every Sovereign take an oath which they had been unable to observe, and its spirit was also repulsive to the great mass of the Scottish people. He therefore humbly supported the noble Earl who had brought forward that question.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that this was no doubt a matter in which many people in Scotland were deeply interested, and he had himself, when a Member of the other House, brought in on more than one occasion Bills for the purpose of repealing the Act which had been referred to. His object in doing so was not merely to carry out the desire of the great body of the Scotch people, but to prevent the great disruption of 1843, which he then saw to be impending. About the year 1835 there was introduced in the General Assembly, and carried entirely by the party in the Church which seceded in 1843, what was called the Veto Act, which, if it had been confirmed by the Legislature, would have gone far—indeed, he believed the whole way—to prevent that disruption. Since that disruption a great change had come over public feeling in regard to this subject. Before that event, the Established Church of Scotland was the Church of the majority—since 1843 it had assumed a very different position, and had now become the Church of the minority. Since the disruption, the Free Church of Scotland, up to last year, had taken no step to express an opinion on this question of patronage, and as long as the Established Church took no step to bring the matter before the Legislature, the Free Church were content to do nothing to interfere with the Esta-

  1045
  blished Church. But if this question was to be raised in Parliament—and he trusted the Government would not pledge itself on the subject without due consideration—then a very different state of things would inevitably arise. The cry for disestablishment would be immensely strengthened, and they would not only have the Free Church and the other Presbyterian dissenting bodies joining together in that cry, but they would have it raised to such an extent throughout Scotland that it would become a question which no Government legislating for that country could shut its eyes to. He was no enemy to the Established Church, and did not wish to see it abolished—he would much rather let things rest as they wore; but this he would say, that the question as to patronage was now almost dormant. Let them look at the presentations of the Crown under whatever Government—the present or that which preceded it—there was scarcely such a thing as a disputed settlement now under any Government; and why? Because the Crown and the Ministers of the Crown had wisely consulted the feelings of the people, and virtually did for them what, had they the power, they would have done for themselves. It was the same with respect to private patronage. With the exception of the Queensferry Case, to which reference had been made, no case had been, or, he believed, could be, cited of a disputed settlement in Scotland for several years past—certainly his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie) had relied on no other ease. It was the opinion of a great many people that if patronage were abolished the two Churches, the Established and the Free, would come together again. But the resolutions passed by the Free Church in its General Assembly last year showed how little hope there was of such being the case. In one they said that the proposal on the part of the Established Church, with a view to an alteration of the law of patronage, did not affect the grounds of separation which had rendered the disruption necessary; and again, that they had theretofore refrained from promoting any public agitation against the Established Church, but that the question as to the future relations between the Church and State, if once raised, must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people and in a manner conducive
  1046
  to the religious well-being and the peace and harmony of the Evangelical Churches. Such being the opinion of the Free Church, it was vain to think that legislation on the subject of patronage in the Church of the minority could do otherwise than raise upon the opposite side a cry for disestablishment which it would be extremely difficult to resist. But if patronage were to be abolished, what system would be set up in its stead? His noble Friends had abstained from giving any opinion upon that point. Were private patrons to be compensated? In whose hands were the elections to rest? These were extremely difficult questions to settle, and he cautioned noble Lords that the answer they might receive would very likely be cited in other cases which might arise hereafter. Upon the whole, therefore, he advised them not to stir the question at that moment when there was no popular feeling in respect of it. He did not say that the majority of the members of the Established Church were not in favour of the abolition of patronage, but they were by no means in harmony, and there was an influential minority in the Church who were decidedly opposed to it. He trusted the Government would give no pledge upon the subject, but that during the Recess they would consider whether legislation was required; and, if they came to the conclusion that it was, then that they would be prepared next Session to make a definite proposal to their Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYdisclaimed all enmity to the Free Church of Scotland, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) had to the Established Church: he could nut, however, let the statement go forth unchallenged that the Established Church was the Church of the minority. Statistics showed that at this moment the Established Presbyterian Church contained 44·59 per cent of the people of Scotland, while the Free Church contained but 24·45 per cent, and the United Presbyterian 13·08. The average attendance at worship showed a like proportion as between the Churches. He believed the majority of the people of Scotland desired the abolition of patronage, and that the enmity of the Free Church to the question was founded on the conviction that if patronage were abolished many would be drawn to the Established Church who would other-

  1047
  wise prefer to remain in connection with the Free Church. He took a different view from the noble Earl also in reference to the question of disestablishment, for he was persuaded that if patronage were not abolished disestablishment would ensue. Unless the question were satisfactorily settled the agitation for disestablishment would undoubtedly become more and more general. Upon these grounds he cordially supported the Resolution.
  THE EARL OF STAIRassured the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the Queensferry Case was the only one of disputed settlement which had recently arisen. There had been a great many others, but they were not prosecuted, owing to the great expense of the necessary procedure.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that the question now under discussion was one of considerable importance not only to the Church but to the entire people of Scotland. He warned noble Lords—and especially those who sat on the Conservative benches, and whose sympathies were associated with the union of Church and State, that the party in Scotland who advocated the maintenance of civil patronage had no well-founded or honest claim on their approbation or support. The right of civil patronage had been established at three periods of Scottish history—in 1592, again at the Restoration in 1662, and again under the Act of Queen Anne in 1720. At the first-named period the Crown pursued a course of great rapacity, and endeavoured to deprive the Church of those funds which were beneficially and legitimately employed for its own maintenance, and for the education of the people. Under what circumstances was civil patronage re-established in 1662? It was re-established in connection with a corrupt Government, a tyrannical King, and the system of Episcopacy, against the sentiments and wishes and the rights of a great majority of the Scottish people. He was aware that the events, the legislation, and the acts of the Government during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. had been in no inconsiderable measure distorted and discoloured by party historians and popular writers; but nevertheless it was, he thought, abundantly established that the Government of these two Sovereigns in Scotland was, on the whole, an ignoble
  1048
  and an anti-national Government, which was certainly deserving of reprobation. Again, the re-establishment of civil patronage in 1712 was enacted by Parliament in order to spread discontent in the country, to break up the Union, and to bring back the Pretender. There was no doubt that this constituted a violation of the Treaty of Union; and although he would not go so far as to say that there was in that agreement any Article which might not be modified or repealed by the supreme power of the Legislature of the United Empire, yet it was certain that these particular Articles of the Union which were specified as being of a peculiarly sacred and enduring character ought not to have been interfered with except in response to a strong expression of national feeling. Having now described the historical circumstances under which civil patronage had thrice been re-established in Scotland, he would inquire for a moment into the circumstances under which the lights of the Church and the rights of the people had been asserted. The two principal Acts by which patronage had been. abolished in the Church and popular rights re-established, were passed respectively in 1649 and 1690. The date 1649 was certainly not a good augury, and their Lordships would not expect to find that Acts of a wise, temperate, or constitutional character could have passed at that period, either in England or Scotland. It was not his intention to attempt to justify the part which the Church and the people of Scotland took in promoting and prosecuting the civil war, especially during the latter part of it—for he was ready to admit that in the execution of King Charles I. the Church and the people of Scotland were in some degree unintentionally and unwillingly parties, as they were also to the disgraceful surrender of the person of His Majesty to the English army. But he asserted that after the murder of the King the Parliament and the people of Scotland made a special and glorious stand for Monarchy, and. that when patronage was abolished in 1649 it was not abolished until after the Parliament and the people had proclaimed King Charles II. The abolition of civil patronage in Scotland in 1649 had in it nothing whatever of a revolutionary character—on the other hand it was in reality an assertion of the monarchical

  1049
  principle. When patronage was again abolished and the rights of the people re-established in 1690, there was nothing in the change of a revolutionary character. The Revolution of 1688 was in Scotland as in England a transfer of the Crown from a Popish to a Protestant Sovereign, or, in other words, a transfer of the principle and of the feeling of loyalty from one Sovereign who did not deserve it to two other Sovereigns who did. Thus there was no revolutionary association whatever in the abolition of patronage in the year 1690. On the contrary, they who were the strongest upholders of the rights of the congregations were at the same time the strongest supporters of what might be called the Protestant dynasty of the House of Stuart and of the first two Sovereigns of the Hanoverian dynasty. Regarded then in an historical point of view, there was nothing whatever of a revolutionary character in the abolition of civil patronage in Scotland. It was, however, capable of demonstration that the assertion of the rights of civil patronage had been productive of the greatest disorder in the State. It was responsible for the whole of the Presbyterian dissent existing in Scotland at the present moment. That was to say, if there were at this day 1,200,000 Presbyterians separated from the Established Church of Scotland, that deplorable fact was almost entirely due to the restoration of civil patronage. There was, indeed, a small sect of Presbyterians in Scotland, who were properly called Cameronians, who left the Church because they could not recognize the authority of an uncovenanted Government. The secessions of 1753 and 1843 were owing to the assertion of the principle of lay patronage in the Church, and there was no chance of any union which would conciliate the Presbyterian Dissenters in Scotland and the Established Church except its abolition. He was unable to accept the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the Established Church in Scotland had only a minority of the people of Scotland. In one sense, perhaps, it might be true that she was in a slight minority, if the Episcopalians and the Roman Catholics were taken into account; but the Roman Catholics in Scotland could hardly be said to be Scotch, inasmuch as they were mostly Irish immigrants. Certain it was that
  1050
  the Established Church was at the present day not only more numerous than any one sect of Presbyterians, but considerably more numerous than all the Presbyterian Dissenters put together. The Established Church was in a very prosperous a very expansive, and a very useful condition: it was doing a great deal of good, and was much more active than any other religious community in Scotland. Still, unless he were greatly mistaken, the Presbyterian Church still contained in its bosom those seeds of distrust which had lurked in it ever since the establishment of civil patronage. His belief was that if the present system were continued, another party would be developed in the Church of Scotland, and another crop of dissent would be produced. There was already in Scotland a powerful movement towards uniting all the sects of Presbyterian Dissenters. The present was a good opportunity, he contended, for the Government to step in and strengthen the principle of Established Churches, and that what the Government should have done in the case of the Irish Church was to adopt the principle of concurrent endowment. He considered that the Government lost a grand opportunity at the time, of placing upon a broader and inure durable basis the connection between the Church and the State, and that the country had reason to regret that they did not take advantage of it. He ventured to hope that Her Majesty's Government would take care and not run the risk of making a similar mistake with regard to England and Scotland. It was of the greatest importance, he might add, that the intention of the Government should be made known to the people of Scotland before the meeting of the General Assemblies. For his own part he was convinced that the principle of patronage could never be maintained.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas not desirous, after what had been said already on the subject, to prolong the debate, but this was a question of so much importance to the people of Scotland, and one in which he had for several years taken a very great interest, and with regard to which he felt very great anxiety, that he could not refrain from offering a few observations upon it. If he were to look at this question merely from an English point of view, he quite agreed with much that had been said.

  1051
  He was quite prepared to admit that here the abolition of patronage would be entirely unsuited to the wishes and feelings of the country. But the case of England and the case of Scotland with regard to Church patronage were so entirely different that they could not be considered on the same grounds. He was of opinion therefore that the question of the maintenance or abolition of patronage in Scotland must depend on the merits of the case, and the manner in which the existing system had worked. As a general rule he thought that the principle of appointment to Church livings by individuals on whom rested the responsibility of such appointments—an individual who was responsible not to others alone, but to his own conscience for appointing the best man he could find, and who took a personal interest in the parish to which he appointed a clergyman—such a system of appointment was to his mind about the best that could be adopted. He did not as a general rule believe that patronage which was made the subject of popular elections was satisfactory, and on the whole he preferred that it should be left in the hands of individual patrons. In saying so, however, he was speaking in the abstract; because when he came to look at the question from a practical point of view as connected with Scotland, he was afraid he should have to arrive at a conclusion different from that which he had held for many years, and he must declare his conviction that no matter what good opinion he had of the system of patronage as a system, he thought the time had come when it was not desirable to longer continue that system in that country. He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland had, on several occasions of late years, in an unmistakable and a marked manner given it as their decided opinion that the time had arrived when patronage should be abolished. In a statement drawn up by a committee of the General Assembly—mainly, he believed, at the suggestion of the present Prime Minister—that body asked for the abolition of the existing patronage system as a matter of justice, pointing out that the Church of Scotland had ever maintained the right of the people of Scotland to appoint their own ministers, and hoping that they
  1052
  would ever continue to do so. Parliament need not go beyond such a positive statement as this. The grievance complained of was not one of yesterday, but had existed for many generations, and he, therefore, was not unwilling to give up patronage in the Church of Scotland. He took that view chiefly on the ground that in many cases—in all cases he was told, in which the Crown was interested—it had virtually ceased to exist. In the more northern parts of the country patronage was, it was true, from time to time exercised. He had himself, on three or four occasions when churches had become vacant, exercised his right of patron, contrary to the wishes of those who desired a different state of things. The ministers he had appointed, however, were men in whom he had the greatest confidence, and he had the satisfaction since of finding that the appointments were in every way suitable, and that the parishioners were happy under them. But when he found that in the bulk of cases the exercise of patronage had become a dead letter, it was, he thought, doubtful whether it ought not to be done away with. Whenever this question was settled, it must be dealt with without reference to either side of politics, but solely with reference to what was best for the spiritual welfare of the people of Scotland. He gathered from the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Napier) that there was no such thing as a Scotch Roman Catholic.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he had not intended to say that all the Roman Catholics of Scotland were of Irish extraction, but that the bulk of them wore. He was quite aware that there was an ancient Roman Catholic population in the Highlands.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas proud to say that some of his best friends in the Highlands were Roman Cotholics, and they would be astonished if they heard themselves described as Irish immigrants. He protested against their being so described. He regretted to find any of their Lordships entertain the notion that the abolition of patronage would be a step in the direction of a severance of Church and State either in England or in Scotland. He did not believe that any such result would follow the abolition of patronage. He was also sorry to hear the noble Earl

  1053
  (the Earl of Dalhousie) go so far as to state that the abolition of patronage would not remove the objections which the Free Church held at the time of the disruption.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: Certainly not. The abolition of patronage was not the reason why the Free Church separated from the Establishment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had always understood that, if not the sole reason, it was one of the main causes of the disruption.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: It took its rise from the presentation to Auchterarder.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could only repeat that he was sorry to find that the abolition of patronage would not be satisfactory to the great body of the Free Church. He had been mainly induced to give his adhesion to the proposal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlie) from supposing that a satisfactory mode of effecting the abolition of patronage could be brought about. He agreed that it was the duty of the Government to take this subject in hand, if there was a fair prospect of dealing with it in a satisfactory manner, and in that case no one was more capable of dealing with the question than the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll). He thought it might be said of him, as of his noble ancestor, the Marquess of Argyll, that—"He made the General Assembly a fair offer, hoping to persuade all good noblemen and gentlemen to do the like." He trusted that the noble Duke might be able to devise some means that might be acceptable to all parties alike. For himself, he gave his adhesion to the proposition because he believed it would have the salutary effect of effecting a union between all Churches which did not differ in doctrine or in Church discipline, and which were now to a great extent opposed to each other.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that although he was unable to vote for the Motion of the noble Earl, and hoped to convince the House that such an abstract Resolution ought not to be adopted, still he was glad that the noble Earl had raised this discussion, and he was sincerely grateful to their Lordships who had added their opinions to the general information which it was desirable
  1054
  should be made known respecting the subject. It was unnecessary for him to give a historical narrative of the law of patronage of Scotland; but he wished emphatically to point out to their Lordships that the question of Church patronage in Scotland was wholly and absolutely different from that of Church patronage in England. It was separate and distinct, historically, legally, and morally. Historically, it was the fact that lay patronage had not only been the principal cause, but literally the only cause, of all the dissents and schisms that had occurred in the Church of Scotland for a very long period. He denied that even under the present law, the people had no right to a voice in the selection of the clergyman who was to see after their spiritual welfare—he considered that the Act was clear enough on this point; and whenever the popular party had got the upper hand, they always pressed for a settlement giving them a voice in the selection of the minister and their claim had always been recognized. This happened in 1649 and again at the Revolutionary settlement in 1690. What was called the mixed system thereupon grew up, giving the right of presentation to the kirk session and the heritors, with the right of approval or disapproval on the part of the people. Under the Act of 1712 lay patronage was gradually restored, and became exercised almost as absolutely as at any previous time; and it was owing to disputes arising out of the exercise of lay patronage that the great disruption of 1843 occurred. Technically his noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) was no doubt right, but practically the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was also correct in saying that the question of patronage caused the great disruption. The cause of spiritual independence arose out of that question, and the right of patronage was the only point on which the Church courts were likely to come into collision with the civil courts. The only case of appeal he had ever heard of was upon the civil rights of patronage. The questions of patronage and spiritual independence were inseparably united, and one had grown out of the other. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) shook his head, but that was a proposition he would maintain in the Free Church Assembly itself. He thought it a most unfortunate cir-

  1055
  cumstance that the Governments of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Melbourne determined not to entertain the disputes that had arisen between the Church courts and the civil courts of Scotland and the great secession was the consequence. Then, on the principle he supposed of shutting the stable door when the steed was stolen, the Government of the day introduced what had since become known as the Lord Aberdeen Act. It was obvious that this Act gave three modes whereby substantial power could be exercised by the people; one was by simple process of veto upon any appointment; another was an appeal to the Church courts, where the people could state their objections; a third course was to place the matter in the hands of the Church courts, who had power to investigate and adjudicate upon disputed cases. The question now was, had Lord Aberdeen's Act worked satisfactorily? During the thirty years since the Act was passed this point had never been subject to a judicial solution; he believed, however, that it was the intention of Parliament to give to the Church courts full power in such matters, and to give to the people any facility for stating their objections to any appointment that he considered was not suitable to them. His own impression was that had the question been brought before the civil courts, it would have been decided in favour of of the power which he considered the Act vested in the Church courts. Until that question was disposed of it could not be positively said that the Act of Lord Aberdeen fell short of the liberal character it was supposed to possess. But although the Act had been passed 30 years, the Church courts had not carried a single appeal to the civil courts. Although the Act was capable of being construed so as to give the Church courts all the power Dr. Chalmers required, that did not remove the main objections to the Act. The exhibitions which were made in the Church courts when the parishioners were cross-questioned as to the nature of their objections were exhibitions of the most obnoxious and degrading kind. They were damaging to young ministers, demoralizing to congregations, embarrassing to Church courts, and very offensive to all parties, and they amounted to a total prohibition of the right of patronage. Out of 52 cases of disputed
  1056
  settlement which had arisen some were of a trifling nature, but others had led to deplorable consequences and secessions; and that the civil courts had not been appealed to was the fault of the Church courts, and not of the patrons. As one of the three Members of that House who held the largest number of patronages in Scotland—he believed he had the patronage of 30 or 32 parishes—he had already published a letter in which he had offered to place his patronage absolutely at the disposal of the General Assembly so soon as a mode of satisfactory settlement was arrived at. Patronage in Scotland differed from what it was in England historically and legally, and also morally. He felt strongly the impossibility of considering there was any right of property in it, because patronage was an absolute violation of the Treaty of Union which the Church protested against at the time. He did not say there were no objections to the elections of ministers; but there was an important difference between Scotland and England in regard to the force of such objections. In the Church of England a great part of the service was wholly independent of the character and qualifications of the clergyman; the sermon was a small part of the service, and not always the most satisfactory. In Scotland, prayers and everything except the psalmody depended upon the qualifications of the minister; and on this ground it was the more reasonable that the people should have a voice in the selection of their ministers. He remembered an anecdote of three men, all of whom were ultimately Members of that House, and of whom two went to hear the third preach. Towards the end of his discourse this ultimately distinguished person said, "Now, my brethren, I hope you won't go and say 'We have heard an excellent sermon to-day,' and immediately forget all I have said." Upon which one of the two friends exciaimed, "God forbid!" Could that noble Lord have repeated in a Court of Law that short and pithy comment on that sermon? It might be apparent to any man who heard a minister, from the moment he opened his mouth, that he was a mere "stick," and would be of no use in the parish, and yet it would be most difficult to maintain that in a Court of Law. Therefore there was no escape from those difficulties except

  1057
  by giving a substantive voice or veto in some form to the parishioners. He was not prepared to say that such a veto was not practically allowed under the sanction of Lord Aberdeen's Act; but there were certain strong objections to that Act, and that some change in the present state of things was desirable could not be denied. He was glad to learn from the five speakers on that side of the House—all of them, he believed, having patronage—that they were perfectly willing to agree to any settlement which might meet with the general approbation of Scotland. It might be asked why should the Government not bring in a measure? Well, he did not think there had been hitherto—and he was not sure there was even now—evidence of any such general consent on the subject as would induce the Government to undertake to legislate upon it, and until the General Assembly and people of Scotland were agreed upon some settled plan—some definite mode of dealing with the question—the Government could not be expected to take the matter in hand with a view to legislation. Such an attempt would be no light matter. His noble Friend (Lord Napier) had alluded incidentally to the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and expressed an opinion from which he (the Duke of Argyll) totally dissented—that it would be desirable to confirm the principle of the connection between Church and State by concurrent endowment. He would not now enter into that question, further than to say that although the disestablishment of the Irish Church was proposed by the Government upon grounds purely local and special connected with Ireland, and it was asserted over and over again in every variety of form that they did not admit that any inference was fairly to be drawn from that proposal against the Established Churches in the rest of the United Kingdom, yet, as a matter of fact, the disestablishment of the Irish Church had given an impulse to the action of those bodies which were adverse to all Established Churches. Since that event Motions for disestablishing the English Church had been brought forward in the other House in a spirit and with a support which did not exist before. The Government were not responsible for that, and they had no sympathy with the attacks made upon the Church
  1058
  of England. The difficulties of legislation in regard to ecclesiastical questions had also increased. Even such a comparatively trivial matter as a Lectionary Bill had encountered a considerable degree of friction in passing through Parliament owing to an exacerbation of feeling. He thought, however, that was but a temporary state of sentiment, and that a re-action in favour of Established Churches had already arisen. People were beginning to see that those Churches were in many respects more liberal and freer than the non-Established Churches. Still, his noble Friend said that no Church dispute was in Scotland deemed small; and he had no doubt that when any ecclesiastical matter was stirred large and serious questions would be raised, and could not be evaded whenever they entered the High Court of Parliament in these times and under present circumstances on any subject apparently trivial affecting the Established Church. On those grounds he did not think it was the duty of the Government to undertake any measure of that kind without grave thought. The Presbytery of Edinburgh, feeling the force of those considerations, had come by a majority of 9 to 7 to a prudent Resolution, declaring that while they admitted the evils of patronage, they were satisfied that other evils of considerable magnitude had arisen from the appointment of ministers to churches where no patronage existed; and that although the existing law of patronage might be worthy of serious consideration, they deprecated any rash or hasty appeal to Parliament in favour of its repeal or modification, more especially as there prevailed so much diversity of opinion as to what substitute for that law would best conduce to the interests of religion. Since that time there had been large divisions in the General Assembly, proving that a strong feeling existed in favour of the modification of the law of patronage; but he was bound to add that when he came to the precise substitute which they would recommend for patronage as regulated under Lord Aberdeen's Act, he did not find the same amount of agreement. He was certain it was not the duty and would not be the wisdom of any Government to undertake to bring in any measure on that subject until they saw their way pretty clearly to its solution, and found that there was

  1059
  some general agreement as to the nature of the substitute to be provided; because the introduction of any measure which failed would leave the Church of Scotland in a worse position than it now occupied. He could not help hoping that the fair influence of public opinion would do a great deal to remedy the evils which had arisen, and he was sanguine that the present discussion, and also the discussion which might be raised in the other House of Parliament, might induce those who held patronage to exercise it in a wise and discreet manner, and in accordance with the conscientious feelings of the congregations. If that course were invariably pursued he believed that, while avoiding all the difficulties involved in any appeal to Parliament on the subject at that moment, they would hear very little more about that question. He would, therefore, earnestly entreat his noble Friend not to take the sense of the House on an abstract Resolution, which was always inconvenient. The Government would watch the progress of events and the state of opinion in Scotland in regard to that subject, and if it should appear that a solution favourable to the Church, and not otherwise objectionable was open to them, they would, no doubt, take it into their earnest consideration. Since he entered the House that night he had received a communication emanating from the Free Church of Scotland, which he could not help reading. It said that the Free Church Committee on Patronage had unanimously expressed their strong opposition to any Parliamentary action affecting the Established Church of Scotland, which was not adapted to meet the entire ecclesiastical conditions of Scotland. He was bound to say he could not recognize the legitimacy of the representations of the Free Church. Many of his best friends, some of his relations, were members of the Free Church—personally, he had the greatest sympathy with them, and nothing would rejoice him more than to see a scheme which would amalgamate the two bodies; but he did not see that Government should be called upon to do anything simply to induce the re-junction of the two Churches. Although the disruption of 1843 might have originated in the dispute about patronage, it did not follow that the repeal of the Act of 1712 would bring back the Free Church to the Established
  1060
  Church; but if they had been driven out by that system and complained that it was injurious to their spiritual influence, he did not see how it lay in their mouths to object to any modification of it. Of course all religious bodies were jealous of each other, and disliked anything which was for the good of each other. A much more important objection was the opposition of the United Presbyterians, who had drawn up a much more consistent document, for they held absolutely to the voluntary principle, and objected not only to patronage but to Established Churches. But as the Free Church held to the principle of establishment, and had narrowly escaped from the dangers of a secession from within their own body through attempting to enter into a compromise with the Established Church, he did not see that they had a fair locus standi for objecting to anything which might bring the Establishment more nearly to the position which they themselves occupied. Having now addressed to the House all the observations he wished to make he would ask his noble Friend to withdraw the Resolution he had brought forward. The noble Earl had attained the object he had in view—and a very important object it had been;—to a certain extent he had obtained a general expression of opinion so far as regarded the matter with which he was concerned, and had accomplished as much as he could hope to effect either by legislation or otherwise. He trusted the noble Earl would withdraw the Resolution.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that after the expression of opinion which had been given by his noble Friend he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CHILDREN'S EMPLOYMENT IN DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to prevent the employment of children in exercises or performances dangerous to life or health in certain cases—Was presented by The Lord BUCKHURST; read la. (No. 162.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.