SECOND READING.

HL Deb 02 June 1874 vol 219 cc809-46

Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(The Lord President.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

, in rising to address the House in opposition to the Bill of the noble Duke, said, he did so with feelings of great pain. It was most painful to him to find himself in a position of antagonism to the noble Duke, under whose leadership he had hoped to have continued. Nothing but a feeling of imperative duty would have induced him to place himself in such a position; and it was the more painful when he considered that this measure, the first proposed here by the new Ministry, from whom he had hoped the country would have experienced a respite from this style of legislation, should contain a serious inroad upon the rights of property; and he was also convinced would be most disastrous to the true interests of Christianity in Scotland, more so, indeed, than any measure he recollected brought forward since he had been a Member of that House. Why the measure had been brought forward he could not understand. There was little agitation in Scotland on the subject; none at all, indeed, in the district with which he was connected, and at the recent Elections few questions were put upon the subject to the candidates on the hustings. The agitation, in fact, was purely clerical, and originated with the High Church party in the Church Courts. Though not present when the Bill was first brought forward, he understood that the noble Duke had gone into the history of this question, and if the House would condescend to listen to him, he wished to go at some length into this history. It was a mistake to suppose that there was any real grievance on this subject in Scotland. The feelings of the people were almost always consulted by the patrons; but this was not enough for the High Church party in the Church Courts. In order to explain this properly, he must begin far back in the history. When at the Revolution of 1688 King William came to the Throne, he found the Episcopal Church established in Scotland, and in possession of the endowments, such as they were; but as the clergy of that Church were nearly all non-jurors—that was to say, disaffected to the new Government, he transferred the endowments to the Presbyterian Church, which, though crushed by Cromwell, and disestablished and disendowed at the Restoration, still preserved something of the organization created shortly before the breaking out of the Civil War, at the time of the "Solemn League and Covenant." The Presbyterian Church was placed in possession of the endowments, and, in fact, established by the Act of 1690; but in the first Act there was no mention of patronage. It would seem that it was an after-thought upon the part of the leaders, and it was clear that their intention in that Act was to keep the power of appointment in the hands of the clergy. This was done very skilfully in the second Act by giving the power of appointment to the "Heritors" and "Elders." Now, the "Heritors" being at that date defined as proprietors of lands and heritages to the amount of £100 a-year, were of course a limited body, while the "Elders," though nominally elected by the congregation, were virtually appointed by the minister, and their numbers not being limited, any minister who wished to appoint his successor had merely to keep up the number of Elders so as to out-vote the Heritors, who at the same time were called upon to pay a sum of 600 marks, 400 from the Heritors, and 200 from the life renters, to compensate the patron. This sum, compared with the incomes derived from the stipends at that time was considerable. This law continued in force for 21 years, and during that time there were 19 or more disputed settlements, while only in three or four instances the advowson was purchased under the Act. Why the Act remained so much a dead letter he could not tell, but it might have been that the Heritors were not inclined to pay for giving power to the clergy, and it must also be recollected that at that time the country was only beginning to settle down from a state of turbulence and lawlessness that had lasted, with little interval, for 200 years. In the year 1711 an Act was passed restoring to the patrons their rights, and under that Act the Church had gone on ever since. The clergy of course did not surrender their power without remonstrance, and it appeared that the Commission of the General Assembly remonstrated in no very measured terms, as was seen in the Acts of Assembly, May, 1712; but it was a remarkable fact that in this remonstrance more prominence was given to the Act granting toleration to the Episcopalians, which had passed in the same Session, than to that restoring the patronages. The subject came up again in the General Assembly of 1715, on the accession of George I., and again the toleration to Episcopalians was put before, and seemed to be regarded as a greater grievance than the law of patronage. In this Act of Assembly it appeared that there was really some grievance to complain of, for the patrons used their power—at least, that was the statement of the Assembly—to keep parishes vacant, themselves appropriating the stipends. After this remonstrance, the matter did not appear in the Acts of Assembly for some years, though no doubt the very High Church party were anxious to recover the power they had lost—at least, he could find nothing on the subject in what was printed of the proceedings of the Assembly—till the matter was stirred at the time of the secession of Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, the first notice of whom he found in 1725, when he appealed to the Assembly against a decision of the Synod of Fife ordering him to produce a certain paper. In 1732 he again appeared in the Church Courts, and at that time he and his friends put in a protest, which was not considered respectful to the Assembly, and he was desired to withdraw it, which he refused to do. The Commission was empowered to depose him in case of contumacy; but there was another Act in 1734, which was conceived in a very lenient spirit, and showed an inclination to deal mildly with the party, who, as far as could be discovered by the sequel, seemed to have gone on abusing the Church Courts in their sermons. It was remarkable that, having looked through all the records of proceedings about Erskine and his friends, he never found the word "patronage" used; but it appeared that in 1734 or 1735, some members of the Assembly went to London to remonstrate with the Government, and to endeavour to get the law of patronage modified, and there were several notices, in the records, of this deputation, and of a second sent in 1736; but he was not able to find the answer given to the Memorial that they handed in and laid before the King and Parliament. The final deposition of Erskine did not take place till 1740, when eight ministers were deposed. He had seen a manifesto subsequently published by the seceders, called "A Re-exhibition of Testimony," in which the grievance of patronage, which was now commonly believed to have been the point upon which the secession took place, was put quite in the background; the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, the toleration given to Episcopalians, the repeal of the statute for burning witches, and the observation of Christmas by the Law Courts being put quite as far forward; but the main point they aimed at seemed to have been that every minister should do as he pleased in his own parish, without control of the Church Courts, and all this in the year 1733! After that time, the question seemed to have been set at rest, at least, he only found occasional notices of appeals upon disputed settlements, probably owing to some very High Church Presbytery refusing to acknowledge the right of the patron. There was one such case in 1743, where the Presbytery of Gairloch tried to settle a minister in the parish of Loch Broom, entirely ignoring the existence of any right of presentation by the Earl of Cromartie. After that time, the majority of the General Assembly was generally in the hands of the "Moderate," or Low Church party. About the year 1820, some agitation took place under the guidance of Dr. Andrew Thompson, who organized a society to buy up advowsons, the patronage being to be exercised by the congregation, who were expected to pay a part of the cost, under the control of the Anti-Patronage Society, as it was called. This scheme, however, soon fell to the ground, for want of funds, for at that time advowson property was considered valuable. The next move was the agitation that led to the "disruption," or the secession of the Tree Church, as it was called. The High Church party in 1834, having be-come the majority in the General Assembly, passed an Act whereby, if a majority of the male heads of families—communicants—expressed a dissent without giving reasons, the presentation was considered void. When the question was debated in the General Assembly the Lord Justice Clerk Boyle said that in his opinion they were going beyond their jurisdiction. A contrary opinion was expressed by Lord Moncreiff. For some years this was submitted to; but two or three years after, in the case of the parish of Auchterarder, the case was brought before the Civil Courts, who in a very elaborate judgment by the whole of the Judges of the Court of Session, decided against the legality of the veto law, and then the fatal step was taken by the General Assembly, that though they would appeal the case and take the benefit of the decision if in their favour, they would not be bound by it if it was adverse. In the meantime, another case came up in the Presbytery of Strathbogie, and that body, obeying the decree of the Court of Session, treated the veto as a nullity, and for doing so were first cruelly persecuted, and then threatened with deposition by a majority of the General Assembly. An interdict from the Court of Session to put a stop to these proceedings was the immediate cause of the secession of the Free Church. He should have said that the Auchterarder case had been decided in their Lordships' House, having been pleaded by the late Lord Campbell, then Attorney General; and under that decision Mr. Young, the presentee, was settled, and became an excellent and popular minister. After that, the question was at rest for about 20 years or more. He wished further to consider for a moment the probable effect of this measure if it passed. In the first place, every vacant parish must be the scene of an electioneering contest. Whether the passions that that would evoke would be of benefit to Christianity he left the House to judge. There was another point to which he wished to call attention, and that was the effect upon the character of the clergy. It seemed to him that no one would have any chance of preferment who was not a good canvasser and skilled in all the arts of electioneering. Their Lordships might judge what effect this would have upon the character and usefulness of the clergy in future, and he begged to remind the noble Lord upon the Woolsack of what he had said the other night when the Motion of aright rev. Prelate was under discussion, of the effect of popular election when applied to the clergy. He wished also to call attention to the fact that this Bill gave almost unlimited powers to the Church Courts—that was to say, to the General Assembly. Now, from along acquaintance with that body, he was bound to say that he did not think it very well adapted to exercise these powers. It was, in fact, a very impulsive, and in its nature a very fluctuating body. Nominally the ministers and elders were elected by the Presbyteries; but in nearly all the Presbyteries the ministers took it in turns to attend. The Assembly only sat for ten days, and in that way the most of the clerical members only attended for 10 days once in four or five years. That of course threw the whole of the management of the business into the hands of some of the Professors in the Universities, and some legal gentlemen in Edinburgh who sat as elders in the Assembly. In endeavouring to get the appointment of ministers into their own hands, the High Church party had always had a double object in view. One, the very natural wish to secure all the valuable preferments for their own friends, and the other, to secure their power by keeping the majority of the Church Courts in the hands of their own party. The compensation to be given to patrons seemed to him absolutely nugatory. It was absurdly small in itself, and he did not see how any man with proper feelings could exact it, considering how it was to be paid. The clergy in Scotland were generally poor, not because the endowments were small, for that was not the case, but because men who came into the Church very rarely had any private means; indeed, it was far too often the case that a young man was already in debt for the expense of his education before he could got any preferment. Now, the compensation was proposed to be paid by taking one-fourth part of the stipend from the minister just at the time that his circumstances were such that he could least afford it; for the expense of furnishing his manse, as well as other expenses connected with his induction, always pressed heavily upon a young minister in coming to a parish. There was just one point more to which he wished to advert. It might be objected to what he said as to the evil consequences of the measure to the true interests of Christianity, that as the patrons were in the habit of consulting the wishes of the parishioners, all this evil must be already in existence, and had already taken place. To this he answered that there was a very great difference between the gratuitous consulting of the people's wishes by the patron, and giving the right of presentation to them in property; and that in case of a contention arising between the favours of two candidates that threatened to divide the congregation, it was of the greatest use that the patron should have the power of telling them that if they could not reconcile their differences he would present some other licentiate. For those reasons he moved that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.

An Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Selkirk)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

^*: My Lords, as I was not able to be present when my noble Friend opposite introduced this Bill, and when several noble Lords expressed their opinions on it, I hope the House will allow me to take thus early an opportunity to-night of stating the point of view from which I have come to regard the question of Church patronage in Scotland. It is now several years—12 or 14 years I think—since some leading ministers and other members of the Chnrch of Scotland began to make up their minds that an alteration of the law of patronage as regulated by what is called Lord Aberdeen's Act had become necessary for the welfare of that Church. As I had the honour to be one of three Members of your Lordships' House who hold an exceptionally large number of patronages, possessing as we do somewhere about 90 livings, and as I was the only one of the three who was a member of the Church and also a Member of the Government, those gentlemen naturally applied to me for some expression of opinion and advice. I told them that, as regarded my own patronage, it was entirely at the disposal of the Church; that it was more of a burden than a privilege to me, that it could only be exercised in the spirit of the change which they desired, and that, as for myself, I should offer no opposition either to a farther modification, or to the abolition of patronage. In consequence of what had thus passed with those gentlemen, I put myself in communication with the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) and the late Lord Zetland, being the two Peers who, with myself, held the largest number of patronages; and I soon found that, without pledging themselves to any particular measure for the abolition of patronage, they felt very much as I did as regarded the desirability of a satisfactory settlement of the question. But, my Lords, I also became aware that in respect to a substitute for the existing system of patronage there would probably arise great differences of opinion, and I satisfied myself that the time had not then come for the introduction of any measure on the subject. Accordingly, my advice to the leaders of the Church has ever since been this—"Avoid coming to Parliament for anything, if you can possibly help it. However just or desirable in itself may be the change which you desire, or however useful for the Church, avoid as long as you can coming to Parliament at all." Why did I give this advice? Because, my Lords, I have long been of opinion that on all questions affecting the relations between Church and State the condition of the public mind and of the mind of Parliament is simply chaos. I think the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is now having some experience as to the confused state of the public mind on all questions relating to Church Establishments. It would be very difficult, indeed, to say what is the prevailing sentiment. Bishops without authority—congregations without discipline—churches without govern- ment—religion without theological belief—these appear to be the devoutest aspirations of public writers, and of not a few public men. And so now in the same spirit I hear of propositions being thrust upon the Established Church of Scotland from without which would be fatal to her. I hear of proposals that her ministers should be elected, not by those who adhere to her, but by those who are her avowed enemies. It was not without reason, therefore, that I was afraid that if the Established Church of Scotland came to Parliament she would not get what she really wanted, but would have thrust upon her some measure, in the name of reform, involving some gross violation of all principle, and which would be disastrous to her. Then, my Lords, at a later period I knew that the last Parliament was a peculiarly unfavourable one for dealing with this question. It was elected under the impulse that arose out of the proposal to disestablish the Irish Church. The Government which proposed the disestablishment of that Church did not do so on the ground that there was any abstract or general objection to all Church Establishments. Quite the contrary. It is true that some individual Members of the late Ministry entertained opinions adverse to all Church Establishments—opinions which they never disguised; but the late Government uniformly declared that the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a measure founded exclusively on the special conditions of Ireland, and afforded no precedent whatever for any similar measure in respect of England or Scotland. My Lords, that declaration on the part of the late Government, was made with the most perfect sincerity and truth. But nevertheless the atmosphere of the late Parliament was unfavourable to Established Churches. There were many Members elected by largo constituencies who were shy of the subject—who desired to avoid if possible having anything to do with it, and especially assisting to pass measures, however reasonable, for amending and improving Established Churches. Those who have had experience of the course of public affairs in this country know very well that no declarations or explanations of Government can avail to alter what I have called the atmosphere of opinion under which a House of Commons has been elected, and it is this—and not verbal definitions—that makes particular measures possible or impossible. My Lords, it appears to me that the time has now fully come when public men ought to make up their minds on these questions, and ought to say what they think in regard to them. For myself, then, I say at once that I see nothing liberal in a general policy of Disestablishment. On the whole, Established Churches are more liberal than disestablished ones. If they have any fault, it is perhaps rather an inclination to be too liberal and too comprehensive almost to indifference. I see nothing, therefore, connected with Liberal politics in a general policy of disestablishment. My Lords, my views on Church Establishment may be very shortly told. I hold that the question of Church Establishments is entirely a question of circumstances. I do not believe in the abstract duty of the State to establish churches, nor do I believe it is the duty of churches to, in all cases, accept establishment. It is, as it seems to me, entirely a question of the social and religious condition of the country in respect of which the question may be raised. But this I do say—that those conditions of society and of religion which make a near connection between Church and State possible are higher and happier conditions than those which are incompatible with that connection. I certainly am not prepared to say, nor do I believe it to be true, that these last conditions are ours; and, this being so, I wish to approach every measure bearing on our Established Churches with a desire to strengthen and uphold them.

My Lords, these remarks on the abstract question are not irrelevant; they are infinitely more relevant than the musty old documents quoted by my noble Friend. I should be ashamed of intruding on your Lordships any opinions of my own upon such a subject, if it had no immediate bearing upon the measure before us. It is, however, avowed by friends and foes that this measure, if passed, will strengthen the Established Church. It is proposed by the Government for that purpose, and it is opposed by others upon no other ground than because it does tend to strengthen an Established Church. I am in favour of it on that ground alone, provided it is otherwise just and expedient; others are against it on that ground alone, whether it is just and expedient or not. That is the whole difference between those who support and those who oppose it.

Coming now, my Lords, to the measure itself, I think my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) is perfectly right in recognizing the principle of compensation to patrons. It is often said that patronage ought not to be deemed a right of property, but a trust; but there is no essential opposition between the two terms. There may be a right of property which is a trust, and a trust which is a right of property. Patronage in the eye of the law is a right of property, transmitted to heirs, and purchasable in the market; yet it is also, and is generally recognized to be, a trust for public purposes. Patronage had probably the same origin in England and in Scotland, but since the Reformation the history of the institution has been wholly different in the two countries. The only complaint I make is, that in assigning one year's stipend of the living as the amount of compensation my noble Friend is giving patrons very much more than they could ever get in the market. Patronage in Scotland ever since the Reformation has been a right qualified by many and great limitations—at all times by the standing declaration on the part of the Church that nobody was to be intruded on congregations against their will—sometimes by a very large discretionary power on the part of the Church Courts to consider objections by the people, and to reject a presentee if unqualified for the particular parish; at other times by the adoption of a system approaching to direct election. Never since 1560 bas it been the unqualified and absolute right which exists in England, and the qualifications were so serious that patronage has practically become unsaleable. Who would give money for a right of presentation which might be checkmated at any moment by the wishes of the people or the decision of the Church Court? I hardly ever hear of livings being sold at all. No doubt, when an estate is sold, patronage is frequently transferred with the estate, and may sometimes be considered in the price. There have been cases, too—one in my own experience—of the exchange of patronages; but I have never heard of their being sold for money, and, if they were, they would bring next to nothing. The last time it was tried, by an Act declaring that the patronage of the Edinburgh churches might be bought, nobody would bid, and another Act was therefore soon passed giving the patronage to the new bodies desired, without any compensation to the patrons. And no wonder that patronage has become unsaleable. when we look at the existing law which regulates and controls its exercise. In order to illustrate this point, I will now read to the House some of the objections to a presentee which have been actually sustained under Lord Aberdeen's Act, and have resulted in the presentation being rendered void. I suppose we may divide preachers into those who are dull or not very able, and those who are not dull but more or less eloquent, and I will show your Lordships that it is possible under that Act to reject both. Here is a finding fatal to a dull, ordinary preacher— His sermons are confused and ill-arranged, and do not exhibit such an exposition and illustration of Divine truth as are fitted to edify the people of Banff. That was conclusive against the presentee, and on an appeal to the General Assembly it verified and adopted these objections. Now, my Lords, we have all had our own experience of sermons—I ask your Lordships—What value would English patrons put on their patronage if every clergyman whose sermons could be pronounced "confused and ill-arranged" were rejected? There are several other cases of the same kind, and I quote from official documents. Here is one—"The trial discourses preached by the presentee were ill-deduced and unedifying."—Here is another— That the discourses were not edifying; that the subjects for the most part were disconnected with the texts, and that the discourses themselves were not connected one part with another. Again, my Lords, I ask—What percentage of the clergy might not be rejected if such were the state of the law in England? Well—but this is how the rather dull men are got rid of; but there is another way in which clever men—men too clever by half, who do not suit the people—may be got rid of also. Here is another finding of the General Assembly— That the style of the discourses preached by the presentee in terms of the order of Presbytery is confused and bombastic, and that the general character of these discourses is fitted to produce the impression that the object of them was rather to display the rhetorical powers of the preacher than to present correct views and inculcate sound lessons upon his hearers. How many eloquent preachers might not be rejected under this decision! Fifty thousand other objections of the same character might be and would be conclusive in the minds of the Church Courts when they think the presentee unacceptable to the people. But the Church Courts are thus placed in a very invidious position as regards the presentee, and in a position very hard and unfair as regards themselves. It is fatal to the presentee, because a man with such sentences as these upon him becomes at once a marked man all over Scotland; he can never hope for another living:—and the position is unjust to the Church Courts, because it places them under duress of conscience to find out objections to a man's sermons when the real objection may simply be that he is unacceptable to the congregation. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I think I have justified my statement that one year's stipend is far more than patrons can generally get in the market; but my noble Friend is, nevertheless, perfectly right in adopting the principle of compensation, and I will not quarrel with the Bill on the question of amount, especially as there is a statutory precedent. I only wish to point out to those noble Lords who are connected with English patronage that no precedent as regards value can be founded upon this Bill, the past history and present incidents of patronage in the two countries being so totally different.

My Lords, I now pass to another aspect of the Bill, in respect to patrons in which it has been presented by a Member of this House, who is unfortunately unable to be present at our debates, but who has communicated his opinions in a letter to The Daily News. My Lords, I much regret having to comment on that letter in the absence of Lord Minto. Everybody who knows that noble Earl must know that no one is more incapable than he of intentionally saying anything in a spirit of assumption, either as regards himself, or as regards the class to which he belongs. And yet I cannot but regard with extreme regret the fact that Lord Minto has represented patronage as the main and almost the only connection between the Church and the nation, and has consequently assumed that the abolition of patronage would be equivalent to a dissolution of that connection. It does seem indeed strange and incredible to me that such an argument as this should be adopted by any Scotch Peer. But, as I see it is more or less repeated by others, it is my duty to point out to your Lordships how weak it is. And for this purpose will my noble Friend, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), allow me to borrow for a moment that personage whom he once introduced so effectively to your Lordships, and over whom he has been supposed ever since to have a special guardianship—I mean the "intelligent foreigner?" Let us suppose this intelligent foreigner to be well informed on the remarkable history of the Church in Scotland—that he knew how its Confession of Faith had been embodied in Acts of Parliament as the only confession of faith known to the law in Scotland—that he knew of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Church in all her Courts by the civil law—that he knew how all her decisions within her own legitimate province are enforced by the civil law—and, above all, that he knew how the nation is represented, by a large infusion of the laity, in her General Assemblies—to such an extent that every one of the Royal burghs of Scotland has, as such, a right to send a member to the General Assembly—suppose him to know all these things, and that I, or Lord Minto, or some other patron were now to say to him, "Oh yes, all that you have heard on those matters is perfectly true; it is true that her confession of faith is adopted by law, that her Courts are recognized and their jurisdiction enforced by the law, that her Assemblies represent her people by a full and complete association of the laity—but these are not the things which constitute her an Established Church—these are not the things which connect her with the nation. That which really constitutes this connection is that I, and some 200 other gentlemen like me, have the legal right of presenting to livings—in this resides the whole essence and virtue of the Church Establishment and its connection with the nation." What, my Lords, do you think the intelligent foreigner would think of my intelligence in this assertion? Yet this is the proposition, gravely put before the public by a Peer of Scotland—that if patronage were abolished the only connection between Church and State would be abolished with it. As one of the largest patrons in Scotland, I repudiate this claim on behalf of our class. It is not only unfounded, but it is in the teeth of all the facts of history. The fact is, my Lords, though the law of patronage has been kept up from time to time, it has been essentially an excrescence, an extraneous element; and notwithstanding the desire of patrons generally to act in conformity with the spirit of the people, nevertheless it is an historical fact that it has been a perpetual cause of dissension in the Church of Scotland, and the origin of all the secessions from her.

I now come to another part of the Bill of my noble Friend, which is in the minds of many the real difficulty of this measure, and that is the proposed substitute for patronage. My noble Friend proposes that the right of patronage, or more properly the right of selection of the ministers, shall be vested in the commuicants of the parish. Now, there are two parties who object to this constituent body—parties who come from nearly opposite directions, but who unite in objection to the word "communicant." There are, on the one hand, those who are disposed to object to this "particular mode of defining the congregation; there are, on the other, those who object to confining the election to the congregation at all, and who desire to give the right of election to all—whether they be members of the Church or not. I shall deal with these two objections separately. With the first objection I have, I confess, a considerable amount of sympathy. In the old Acts of the Scotch Parliament which express the mind of Parliament upon the rights of the people in this matter, the word used is never "communicant," but always "congregation." Down even to Lord Aberdeen's Act the word "congregation is always used, never "communicant." But then I bog your Lordships to remember that in the old times, when those Statutes were passed, the assumption of the law was—and it was a true assumption—that substantially every man in the parish was a member of the congregation, and that every member of the congregation was a communicant. The word "congregation" meant then something more definite than it does now. But here a difficulty arises, and I beg the House to remember it, in justice to my noble Friend opposite, and in justice to the Bill. In dealing with an Established Church, with a legal position which is to be acquired in a certain definite manner cognizable by law, you require some legal definition of the constituent body. A non-established Church, a Free Church, escapes the difficulty of legal definition. The Government were in this difficulty. You must either take the definition of a congregation which is usual in the Presbyterian Churches; or you must adopt a new definition of your own, which is very difficult; or you must do without any definition of the congregation at all, and leave the matter to the ratepayer—a course to which, for reasons I hope to make plain to the House, I have insuperable objections. There is a suggestion, however, I would venture to make. I think it is desirable, if possible, to put in the old word "congregation," the word used in the various older Statutes; and you may evade the difficulty of Parliamentary definition by placing the definition in the hands of the General Assembly. They are disposed to include everybody they can include. The ordinary use and wont of the Presbyterian Churches is undoubtedly to appeal to the communicants. But there are many persons from year's end to year's end taking advantage of the other services of the Church, but not actual communicants, who would undoubtedly, in many cases, be considered by the Church Courts as valuable members of the congregation. I do not know whether the suggestion I have made can be worked out in a clause of an Act of Parliament, but this I will say—it is in strict conformity with the constitutional usage of Parliament towards the Church of Scotland. It is a curious fact that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which has such large powers of ecclesiastical discipline and legislation, has never been defined by Act of Parliament. The earliest Acts of Parliament speak of it as an existing body; and when they refer to the General Assembly of the Church, they always speak of it as "the General Assembly appointed by said Church." I would, therefore, suggest to my noble Friend to see whether, before we go into Committee, the word "congregation" could not be added to "communicants;" leaving it to the Church, by her constituted organs, to define and regulate the terms of membership.

I pass now to the other alternative, which has been supported by a number of distinguished men, and that is that you should give the election of the ministers of the Established Church to the ratepayers, whether Roman Catholics, Dissenters, or anybody else. Now, my Lords, I am not one of those who hold any extreme views on the subject of what is called spiritual independence. If we are to go to abstract principle, it has always appeared to me that the civil authority in every country must be the supreme authority in deciding what it can afford to tolerate in Churches—and this whether they be established or whether they be free. But this I will say—that whatever liberty is left to a Church which is established, or may be allowed to a Church which is free, must be a liberty exercised by its own members, and not by the members of hostile communions. To adopt any other rule, would be to introduce absolute confusion, incompatible with the very existence of any organized and constituted society—would deprive it of all terms of membership, and would allow the highest functions of the body to be exercised by those who not only do not belong to it, but who tell you they will never belong to it, and that they desire its destruction. And is it conceivable, is it possible, that Members of the Liberal Party, in the name of liberality, after objecting to the intrusion of ministers upon congregations by lay patrons—who, after all, are men in high position, and who act in a spirit of responsibility—is it possible, I say, that they would allow the consciences of congregations to be violated by majorities of ratepayers who may not possibly be members of any Christian Church? My Lords, these are the propositions which justify me in saying that men's minds are wholly adrift on such questions—"wild and wandering cries," which are nothing but "confusions" of a time, becoming every year more and more incapable of dealing with such problems. All the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland would be equally opposed to so gross an innovation on principles which are equally dear to all. They might, indeed, be tempted to rejoice over such a degradation of the Established Church, which would, indeed, remove all risk of their people being attracted to it. My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that if the time should ever come when the individual branches of the Church of Christ are unable to ally themselves with the State without having this element of confusion forced upon them in the name of liberality, I, for one, shall be in favour of disestablishment, and shall desire to see all Churches in the position of complete freedom and independence.

I wish now to say a few words in regard to another theory which is made a ground of opposition to the Bill of my noble Friend. It is said—"The minister is now the minister of the parish, but you would make him the minister of a sect," and this phrase is repeated from mouth to mouth without much thought apparently of what it really involves and. means. Let us examine this phrase to see how empty it is—let us prick this bladder of words, and it will burst. In what sense, my Lords, is it true to say that the minister is the minister of the parish? I remember that many years ago my right rev. Friend, Bishop Wilberforce—whose loss we have all so lately mourned and deplored—opposed the "Papal Aggression," as it was then termed, on this ground among others—namely, that the Bishop of every diocese had an inalienable right to the allegiance of all persons dwelling within a certain geographical area. At the time I ventured very humbly to enter my protest against that ground of opposition to the "Papal Aggression," and I still maintain that whether this claim be advanced by Bishops, by priests, or by ministers, it involves a gross confusion of thought. It is true, indeed, that an Established Clergy are a clergy for all—in this sense, that their services are open to all who desire to take advantage of them by accepting the terms on which they are offered. But a Bishop or a minister is not the Bishop or minister of those who do not choose to come to him, who do not require his ministrations, and who do not accept or approve the terms on which these ministrations are offered. He has no rights over them, and they have no rights over him. Any other definition of territorial jurisdiction makes religious truth and religious belief—what the Italian people were once said to be—"a geographical expression."

And now I come to the practical working, on which my noble Friend who has just sat down dwelt to a considerable extent. My noble Friend says—"You will have all the evils of a popular election in every parish." In England I am aware that the popular election of ministers—at least, by a rate paying constituency—does produce considerable confusion, and I am not here to recommend it anywhere; but in Scotland it is the old constitutional system that the congregation shall, in one form or another, have a decided voice in the selection of their ministers. They are accustomed to the exercise of that power; and after 25 year's experience in regard to patronage, I say, in answer to my noble Friend, that the ministers whom I have allowed the congregation to select have been generally well selected. I can say more. At first I used not to consult the congregations so generally as I do now; but I must admit that the ministers selected by them have, on the whole, been better men and more satisfactory ministers than those whom I presented myself. I assert, therefore, as a matter of fact, that the habits of the people of Scotland enable them to exercise this privilege with success. It is universally exercised in the unestablished Churches, and why should it not be also exercised in the Established Church? At this moment there is a vacancy in a parish of which I am patron, in the Vale of Leven, at the foot of Loch Lomond. Well, I could no more present any man I liked to that congregation than I could fly to the moon. The course I have taken when vacancies occurred in that parish has been to consult my friend Mr. Smollett, who was long Member for the county, and who is a resident proprietor and member of the congregation. A committee is formed, who look out for suitable men, and I have always found that the congregation had better facilities than I had for finding out who were the best candidates to be had. And, my Lords, on this subject, I have been astonished at a paper signed by Dr. Cook, the leader of a small minority who opposed this Bill in the General Assembly which has just been held. It states that the people have not the same opportunity as a patron of finding out the qualifications of presentees. My opinion is, on the contrary, that the people are generally much better qualified than the patrons. There is nothing more unsatisfactory than forming a judgment from testimonials. Your Lordships must remember that the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland do not generally occupy so high a social position as the clergy of the Established Church of England. Many of your Lordships have personal friendships, formed at College or elsewhere, with clergymen whom you know to be men of the highest Christian character; but we have not, generally speaking, the same personal knowledge of the presentees in the Church of Scotland. Consequently, we must rely to a great extent on the testimony of others, and I have usually found that such testimony is entirely unsatisfactory.

I now wish to say a few words on the conduct of the other Presbyterian Churches, and in the first place I beg your Lordships to observe that none of them have petitioned against this Bill on its merits. They have violently abused the Government for venturing to introduce it, but they have not themselves ventured to oppose it, except as tending to strengthen an establishment, and therefore to postpone universal voluntaryism. The finding of the Free Church is the most comical document I ever read. I will not trouble your Lordships with the words, but it amounts to this:—"We have nothing to say to the merits of this Bill. We do not feel that we have any business with it. As regards the interests of the Established Church, and how far it will promote those interests, we do not consider ourselves entitled to express an opinion." But then they proceed to remark that it is extremely unbecoming of the House of Lords to consider a Bill for advancing the interests of the Established Church without first consulting them—although they have nothing to do with it. It is remarkable, however, as I have said, that neither the Free Church nor the United Presbyterian Church have ventured to oppose this Bill upon its merits—that is, upon the mode of selecting ministers which it proposes to sanction—because they know it is in general unison with the whole feelings of the people of Scotland, and that it is precisely the solution of the difficulty as regards the election of the ministers which they have themselves adopted. This Bill has not been recommended to the House as a means of re-union with other Churches. It has been prepared for the benefit of the people of the Established Church, with which alone it deals, and who, on the very lowest calculation, form a portion of the people of Scotland more than large enough to justify the special action of the Legislature. As regards re-union of the Churches, I have always said there is no hope whatever of the reunion of the Free and Established Churches, except on the ground of Disestablishment; for, independently of principle, there are insurmountable physical difficulties in the way. Nine hundred ministers are supported by voluntary contributions, and what would become of them in the event of any admission that the causes of separation have been removed. Why, my Lords, they would starve. Such large voluntary contributions can only be maintained by the assertion of distinctive principles, and by the farther assertion that these remain unsatisfied. And, in justice to the Free Church, I must add that this Bill of itself does not satisfy or express the extreme views they hold on spiritual independence. This Bill, if carried, will, indeed, make it much more easy for families and individuals to pass from one Church to another. And. this is a consequence which may be dreaded by the Voluntary Churches more than any other. But this, I venture to say, is not an argument against the Bill which will weigh with your Lordships, or with the House of Commons. The truth is that there is more than ample room for both. Our business in Parliament is with the Established Church, and with all who either are, or desire to be, its members.

In conclusion, I have only to say that, although I have suggested to my noble Friend certain Amendments which I should be very glad to see the Government adopt if they can be made consistently with the principle of this Bill, I will not endanger the passing of it by endeavouring to force upon them any Amendments which they cannot conscientiously adopt. It is a Bill which has been conscientiously framed on the ancient principles of the Church of Scotland. It has been accepted by an overwhelming majority of the great representative body of the Church, and it is a Bill which, if carried, is calculated to do great good in Scotland. But, my Lords, I feel bound to add that if my noble Friend should unfortunately accept any Amendments which tend to give a vote to the general body of ratepayers without any distinction of religious or irreligious opinion—if no religious qualifications are to be required of those who are to vote in the election of ministers of the Gospel in the Church of Scotland—I, for one, will not accept this Bill, but, on the contrary, I shall vote against it at every stage. I will be no party to giving up this great trust of patronage into hands less worthy—because less responsible—than those that now hold it. I will be no party, above all, to any measure which confounds distinctions essential to the very existence of every organized society, and which assuredly it is not less important to observe in respect to every branch of the Church of Christ.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, that in one respect he entirely agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll)—he entirely agreed that they ought to support the Bill, so far as it was calculated to promote the interests of the Established Church of Scotland. But he ventured respectfully to differ both from him and the noble Duke who had moved the second reading, on the point as to whether the Bill, as at present framed, was calculated to promote the interests of the Church of Scotland; more especially as regarded the important point of the constitution of the electoral body. It was proposed by the Bill to remove the appointment of ministers from the patrons to the communicants. This was about the worst test they could possibly apply. No doubt, according to the original constitution of the Church, the original appointment of ministers was vested in the communicants or a body delegated by them, because it was at that time all one Church; but it did not follow that if they had altered the original constitution of the Church they should revert in the present day to the original practices. They must remember that the Church had undergone a great change. It was within the memory of men now living that the partaking of Communion was a test not merely of appointing ministers, but of holding municipal offices. What man was there now who would not be shocked and horrified at the prospect of a return to such a test? So long as it was a matter of property there was much to be said for the existing state of things; but if it was made a matter of popular election, it seemed to him that if they were to relegate the election of ministers of the Church of Scotland either to communicants or those who belonged to the Established Church, they were so far bringing down the Church of Scotland from a national institution to the level of a sect. With all respect to the General Assembly, he could not forget that it was only within the last two or three years they had come round to favour the proposals now made by the noble Duke; therefore he did not think they could accept the Assembly as infallible in this matter. At present a patron might present, irrespective of his creed. He might be an Episcopalian—he might be anything but a Roman Catholic. Besides, in many cases the right of presentation was vested in town councils, which were elected by persons of all shades of religious opinion. But more than that, he found in 10 parishes of Scotland—some of them of large population—the presentation to benefices was vested in the heads of families. In all these cases there was a violation of the principle which the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had just laid down. The noble Duke had expressed his strong objection to giving the ratepayers the power of appointing ministers; but that was the state of things which existed at present in several parishes—among others in one of the largest parishes in Scotland, having the best living—the parish of North Leith—where the nomination was in the gift of the heads of families. The Bill did not give any new test or guarantee of orthodoxy, but left that privilege precisely as it was now. How would the elections work? There were several Highland parishes in which there were no communicants at all, and some in which there was no congregation at all. How would the minister be elected there? Or suppose there were six or seven communicants, what would the Bill do? Would they create a sectarian oligarchy, and give the election of minister to the five or six persons out of a population of 500 or 600? He was afraid in these cases the last days of the Church would be much worse than the first. Then, there were cases where patronage was exercised by the Crown with justice and wisdom. By this Bill the grievances of these parishes would serve as rallying cries for all persons who from any cause whatever had a dislike to the Church of Scotland. He was afraid, if the Bill were adopted, they would give a great stimulus to the party for Disestablishment. Then there were churches which had been endowed by Parliament, where the appointment was by the Crown through responsible Ministers; there were also cases in Glasgow where the minister was paid out of the rates. He must feel, therefore, that for the good of the Established Church, he must object to having the power of appointment taken out of the present hands. It had been said that they ran a great risk, if they gave the right—a right to vote for ministers—to an enlarged electoral body, that objectionable persons would be able to take part in the elections. Well, but that risk, if it was a risk, existed now. He could point out many cases in which the right of patronage was exercised by many persons who did not go to church;—did they think the risk would be increased if they took the patronage from one person and gave it to a great number of persons? He did not mean to say there were not difficulties, whichever way they looked; but whatever danger might arise from extending the electoral body, he was convinced it would be more than counterbalanced by positive advantages. The Church of England was bound up in the welfare of the people of England. He should like to see the Church of Scotland placed on a footing of equal strength, and he believed, if they wished to give a similar stability to that Church, they must begin by laying a foundation that should be broad as well as deep.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

said, he could not support the Bill—it seemed to him one of the most unjust and harsh measures which had been laid before their Lordships within his recollection. It was a Bill to do away with patronage, and it amounted, according to his reading of it, pretty nearly to the disestablishment of the Established Church. First of all, it commenced with the repeal of the Act of Queen Anne—an Act which was passed to restore to patrons the ancient rights that belonged to them when the incomes of the ministers of the Church of Scotland were paid by the great landed proprietors. The Churches both of England and Scotland owed their origin to the great landowners—they built the Churches, and endowed them—that was to say, they paid the ministers; and all they kept for themselves was the right to nominate the clergyman. Since the Act of Queen Anne that system had been in force. What did this Bill do? It left the landed proprietors out—they were not allowed to have a word to say in the matter. He meant literally what he said. In many cases the landowners were not communicants of the Church of Scotland—in others it was impracticable for them to be communicants of the particular parish—and thus they would be without the qualification prescribed by the Bill. In his own parish, for instance, communion was only twice in the year, at Midsummer and at Christmas. At Midsummer, he (the Earl of Lauderdale) was in that House, and could not be attending communion in Scotland. In winter, at his time of life, he could not stand the cold in Scotland, but was obliged to reside in the South. Under these circumstances, he would be prevented from taking the least part in the election of the minister, although he had to pay him and repair his church. That was very hard. He had looked upon the parish as his parish, and he had done everything he could to get the best clergyman, and if he was to be thrown out from those who wore communicants, he thought it would be a most ungracious and unjust thing. With regard to compensation, it was an insult to offer any man money for patronage. They never sold patronage in Scotland, but it was a very different thing to have it taken away from them. He would not sell the patronage in his own church for 30 years' purchase. He objected to the Bill because it would not improve the Scottish Church. He did not think they would get bettor clergymen. In his parish they liked to have a man who would look after old and young, the sick, and the poor. If a man were a great preacher, he should not be so fond of choosing him, because they had already had two or three of the most distinguished preachers in Scotland, and they could not keep them. The moment it was found he was a wonderful preacher, he was offered another living, and away he went. Therefore, he thought that in appointing a clergyman there was a great deal to be looked at besides his preaching. If the communicants wished to have the right of election, let them have it, but do not make the landowners and heritors pay for it, and have no voice in the election of the minister.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, the circumstances under which they were asked to consider this question were more than usually favourable. Generally speaking, such a measure was mixed up with pecuniary and private interests, but such was not the case in this instance. He was quite satisfied that the patrons of the Church of Scotland had always exercised their power of appointment as a sacred trust, and not as a right of property. He quite agreed with the noble Duke who spoke on a previous night, that the patrons of Scotland would scorn to receive a money compensation; but, at the same time, the matter was so small that no difficulty would arise on this question. At the same time, he could not consider this Bill one for consolidating the Church. He did not think the mode of election a good one, and the Bill introduced for the first time a sort of test. By the introduction of election by "communicants," in the first place there would be considerable difficulty in that mode of election. He wished to know whether there was a constituency to be formed by the minister. The qualifications of such a constituency would be in distinct contradiction to the class of persons who had been the electors up to the present time. He denied that the proposal would strengthen the basis of the Church. He felt sure that no alteration would confer strength on the Church except extending the elective powers to the whole of the parish. Formerly a minister was the minister of the parish, but he was not so now. The ratepayers had a permanent interest in the parish in which they lived. He believed himself, though perhaps not many might agree with him, that if the ratepayers were substituted for the communicants in the election of the ministers, it would induce many of the Presbyterian Dissenters to come in, and at all events if they did not, the Church would be placed on a much wider basis if it said to them—"Although you do not recognize us, we recognize you, and we offer to you every means of entering the Church as parishioners; and if you do not choose to enter what you term an Erastian Establishment, that is no fault of the Church; the country must judge between us, and we cannot be charged with illiberality." But under this Bill, as it stood, they could not make any such overtures. The Presbyterian Dissenters might charge them with restricting themselves more and more; and therefore they would not consent to the continuance of an Establishment from which they went out in 1843. An opportunity in 1843 was offered for preventing Disruption, but they did not avail themselves of it, and Disruption took place. He felt convinced that they would not strengthen the Church by this Bill, and on the contrary, he believed that it would tend to bring about the disestablishment much sooner than was expected.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE

said, that when the noble Duke introduced this Bill in their Lordships' House, he (the Earl of Dalhousie) expressed his surprise that Her Majesty's Government should have thought proper to put their hands to it. There was no public cry for its introduction, no agitation at present in Scotland for meddling with the question of patronage; and, as far as his observation of the exercise of patronage lately in that country went, there were few disputed settlements and little disturbance of the peace of the Establishment arising from them. He thought, therefore, that the Government, with so many other pressing questions on their hands, had rashly stirred a question and raised a spirit which they would not find it easy to allay. The circumstance of so much difference of opinion being expressed in their Lordships' House was nothing but an indication of the difference of opinion which would be created throughout Scotland by the Bill. The introduction of this measure was to him, as a member of the Church to which he belonged, not at all unsatisfactory, for he considered it was a great homage paid to the Disruption of 1843, and a recognition of the principles which led to it. He looked upon it as one which would not in the least degree tend to heal that Disruption, because it did not touch one of the causes of that Disruption which originally created all the difficulty in the Church of Scotland—namely, the passing of the Act of Queen Anne. It appeared to him that if this change was to be made in the Church of Scotland, it was quite right that it should be made at a time when the Church was quiescent. But it was said that one of the objects of the Bill was to legislate for the peace and quietness of the Church. He had great reason to doubt that any such result would ensue. They were told that one great object of the measure was to build a bridge over which the members of the Free Church, and others who had seceded from it, would be able to pass in order to re-unite themselves to the Establishment. Anything more preposterous than that he could not conceive. In his view, it was a total impossibility. In this Bill they did not touch the one main cause which led to the Disruption of the Church—they did not recognize the spiritual jurisdiction claimed by the seceders; and they could not expect that if they did not agree upon the question of spiritual jurisdiction, the seceders would ever be led to unite themselves with the Establishment in consequence of anything which the Bill now before the House contained. It was not possible to suppose that the Free Church would ever again make common cause with the Established Church. In the first place, as honest men, they could not come into connection with the Church again unless their differences were really allayed. He was not disposed to argue the question whether the seceders were right or wrong in their secession—he thought his noble Friend who had first spoken (the Earl of Selkirk) had gone very unnecessarily into the nature of the question. It was an accomplished fact. They had now three distinct bodies of Presbyterians, one of which was attached to the Established Church; another in the form of a distinct body comprehended the Free Church; and the third, the United Presbyterians, also formed a distinct body. They were now going to legislate for a minority, and in such a manner as they thought would secure it from all chance of further danger. He believed that his noble Friend opposite would find that to be impossible. He might stave off the evil for a time, but in his (the Earl of Dalhousie's) opinion, he would not do so for long, for in his belief he would find that the Bill would rather tend to introduce into the Church further seeds of dissension, It had been said that the Disruption which had taken place in 1843 had been prejudicial to the interests of religion in Scotland. That he utterly denied. He believed that religion was on a sounder footing in Scotland than it had ever been before. The Free Church of Scotland was a most remarkable proof how religion could be maintained when disconnected from the State. They would probably hardly credit the progress which the Free Church had made since the Disruption. They had subscribed for all the purposes of their Church no less a sum than £10,700,000, and last year they had a revenue of no less than half a million of money. He asked whether, under these circumstances, they would be likely again to join the Established Church? He was one of those who so far respected that Church that he would put out no hand to pull it down, but, as a Dissenter, he did not feel it his duty to extend his hand to prop it up. It was impossible that such a re-union between the Established Church and the Free Church could take place as was desired, or that such a bridge could be built as was projected. In the General Assembly of the Free Church, when the subject was discussed the other day, only 66 out of 500 formed the minority in favour of the noble Duke's measure, and even their support was of a very mild description. At the same time, he should say that if a few went back to the Established Church, let them pass—their places would soon be filled up; but as to any expectation of the great body of the Free Church going back to the Established Church, such an idea was utterly fallacious. In regard to the Bill itself, he thought the noble Duke had exercised a wise discretion in giving the election to the communicants for if he extended it to the parishioners he would introduce an element of discord that would prove ruinous. The Bill recognized a right of property in the heritors and the Crown. The Crown, they were told, was ready to surrender its rights—that was, all it had in its power to surrender—all rights of property had been previously surrendered. He had some doubts whether this was not in some sense a money Bill; it ought not to have originated in the other House—it gave compensation to some parties, it took away the franchise from some and transferred it to others. He should stand entirely aloof from the Bill as a Dissenter from the Church, and therefore he should not vote on the measure; but he believed that the noble Duke, in raising this question, would stir the minds of the people of Scotland to their greatest depths.

THE EARL OF SEAFIELD

My Lords, as one of the patrons of the Church of Scotland, I trust you will allow me to say a few words on the substance of this Bill now before the House. The question of Patronage having been discussed so often in the General Assembly, I was prepared for some Bill being brought forward, but not for so sweeping a measure, and I regret that it should have been brought in by the noble Duke and by a Conservative Government. The patrons of Scotland have always endeavoured to select good ministers for their churches, and I am not aware of any abuse of the right of patronage having occurred. Of course, there have been disputed settlements; but these are few in comparison to the number of presentations, and the Veto Act gives every facility to those inclined to object to a presentee. My Lords, I have heard with much pleasure the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll); but I cannot agree with him in thinking that taking the right of selecting the ministers from the patrons, and giving it to the communicants, will have the effect of bringing a better and more efficient class of ministers into the Church. Clause No. 5 of the Bill, which proposes to deal with compensation, is, I think, objectionable, as it deprives the newly-elected minister for four years of a sum equal to one year's stipend at a time when he is most in need of it, having to settle himself in his parish and furnish the manse, &c. My Lords, I look upon this Bill as nothing less than a confiscation of the rights of patrons, and, in my humble opinion, it is the first step to the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, and, therefore, if the noble Earl (the Earl of Selkirk) divides the House, I shall go into the Lobby with him.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

considered that the Government were entitled to the gratitude of the great majority of the people of Scotland, without reference to their religious persuasions or their political opinions, for having taken this subject in hand. Taking into account the antecedents of the question, he could not for one moment doubt that the Government acted wisely in deciding to abolish the right of patronage as it existed under the Acts of 1711 and 1840. After fully looking into the matter, he could not help thinking that the exercise of patronage in the Church of Scotland was an abuse, and had been an abuse from the beginning; and, in addition, he believed that such patronage was entirely repugnant to the feelings of the Scotch people. He did not want to say, nor did he believe, that patronage had been the sole cause of all the dissent from the Church of Scotland which had taken place from time to time. There were Nonconformist bodies in Scotland at the present moment who drew the motives of their dissent from other causes besides that of their objection to Church patronage. He knew that some dissented because they believed a connection between Church and State was sinful; that others dissented because they could not bring themselves to acknowledge the legitimacy of such a connection; and that there were more who dissented because they could not bring themselves to see that the connection was of the perfectly spiritual character which they thought necessary for the well-being of the Church. But there could be no question that there had been very little dissent from the Church of Scotland in which the question of lay patronage did not enter in some degree. Although no doubt, the question of lay patronage had not been the chief motive that had actuated the clergy in their movements, beyond question it had been the principal cause that had actuated the laity. He was convinced that lay patronage was one of the greatest abuses that could be connected with a Church, and he was satisfied that that was the conviction of most Scotchmen, Churchmen and Dissenters. Under these circumstances, he was satisfied that the Government had done well in coming to the conclusion that the best course they could adopt was to abolish this patronage altogether. Having said so much in favour of the decision of the Government, he had now to allude to the manner in which they proposed to put that decision to practical use. He found that by the Acts of 1649 and 1690, the nomination of ministers was vested in the heritors and the parishioners; but that there was no definition whatever of the congregation of the particular Church most immediately concerned. Both Acts went on the principle of presentation by a limited body, and merely confirmed the right of the congregation to object. So far as this point of presentation was concerned, he thought that the Government had exercised a wise discretion. The principle of presentation now in existence was liable to a great number of abuses. Before now it had been the cause of much controversy, involving the keeping alive of differences and ill-feeling which it would be much better to let die out; and very often these disputes ended in the rejection of a good, efficient minister, and the appointment of an incompetent one. It seemed to him that whatever objection might be taken to the form of election proposed in that Bill, election was a far more preferable mode of proceeding than the old system of presentation. He fully approved of the proposition of the Government to erect the system of election in lieu of the present system of patronage. The question then arose, in whose hands the right of election should be? He could not assent to the proposal that it ought to be given to the whole body of ratepayers, because that would involve all the evils to which popular election was liable, inasmuch as those might take part in the appointment of the ministers of the Church who might be the enemies not only of its constitution but also of the doctrines which it taught. He believed, however, the right might safely be confided to all the Protestant communities, for that would secure in Scotland a conscientious constituency which would be very unlikely to exercise its suffrage in a vexatious or destructive spirit. But, under present circumstances, such a proposal would, he thought, not be acceptable to the Church of Scotland itself or to the general community. Therefore they had to fall back on the proposal of the Government; but if the noble Duke opposite could see his way to adopt the suggestion made by the noble Duke on that side (the Duke of Argyll), and substitute the word "congregation" for "communicants," it would be an improvement. If, however, the noble Duke could not do so, then he (Lord Napier) would urge him to admit the heritors among the electors, as it would add to the influence and social position of the Church by maintaining its connection with the proprietary class. It was highly desirable, from a social point of view, that the heritors should be interested in the welfare and support of the Church, by forming part of the electoral body. At present the heritors had the obligation of supporting the fabric of the church, and it was not an uncommon thing for them to say that they paid the ministers, although, in point of fact, the stipend was not paid by them. However, they possessed either the whole or a large share of the teinds, which were partially applied from time to time to repairing the residence of the minister. If the heritors were not allowed to occupy the position of electors, such a step might have a prejudicial effect in regard to the interest now manifested by the proprietors in the welfare of the Establishment. In his judgment the Government had acted very wisely in leaving the regulations for the elections by the communicants to be drawn up by the General Assembly. The Government had also done well to recognize the principle of compensation, because the commodity of patronage actually had a commercial value; but some of the provisions of the measure were so bad as to be altogether impracticable. In particular, one part of the plan should be altered. The noble Duke proposed that when a benefice fell vacant the patron should receive from the heritors, in four annual instalments, a sum of money approximately equivalent to one year's stipend, and that the heritors should recover that compensation from the incumbent. The Act of 1690 contained no provision for the recovery, and why should it not be left open to the heritors to vote the whole sum of money themselves? There was little doubt that, in the event of the Bill passing, the Church of Scotland would organize a subscription to relieve ministers from the loss of a portion of their stipend at a most inconvenient period of their incumbency. He believed, however, that in very few cases would the patrons accept the compensation provided by the Bill. He now came to the probable effect which the operation of this Bill, if passed into law, would have on the members of the Free Church and on the Nonconformist bodies. He quite agreed that if this Bill became law it might not have any immediate effect on the Established Church of Scotland or on the congregations of the Free Church, and it was also possible that it would have no immediate effect on the Nonconformist bodies. He had no doubt, however, that in the long run the operation of the measure would have considerable influence on the younger portion of the congregations of the various Churches. He believed that if the Church of Scotland continued to be conducted as efficiently as it was at present, there would most likely be a gravitation on the part of some of the congregations of the Free Churches to the Established Church. That result, if it came about, would be pregnant with very mighty consequences indeed. Either the congregations of the Free Church would gravitate towards the Church of Scotland when patronage was abolished, or some new Church would, he thought, come into existence. But he did not think the Government need at present trouble themselves on these matters. When the time came to deal with the consequences of this proposed change in the law, it would then be for the Government to take proper action. So far, he thought, Government had done well in even attempting to settle the question. He hoped that the attempt would result in some practical good.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

My Lords, before addressing myself to the various remarks made during the evening, I have the honour of presenting to your Lordships a Petition signed by the Moderator on behalf of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in favour of the measure which is now standing for a second reading. It is not my intention to detain your Lordships at any great length, because the subject has been so generally discussed by your Lordships, and because I am gratified to find there is very little practical difference in this House with regard to the measure which I have had the honour of introducing. In saying this I am very far from underating the importance of the position occupied by my noble Friend who has moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I am well aware of the high position which he has held for so many years in the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland, and therefore it was with great regret that I found my noble Friend intended to take the course he has done on this occasion. From his well-known candour I feel perfectly certain that the strong sentiments which he entertains on this subject induced him to take that course. But I think the objections which my noble Friend took to the Bill were rather more highly coloured than its merits, or, as he would say, its demerits, warrant. My noble Friend says that since he has had a scat in this House he has known no measure within the four corners of which there has been contained more mischief. I think, too, his objections were painted in rather too strong colours when he said that the compensation offered would be a mockery.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I did not say that. What I said was that I thought the compensation was such as no liberal minded man could accept.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

I was much astonished to find my noble Friend saying what he did with regard to the proposed mode of selecting the ministers. My noble Friend, who spoke second or third (the Earl of Lauderdale), said that this was a Bill for doing away with patronage altogether, and that he objected to it on that ground. I apprehend that it does not do away with patronage altogether. It merely takes away the right of selecting the ministers from the parties who now possess it and places it in the hands of others. Patronage will still exist, although the right of election will belong to a different body. My noble Friend says that if this measure is carried it will altogether alter the character of the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland by introducing a system of canvassing and other unseemly proceedings, such as take place in contested elections of Members of Parliament in this country, and that in every parish in Scotland there will be scenes of riot, seenes of bribery, and other scenes to which I will not venture to allude, but which are generally regarded as coincident with the election of Members of Parliament in this country. If my noble Friend had not been a resident in Scotland, if he had not been a member of the Established Church, if he had not passed the greater part of his years in Scotland, I believe I should have said the noble Earl would forgive me for saying he knew very little of what takes place in that country. I do not happen to be a member of the Established Church of Scotland—I am a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, but upon my property there are a very great number of congregations in connection with the Free Church of Scotland. Those congregations contain a very large number of very estimable men—they are men quite equal in social position to members of the Established Church in that country, and they do a very great deal of good in the parts in which they are located. But I cannot recollect one case of selection of minister among those congregations of the Free Church in which there took place such scenes as my noble Friend describes. I say then that my noble Friend over-painted the disadvantages likely to arise from the passing of this Bill as regards the character of the ministers to be elected. My noble Friend went on to say that by passing this Bill you will endanger the Christianity of the country. He says that the passing of this measure will tend to unchristianize Scotland. Now, what does the distinguished body to which my learned Friend belongs—the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland—say on that subject? I find that that Assembly has come to a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill, and in a Petition which it has agreed to, it says that this Bill affords a satisfactory solution of the question of patronage, and that if passed into law it will be productive of the best effects upon the ecclesiastical relations, and upon the moral and religious condition of the people of Scotland. I set that opinion of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland against that of my noble Friend that the Bill would tend to do away with Christianity in Scotland. There is no real ground for alarm on that point. I now pass on to the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who spoke second, and who addressed us with more than his usual eloquence and clearness of reasoning. It has never before been my fortune to agree so thoroughly with him as I do now, and my only complaint is that he has left me very little indeed to say. But I am bound to notice one or two of the suggestions of my noble Friend. He deprecated strongly the proposal to intrust the election of the minister to the ratepayers in general. I share every single sentiment which my noble Friend has expressed on that subject; and if in Committee your Lordships were to sanction the proposal to which I have alluded I should consider the Resolution equivalent to a rejection of the Bill, and would have no desire whatever to go on with it. The arguments of my noble Friend were so cogent that I should only weary your Lordships by dwelling on the point. The noble Duke also said he would prefer—though he was not disposed to insist on the alteration—that for the communicants there should be substituted the congregation, subject to rules to be laid down by the General Assembly. I can only say that I will consider this suggestion. I am aware that there is a great deal to be said in favour of it, and if I can see my way to accepting the proposal I shall be glad to do it. At the same time I do not wish to be understood as giving any pledge on the subject. I may here correct a misapprehension which a noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) appeared to be under. The noble Lord maintained that it was an entirely new thing to recognize the body of communicants in an Act of Parliament; but this was a mistake, for it will be found that that body is distinctly recognized in an Act of 33 and 34 of the present reign. I have seen it suggested that inasmuch as the right of patronage—as it is called—is to be taken away from the present patrons, they ought in justice to be absolved from the liability which now attaches to them of rebuilding of manses and other matters; but I think that those who raise this contention must sec, on giving fuller consideration to the point, that the result would be to place the patrons, without any good reason, on a much better footing than the other heritors in the parish. A noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) who holds a distinguished position in the Free Church of Scotland, remarked that the Established Church was in a minority in Scotland; but it must be remembered that this is only true when the Establishment is compared with the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church taken together, and not when they are taken separately. The noble Earl frightened me by raising a question as to property of the Crown and by expressing a doubt as to whether the Bill was one that could properly be introduced in this House. But if I am not mistaken this is a now light which has dawned upon my noble Friend, for, if I remember right, in times past he did not acknowledge that any such property existed. My noble Friend's position in regard to this Bill seems to be a very anomalous one—he says that the Free Church will not be injured by the Bill, and yet that it is opposed to the Bill. As to the state of the public mind, I think that this is an opportune moment for legislating on the subject. I will only add that I shall give the fullest consideration to the suggestions which have been made in the course of this discussion, and that I believe that if the Bill passes—as I hope it will within a very few weeks—it will strengthen the Church, elevate the morals of the people, and confer great benefits on all classes in Scotland.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

, in reply, said, that the noble Duke had misunderstood him if he thought that he said that this would in any way affect the Christian doctrines of the Church; but that it appeared to him that the contentions in parishes, to which a popular election must give rise, would be most injurious to the true interests of Christianity. Such, at least, was his opinion, and he had never heard anything here or elsewhere to shake that opinion. He trusted that if the Bill passed he might prove wrong, but such was his opinion.

THE EARL OF ROSSLYN

said, that the deepest interest was taken in the Bill in Scotland, and that he could on behalf of the General Assemblies state that it was their desire that the word "communicants "and that only should be retained in it as designating who were to be the elective body. Several proposals had been made to substitute another electoral body, but they had all been negatived.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2^a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.