Lords Sitting of 18 May 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Church Patronage (Scotland) (72).
Second Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* (50); East India Annuity Funds (51).
Third Reading—Betting * (47), and passed.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, in accordance with the Notice which I placed on the Paper some days back, I rise to call the attention of your Lordships to a matter of very great importance—the state of Church patronage in Scotland. I do so with a sense of the very great responsibility which attaches to moving in this matter—especially as I intend to ask your Lordships to deal substantially with it by giving a first reading to the Bill which I shall lay upon the Table. Of one thing, however, I can assure your Lordships, and it is that I approach the subject with an entire absence of any political motive whatever, because I am of opinion that a question of the appointment of ministers to attend to the spiritual wants of a large portion of our fellow countrymen is not one for party warfare, nor one to be made even a subject of political discussion. My Lords, I believe I am acting in the interests of the Established Church of Scotland—because I am satisfied that if you assent to the measure which I am about to lay before you, and to ask you to read the first time, it will extend and perpetuate that Church. I am anxious to contribute to such a result, as I am of opinion that no blessing is so great to any country as that of an Established Church, whereby the nation and its Government make public profession of the religion to which they are attached. My Lords, I cannot see any objection to the measure I intend to

  369
  propose, unless it be one which may be felt by those who, being hostile to all Establishments, may think that this measure will tend to give the Established Church of Scotland additional vigour and increased vitality. My Lords, this subject has been constantly before the Scotch people for the last 300 years. During that period presentation by individuals had been twice taken away, and twice has that patronage been restored. It was finally established in its present form in 1712; and in that form I now come to deal with it. I have been told—and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of my information—that the question of its abolition, or even of its modification, has excited the greatest possible interest among Scotch constituencies, not only during the time to which I have referred, but up to the time of the recent General Election. My Lords, the reasons which I shall now attempt to adduce for the position which I, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, take in reference to this question may be divided into two classes. They are founded, first, on the strong feelings which have been manifested against the continuance of the present system of Church patronage during recent years; and, secondly, on the condition of Scotland, going back to a comparatively ancient date. Dealing with the first part of the question at once, I find that in 1866 and 1867, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approached this question with great earnestness; but the first time of late years in which it assumed anything like a tangible form in the deliberations of that body was in 1868. In that year a committee of the General Assembly was appointed to consider the subject, and, if possible, to devise some mode in which it might be satisfactorily dealt with. My Lords, I think I ought to state in the outset that the mode in which the General Assembly have always looked on this question in attempting to deal with it has been to give the appointment of ministers in the Church of Scotland to the heritors in conjunction with other parties in the Church. I state that in the outset, because when I come to deal with that part of the question, the proposals which I shall have to make will not be in strict accordance with that principle; but I quote the proceedings of the General Assembly to show that they are dissatisfied
  370
  with the existing state of things, and think that the law of patronage as at present exercised ought to be altered, and, in fact, ought to be entirely abolished. Well, my Lords, in 1868 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appointed a committee to inquire into the subject. In the following year they they made a report to the Assembly, on the reading of which the following Resolution was moved and agreed to—
  "That the General Assembly, having heard the Report of the Committee on Patronage appointed last year, approve the diligence of the Committee, and adopt the said Report in so far as it indicates the evils which have arisen from the existing Law of Patronage, the advantages that would arise from the abolition thereof, with such compensation to patrons as may appear just and expedient, and generally in so far as it recommends that the nomination of ministers should be vested in heritors, elders, and communicants, leaving the details, both as to the constitution of the nominating body and as to the respective powers of the nominating body and the congregation at large, to be arranged so that there should be conferred on the permanent male communicants of each parish the greatest amount of influence in the election of ministers which may be found consistent with the preservation of order and regularity in the proceedings."
  In 1870 an almost identical Resolution was adopted, and a new Committee was appointed. The Resolution was in these terms—
  "That the General Assembly having heard the Report, express their gratification at the amount of support received from Members of Parliament and others; re-appoint the Committee, with instructions to use all prudent and constitutional means to obtain, as speedily as possible, a measure for the alteration of the Law of Patronage, in accordance generally with the principles embodied in the resolution of the last General Assembly; and authorize the Committee, if they see it expedient, to prepare the outline of a Bill in harmony with these principles, and submit it for the approval of the Commission, at a meeting, specially called for the purpose, if necessary."
  In 1871, again, a very nearly similar Resolution was come to, though it did not express entire approval of the recommendations of the Committee. It stated—
  "That, without expressing entire approval of the Committee's Report, or the suggestions therein proposed, the Assembly re-appoint the Committee, with power to add to their number, instructing them to use every endeavour to carry out the views of the last General Assembly, and to use all their influence with the Government to induce it to introduce, during the next Session of Parliament, a Bill for the abolition of patronage

  371
  in the Church, with compensation to patrons, and to see that in any future scheme for the election of ministers there shall he a due representation of the heritors of the parish paying stipend as well as of the members of the Church."
  In 1872, a Resolution in almost identical terms was passed, and, in 1873, this Motion was agreed to—
  "Approve the Report, continue the Committee, and instruct them to avail themselves of any opportunity which may occur of getting the subject satisfactorily dealt with by the Legislature in the spirit of previous resolutions of the Assembly; further instruct the Committee to give every assistance to Sir Robert Anstruther in carrying his Motion before the House of Commons to a successful issue."
  This brings me to the close of the last Parliament. But I may mention that in 1869 a deputation—I believe a very large and influential deputation—waited on Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister at that time, and urged very strongly upon him the views entertained by those whom it represented, that Church patronage ought to be abolished. My Lords, in the last Session of Parliament a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Airlie) brought the subject under the attention of your Lordships. It was discussed by several noble Lords who take an interest in the subject, especially my noble Friend the late Secretary for India (the Duke of Argyll), who expressed his views upon the subject at length. I likewise had the honour of addressing your Lordships on that occasion, and I stated my opinion that it would be a great advantage to the Church of Scotland if Church patronage were abolished, but that I thought the proposal for its abolition ought to be the act of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was the duty of the Government to take up the question if they saw a prospect of bringing it to a successful issue. [See 3 Hansard, ccxvi. 1032.] To what I then stated, I still adhere. And, perhaps, I ought now to mention that I have been in communication with my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) on the subject, and that my noble Friend has authorized me to say he cordially approves and sanctions the principles of the measure which I shall ask your Lordships to read a first time this evening. Of course, he gives no opinion as to its details, which he cannot do till he reads the Bill, and I only quote the approval of my noble Friend so far as the principles of the
  372
  Bill are concerned. I may also mention, my Lords, that at the last General Election there was scarcely a constituency in Scotland by which this question was not discussed, and that the candidates—both those who were returned, and those who failed to be elected, were subjected to a severe examination as to the views they entertained with respect to Church patronage. I think, therefore, I am entitled to say that the great majority of the constituencies in Scotland impressed on those who sought to gain their votes that the question was one with which it was absolutely necessary to deal as soon as possible; and since I have had the honour of presiding over the Department of which I am now the head, I have received large deputations composed of persons of all shades of political opinion, but agreeing in one common view—namely, that it was the duty of the Her Majesty's Government to take up the question. My Lords, concurring as I do in that view, and having expressed myself as I did last year—that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take up the subject if they saw a reasonable hope of bringing it to a successful issue—I now appear before you as the organ of Her Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House, to invite your Lordships to deal with the subject, upon which, I hope, there will be satisfactory legislation during the present Session; for it will be my endeavour to use all the means which I have both in this and the other House of Parliament, that this Session shall not close without this measure passing into law. I say this because I am extremely anxious that it shall not be imagined that I merely put this Bill forward to ask for the second reading, and then allow it to stand over, under the pretence of giving time for its being discussed. I think it would be contrary to the interests of the Church, and contrary to the interests of Scotland, to allow this matter to be delayed, if we can possibly avoid it; because it would be far from desirable to keep it open as a subject of discussion and of heart-burnings for a longer period than is absolutely necessary.
  My Lords, having now stated the immediate reasons for dealing with this question, I am anxious to show your Lordships for how long a period it has been agitating Scotland. The people

  373
  of that country have from time to time expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the state of things in which they were placed. So long ago as 1560 the "First Book of Discipline," which though never ratified by Parliament was subscribed by a majority of the members of the Privy Council, and approved by the earlier General Assemblies, thus lays down the principle on which the appointment of ministers should proceed—
  "This liberty with all care must he reserved to every several church, to have their votes and suffrages in the election of their ministers."
  The "Second Book of Discipline" which was agreed to by the General Assembly of 1578 also protested against lay patronage. But these protests were unavailing, and in the Act of 1592, cap. 116, which gave the sanction of the Civil power to the Presbyterian form of Church government it was provided that the Presbytery "be bound and astricted to receive and admit quhatsumever qualified minister presented be His Majestie or uther laie patrones." This was the first enactment on the subject,—and such was the state of things down to 1649, when patronage was abolished, and the right of election vested in the people and the Presbytery; the patrons being compensated by certain advantages that were then given to them. In 1660 patronage was restored with episcopacy; but in 1690 it was again abolished. So the matter remained till the Union of Scotland with this country. Now, my Lords, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to what occurred at that time—because I think it important to show that Scotland has, at all events, a right to complain of the manner in which she has been treated in this matter. Before the Act of Union an Act of Security was passed in the Scotch Parliament, and in that Act, which was ratified by the Act of Union, it was laid down that the Presbyterian form of Church government was to continue as then established by law. But although it was made an Article of the Union that the Presbyterian form of Church government should continue, yet five years afterwards—in 1712—an Act was passed—before the meeting of the General Assembly, or without giving to that body the smallest opportunity of expressing its views upon the subject—an Act was passed by the British
  374
  Parliament, in what in these days would, perhaps, be termed "indecent haste"—I think in the whole the discussion lasted 10 days—I am not quite certain whether it was more or less, but when the measure came into this House, I believe it went through all its stages in one day, and that day a Saturday. I doubt if my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, marvellous as are his powers in getting a Bill through, could pass one with greater rapidity than that. The effect of that measure was to enforce lay patronage upon the whole of the people of Scotland. My Lords, that proceeding was protested against by the General Assembly; but it was perfectly useless to protest, because the Act had been passed, and it has remained the law up to this time. In 1713 an unsuccessful attempt was made for its removal; and from that date down to 1788 the Assembly of the Church gave an annual instruction to their Commission to avail themselves of any opportunity of obtaining a repeal of the Act. Matters continued in this way down to 1831, when there was a strong agitation. This having failed, the Veto Act was proposed. This was defeated in 1833, but was passed by the full Assembly in 1834. This was not an Act of Parliament, but one of the General Assembly, passed after the opinion of the Law Officers of Scotland had been taken that it was quite within the power of the Church. It enacted that the dissent of the majority of the male heads of famines in a parish, being communicants, should be sufficient to set aside a presentee. Then came the disputes as to the legality of the Veto, and those proceedings with which your Lordships are perfectly familiar—I think I need not go into them. Then came the great secession of 1843. This brings me to what I may call the last legislation on that subject. In that year Lord Aberdeen succeeded in passing the 6th & 7th Vic. cap. 61, commonly called "Lord Aberdeen's Act." This was an Act to modify the law of patronage.
  My Lords, I have now called your Lordships' attention to the law as it at present stands, and I have endeavoured to show you, in the first place, that the agitation in the General Assembly upon this question has been constant, and that from 1690 down to the present day Scotland

  375
  has been constantly agitating with respect to it. An objection may possibly be made by some of your Lordships who are not intimately acquainted with Scotland, and especially by noble Lords who may reside in England. It may possibly be said that if we deal with the question of Church patronage in Scotland, it will only be a stepping-stone to some proposition to deal with Church patronage in England, and that we must take care that we are not establishing a precedent which will some day be brought forward here in justification of a similar measure in this country. In answer to that I may say that there is not the slightest similitude whatever in the position of the law of patronage in the two countries. It is perfectly and entirely distinct and separate, and you must deal with it not from an English point of view, but from a Scotch point of view. If you deal with it from an English point of view, you will find yourselves thoroughly mistaken, and in order to prove the accuracy of what I am saying, I will read to you the opinion of the late Sir James Graham, who in 1843, speaking on the Motion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) said—
  "I think therefore that in discussing this question in the British Parliament, we are bound to regard it with peculiar care; we must look at it not with English feeling's nor with the prejudices of Englishmen, but we are hound to regard it upon the principles of the Union, and to try and settle the question upon Presbyterian principles, as established by the Act of 1690—the Act of Union—and subsequent statutes."—[3 Hansard, lxvii. 379.]
  That, my Lords, is the view in which I shall endeavour to regard it. In the first place I may observe that the value and importance of an article is often tested by the price which it fetches; and you will find that by some recent returns which have taken place in regard to Church patronage in Scotand, the price at which a next presentation has been estimated is only one year's purchase. It is admitted that there is some marketable value to be attached to a next presentation in Scotland; but whereas in England its value is somewhere about 16 years' purchase, in Scotland, it is only estimated at one. I may also remark, as showing the difference between patronage in the two countries, that while the Church government harmonizes in England with Church patronage, it does not harmonize in the least degree
  376
  with the Presbyterian form of Church government or the Presbyterian form of worship. In the one case we have a liturgy, in the other there is no liturgy at all. Therefore, in the case of an English church, you may appoint a clergyman who may perform his duties admirably with respect to the liturgy, but that is not in the least degree dependent upon the eloquence and talents of the minister who conducts the service, whereas in the Scotch Church you must depend on his talents and eloquence. Therefore, my Lords, you cannot draw any analogy whatever from the mode of conducting the service in the two countries; and I say that the patronage with respect to England and the patronage with respect to Scotland in Church matters are entirely different.
  My Lords, there is another reason in favour of the Bill I am about to introduce which I think not unimportant—and that is that the right of Church patronage in Scotland is at the present moment practically abolished by the action of the patrons themselves. I do not mean to say that it is abolished in all cases, for I know that there are some honourable gentlemen who exercise the right—and I may say they exercise it with advantage to the country—but practically it is abolished, and has been for some time, and therefore I may say that it is obsolete, except in some few cases. We are told that in Scotland there are some 1,100 livings, of which the Crown holds the patronage of about 330. Taking the number in the hands of other patrons who do not exercise the patronage at present, and will not care to do so in the future, you will find that one-half of the Church patronage of Scotland is in the hands of patrons who do not care to exercise the privilege. It follows, therefore, that you are really dealing with a very small portion of those who desire to exercise patronage. At the time of the passing of Lord Aberdeen's Act in 1843, it was thought that it would be a remedy for the grievances which then existed; but I am afraid that the proceedings which have been taken under the Act have not been very satisfactory, and have not led to any healing of the differences that divided the Church at that time. Under that Act the ministers who are appointed are subject—I was going to say to a species of torture; at all events they are subject

  377
  to an examination of their opinions and abilities in open Court; and not only that, but their personal appearance, their manner, their voice, and their temperament—anything that is "personal"—are subject to a rigid investigation. At all events, they may or may not, by virtue of that Act, be subjected to such criticism. I say that that is a species of torture which is extremely painful, and which certainly does not lead to any beneficial results, and being altogether unnecessary, it ought, in my opinion, to be abolished. I propose, therefore, by the present Bill to repeal the Act of 1843, which is called Lord Aberdeen's Act. I have endeavoured to explain why it is that Government have thought it right to deal with this important question. They are quite well aware of the responsibility they incur, and I hope we shall be able to induce your Lordships to dispose of it during the present Session.
  My Lords, I will now, because I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer than I can help, state very shortly the provisions of the Bill which I propose to bring in. It is a very short one, consisting only of nine clauses—and the third clause is perhaps the first of any importance. That clause in the first place repeals the Act of Queen Anne, which was passed in 1712; and then goes on to repeal Lord Aberdeen's Act. It then provides for a constituent body who are to nominate the minister. In doing this I have avoided any franchise that might be denominated a "fancy franchise." I have taken the qualification which exists in other Presbyterian bodies, and which has already received the sanction of Parliament in this case. I propose, therefore, that therefore, that the Church patronage in future should be vested in the communicants of the parishes under regulations which are to be framed from time to time by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The mode of election is that which is provided in the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 87 s. 20, and which also prevails in other bodies in Scotland. The next two clauses deal with the matter of compensation to be paid to the patrons. In this I have followed as closely as possible the course taken by the Heritors Act passed in the reign of George III., which dealt with the question of the patronage of the heritors. It enacts
  378
  that the patrons shall be entitled to compensation to an amount not exceeding one year's stipend. The stipend is to be made up by the subscriptions of the heritors generally. I have no doubt that in many cases the patrons will not require any compensation whatever; because they will not consider the money value, but rather the duty imposed upon them of the presentation to the person who is most fitted to perform the office of a minister, which is a duty which cannot be represented by any money value. This is the Bill which I shall ask your Lordships to consider, and it is a very short one. In the first place, the patron is to receive one year's compensation for the right of which he is to be deprived—and I have no doubt whatever that most of the parishes will be only too happy to enfranchise themselves at such a cost. I was very much struck by the view which was entertained by the Committee which sat in 1834 upon the condition of the patronage of the Church of Scotland at that time; and with your Lordships' permission I will read a portion of their Report.
  "No sentiment has been so deeply impressed upon the minds of your Committee, in the course of their long and laborious investigation, as that of veneration and respect for the Established Church of Scotland. They believe that no institution has ever existed which, at so little cost, has accomplished so much good. The eminent place which Scotland holds in the scale of nations is mainly owing to the purity of the standards and the zeal of the ministers of its Church, as well as to the wisdom with which its internal institutions have been adapted to the habits and the interests of the people."
  What was true of the Established Church of Scotland then is true of her now. That Committee came to no definite resolution on the subject of patronage, but it well described the Established Church of Scotland, and it is with the view of extending the sphere of her usefulness and increasing her claims to the affection of the people, I ask your Lordships to give a first reading to the Bill which I have now the honour of laying upon your Lordships' Table.
  Bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the appointment of Ministers to Parishes in Scotland—presented by the Lord President.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read the first time.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that although it was not customary to discuss a Bill which had not yet been laid before their Lordships, yet as he had himself brought this subject under the consideration of their Lordships last year, he thought it would not be out of place if he offered his congratulations to the noble Duke on the fact that Her Majesty's Government had taken up the subject. He congratulated the noble Duke the President of the Council on the spirit in which he had approached it. Although presentations to livings in the Church of Scotland had never been made a matter of sale and barter—although they had never seen in the Church of Scotland such transactions as had been so eloquently described a few evenings since by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) as existing in this country, yet there could be no doubt that, from the conflicts which arose with respect to the right of the patron to appoint and the right of the parishioners to reject, a condition of things existed which was not very desirable either in the interests of the Church of Scotland or of the people. The noble Duke had stated with perfect accuracy the feeling which existed upon this question, both in the Church Assembly and among the congregations, so far as they could gather from the usual sources of information. If he might be permitted to make any comment on the statement of the noble Duke, he should say the only objection to the Bill now proposed to be introduced was that it did not go far enough, and that he should be in favour of enlarging the electoral body. The proposition of the noble Duke, as he understood it, was that the election of ministers should be confined to the communicants. There were not those restrictions in the Church of Scotland that existed with respect to the Church of England. In Scotland any person, to whatever communion he might belong, who possessed the right of patronage, might present. But the noble Duke's proposition was in some degree a measure of disfranchisement, inasmuch as it imposed restrictions which did not now exist. He thought it unwise to restrict the patronage merely to the communicants of a parish, and it would be better if they dealt with the question in a more liberal spirit. The Church of Scotland was really a national institution. Every Scotchman
  380
  felt an interest in his Church, and he should like to see the right of election extended to every person whose name was upon the rates of the parish. However, that was a matter which he need not at present go into. He would therefore content himself with simply declaring that, in his opinion, the Government had done well to take up the question; and his noble Friend who had succeeded him as Her Majesty's Commissioner to the General Assembly could not take to Scotland a more welcome message to that venerable Assembly, than that Her Majesty's Government had taken up the question in the sense that the existence of the present system of Church patronage should terminate; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government, with the assent of Parliament, would be able to bring about a satisfactory solution of this long-vexed question.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYNsaid, that he should not have ventured to address their Lordships, but, having had the high honour of being appointed to the office of Her Majesty's Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he felt that it would not be becoming in him if he did not address some few remarks to their Lordships upon this subject. It gave him great satisfaction to be able to say that he cordially agreed in the principle of the measure indicated by the noble Duke the President of the Council. He thought the noble Duke was particularly fortunate in the introduction of the measure at a time when there appeared to be a tendency to union in the Church itself. He thought it a matter of great congratulation that the present Bill had been brought in by the Government, and he should feel that his duty to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland would be more welcome from the fact that he had to convey to them that one of the chief difficulties that had stood in the way of religion in Scotland was in a fair way of being removed. The question of Church patronage had been a stumbling block for more than 170 years. The Scotch people had always shown themselves intolerant of any religious interference or control, while, on the other hand, their loyalty and fidelity to the Crown in temporal matters were unbounded; and he had no doubt the same loyalty would be evinced

  381
  towards the Church should the present form of Church patronage be abolished. He hoped that this measure would—as he believed it would—lead to a great advancement in the Established Church of Scotland. He could not anticipate that there would be any opposition to the measure from any quarter. If there were any, it would not be from the patrons, for, as a body—if he might venture to say so—they had always shown themselves most anxious to consolidate and conserve the best interests of the Church of Scotland, and he believed that they had its best interests at heart. If he was right in his estimate of their character, they would willingly, without any idea of compensation, give up their patronage. If there was any objection to the measure, it could, in his opinion, only come from those who, like his noble Friend who had just spoken, thought it did not go far enough. He was quite convinced of the necessity of repealing Lord Aberdeen's Act. That description of legislation had brought its own warning. He quite agreed that if they were to have any legislation at all upon this subject, it must be through the action of the Government. In his opinion, those who wished it to go further, and that the election of the ministers should include the whole of the parishioners, were simply wishing for a measure of disestablishment. He clung to the union of Church and State, and hoped that the bonds of love which existed between Church and State in Scotland would long continue. He was convinced that the objections which were felt by those professing principles of Voluntaryism to such a Bill as this were grounded upon the fact that they were themselves convinced that the measure would prolong the existence of an Establishment which they detested. He believed that the measure was one which would be accepted by moderate men of both parties.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Duke the President of the Council that the question was one which created immense interest in Scotland. It was a very large question, not only in a Scotch point of view, but in an English point of view; because, although the form of Church government might not be the same, yet the religion of both countries was alike. It was no doubt perfectly
  382
  true that the subject, as the Lord President had stated, had been agitated upwards of 300 years. There had been many complaints of congregations having had ministers put upon them not of their own choice. He thought his noble Friend was quite right in proposing that the communicants should be the persons to elect the ministers of the congregations. He did not call this a Bill for the abolition of Church patronage, but simply a Bill for the transfer of patronage from individuals to the congregations. In every case, persons who were nominated must be examined upon Church matters, and he did not at all think that it was likely that those who had to institute the examination would reject proper persons for ministers. With respect to the question of compensation, he did not believe that the patrons would put a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence against the serious and solemn considerations that must prevail with them. On the other hand, he looked upon the patronage of a living, and the presentation of a person to it, not as a mere valuable consideration, but as a serious and solemn trust imposed upon the holders of Church patronage—a trust the most serious and solemn that could be imposed upon any man. If this Bill should pass, in his opinion it would settle a large number of questions that were now harassing the minds of people, and creating heart-burnings among them. He would not have himself proposed any such measure, preferring to leave matters as they now were; but as the Bill had been introduced on the authority of the Government, he should not oppose, but would support it. In his opinion, it could have been taken up by no one but the Government of the day. With the principle he was perfectly well satisfied, but as regarded the details it was unnecessary for him to enter upon them until the Bill had been printed and laid before their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks on the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke the President of the Council. He quite agreed that the subject of Church patronage in Scotland could only be dealt with by the authority of the Executive Government—no private individual could deal with such a question. But there was one portion of

  383
  the noble Duke's speech in which he referred to what had taken place in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland during the last six or seven years, and so far as he (the Earl of Dalhousie) could understand, the noble Duke would lead their Lordships to suppose that the proceedings of that venerable Assembly had been unanimous in respect to the question of the patronage of the Church.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had not meant to do that.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEbelieved the noble Duke had not meant that; but at the same time he did not state that in fact in the discussions that had taken place in the Assembly there had been divisions, and that the Church itself was by no means unanimous in the proposal to make an alteration in the present law of patronage. That there was a considerable majority in favour of alteration he did not deny; but he hoped that their Lordships would not be carried away with the idea that the Church of Scotland itself was unanimous on this question. The noble Duke had referred to the condition of the Church of Scotland in the year 1834; but the condition of things was very different then from its condition now. Then the Church of Scotland was the majority of the people of Scotland, but it was not so now. The Church of Scotland only now represented one-third of the people of Scotland, and the other communities which differed from it were in the aggregate a vast majority. In touching this question, of course it was necessary to lay a Bill upon the Table of their Lordships' House; but he reminded the noble Duke that in doing so he had stirred up a question that was gradually dying out, and had raised a discussion on this subject which he doubted would not end in the direction he wished—namely, the consolidation of the Church of Scotland. The noble Duke had stated that the principle he proposed was one which was adopted by the Free Church of Scotland, to which he himself belonged, but he doubted whether that principle would be acceptable to an Established Church, and especially the Established Church of Scotland. When the Bill came to be discussed in Scotland a little more light would be thrown upon this point. Then, again, with reference to the Compensation Clauses, it was quite true that many
  384
  of the patrons in Scotland were willing to give up their patronage; but there were others who were not, and they must approach this question in a spirit of justice. The right of presentation was a right of property, and they must deal with it as a right of property. It might be no great matter to the patron, but it must be considered as a question of principle, and they would have to consider what effect a proposition to give a compensation to the amount of only one year's purchase might have where rights of purely temporal property were in question. He believed that the right of presentation had not always been valued at so low a rate. These, however, were questions of detail, which they might discuss on the second reading. In the meantime he hoped their Lordships would keep their minds clear as to the real points at issue. It was quite certain that this question of abolition of Church patronage would raise a warm discussion all throughout Scotland, and create considerable feeling. He took leave to doubt whether the question was one which had been discussed very much at the hustings on the occasion of the last General Election. On the contrary, so far as appeared from the reports in the newspapers, his experience was that questions relating to the game laws stood first, and the subject of Church patronage was scarcely ever mentioned. As the noble Duke had told them, the exercise of Church patronage was practically almost abolished at present, and if they let the Church patrons go on for a year or two longer as they had been doing, they would find that it would have died out altogether. He was happy to say that the Churches of Scotland had been drawn into greater harmony year by year, and also that the ministers of various Churches had exchanged courtesies which within the last 30 years would have been deemed almost impossible. If this question were not now stirred up, he believed that in the course of two or three years there would be a most amicable agreement between Church patrons and the parishes, and that there would be no necessity whatever for such a measure as this.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdrew the attention of the noble Duke to the consequences of the introduction of universal suffrage into religious affairs by the Genevese Government; and he

  385
  trusted the noble Duke would restrict rather than extend the suffrage for the election of Scotch ministers. The City of Geneva had been made one electoral district or parish, instead of being divided into several electoral districts, and the consequence was that the free-thinkers would form the majority. By this system of election the Genevese Government had thoroughly disorganized the Catholics, and now they were about to ruin the Protestants. The rural districts of Scotland might be safe under election, but in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large towns, the free-thinkers might come forward and get the elections into their own hands. He thought this system of popular election was not likely to result in the selection of proper persons, and that there should be some system of nomination in the first instance. He had in his hand a letter from Geneva, from a Scotchman and a Presbyterian, which said that the Protestant Church there had been destroyed.
  LORD ABERDARE, having for some time represented a Scotch constituency, and having for several years been intrusted with the responsibility of administering the Crown patronage in the Church of Scotland, wished to be allowed to say a few words. He did not know whether the measure of the noble Duke would be for the good of the Church of Scotland; it was enough for him to know that that Church, as represented in the General Assembly, wished for the change. It was notorious that, on the part of the people of Scotland, there had been for years but one desire on the subject—to get rid of the law of patronage; he would, therefore, be glad to co-operate with the noble Duke in his efforts, and to assist him in bringing the law more into harmony with the feelings of the people and the wants of the present time. There was, however, one point upon which he desired to ask a question. Home 50 years ago it was made known to the Government that there were certain livings in Scotland so vast in extent and so poor that it was expedient that they should be divided, and provision made for religious worship—accordingly, under the 5 Geo. IV, c. 90, £50,000 was provided for building churches and manses, and £120 a-year for the payment of each minister. These districts were 40 in number. They were generally situated in the north-western
  386
  parts of Scotland, where the population was most sparse and the parishes most extensive. Unfortunately, they were in parts of Scotland where the Established Church was weakest; and when he was Secretary for the Home Department it was his duty to appoint clergymen to some of these livings, in one case where there was not a single communicant, and in others where there were not above two or three members of the Church of Scotland. The noble Duke appeared to propose to put an end to all patronage in Scotland, but it did not appear from his statement how he proposed to deal with these livings, the presentation to which had always been an embarrassment to Secretaries of State. These livings were a scandal in themselves, and he did not see how they could be left in their present position.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENapproved the principle of the Bill. Their Lordships would agree with him when he said that much credit was due to the members of the Established Church of Scotland for the manner in which they had, if not co-operated, yet acquiesced in the existing system of patronage. That, however, was partly due to the great pains and care which, especially for the last 20 years, had been taken by the patrons in selecting ministers. With regard to the opposition that might be expected to this measure, he had been informed that a great deal of opposition had come from other religious bodies in Scotland. That opposition appeared rather strange—especially if it were true that it was mainly attributable to a fear lest the Church of Scotland should, as the noble Duke said, increase its hold on the affections of the people. He could not help thinking that a more dignified course would be to attack the Esstablished Church on the distinct ground of its being an Establishment. He was sorry to hear the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) express great apprehensions as to the result of this measure, because, considering the noble Earl's experience, his opinions were entitled to great weight. He hoped, however, though in the first instance angry discussions might arise on the part of those who, from whatever reason, might be opposed to the measure, the effect of it after a short time would be not only to strengthen the hold of the Church of Scotland on the affections of the people,

  387
  but also at some future period to tend towards the union of the various religious bodies which now existed in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, on the part of all whom he knew in Scotland, tendered his most earnest thanks to the noble Duke for having taken up this question. It was a matter of regret to him, as a supporter of the late Government, that during their long tenure of office, and though they had in their body a Minister whose authority on the subject was so high, they had never attempted to handle it. It was the more gratifying, therefore, that the noble Duke, in the first year of power, should have come forward to redress a longstanding and most serious grievance of the Church of Scotland—a grievance which had been notorious for a century and a half. The noble Earl had stated that the question was not agitated at the late General Election; but this was a matter of fact on which he must decline to offer an opinion, although certainly his impression was the other way. It was also alleged by the noble Earl that the noble Duke, by touching this question, would raise a feeling and an animus among the people of Scotland which it would be difficult to control; but he failed to perceive how such could be the result if, as the noble Earl himself had alleged a feeling of indifference existed on the subject amongst the great body of the people, and that the question of Church patronage was really dying out. Having only just now heard of the Bill of the noble Duke he would not discuss its provisions; but, as a matter of curiosity, he would ask the noble Duke who had brought in this measure, what provision was to be made in those parishes where there were no communicants at all? As far as he understood, the noble Duke would have to import a new constituency. He wished to know, whether the term "communicants" included females?—because he doubted if women in Scotland were, by any means, the worst judges of theological questions. He also wished to know, whether the noble Duke was warranted in giving compensation to heritors for a right which the Church of Scotland had never admitted, and which the noble Duke seemed to assume had been the creation of a Tory job? He would reserve until the second reading any further remarks on the details of the Bill, but he could not now conclude
  388
  without congratulating the noble Duke on having initiated legislation on this important question.
  LORD BLANTYRE: My Lords, the patrons were the founders of the churches, for their predecessors, the barons, in the 11th century, at the suggestion of the preachers of the gospel—that it was a proper thing to give tithes to the Church—built churches in, and endowed them with the tithes of their baronies—reserving the patronage. These baronies came then to be called parishes. Some have come down to our time unchanged. The patron holds still the barony or parish, maintains the church and manse, and pays the minister, unassisted by any individual in the parish, and exercises his patronage. In the case of the larger baronies, lands have been sold off subject to the payment of a portion of the burdens pertaining to the whole. These heritors have the burden without the privilege, the patron has a similar burden, but continues to exercise the privilege reserved—namely, that of presenting the minister, unless he has sold the patronage. We have thus an institution which has come down to us unchanged for 800 years, the burden borne, and the reserved privilege exercised by the successors of the first founders. The Reformation left private patrons untouched—but where the piety of patrons had induced them to make over their churches and monasteries, when these last were confiscated, the patronage came into the hands of the Crown, where it still remains. The resistance of Scotland appears to have been directed more against Episcopacy than against patronage.
  LORD WHARNCLIFFEwas glad this question had been brought forward by the Government, as he regarded the present system of patronage in Scotland as "a delusion and a snare."
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, he trusted the noble Duke would be able to carry a measure which would be so beneficial to the Established Church of Scotland; but he did not think the people would be content if the power of the election of the minister was confined to the communicants. If communicants only were allowed to vote it might induce persons to join a Church for the purpose of having the franchise. In England the people, as they knew, were quiet and passive, and had not asked for a vote in the appointment of their ministers;

  389
  but he thought there was a growing opinion that this was not right—that they ought to have some voice—such as the right of veto, on the nomination by the patron, or to be in some way consulted in the selection of their minister. They knew the feeling of indifference which existed in England; while, on the contrary, in Scotland there was a strong feeling for the Church, and he believed that this Bill would be the means of strengthening the Church there.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I will briefly reply to some of the objections which have been raised against my proposition in debate. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) complained of the clause which provides that the compensation to be given to patrons shall not be more than one year's stipend, and he referred to cases in which a much larger sum had been given for the right of patronage. Well, my Lords, in fixing one year's stipend as the maximum amount of compensation, I followed the precedent afforded by the Act passed in 1860. I will not enter into a discussion with the noble Earl as to the number of members of the Established Church, of the United Presbyterian Church, and of the Free Church. Indeed, I am not quite sure whether there is any possibility of getting at the exact statistics of the various denominations in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: From the Census.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I fancy, however, that a large proportion of the Presbyterians in Scotland do not belong to the Established Church. At all events, that does not affect the question I am dealing with, because, if they are satisfied with their position, they are not affected by my Bill. My point is that there is a grievance now affecting the Established Church of Scotland, and that such grievance ought to be dealt with; I have carefully avoided meddling with any other denomination. The present Bill is wanted by a very large clsss of the people of Scotland; and if other religious bodies are satisfied with the position in which they find themselves, I do not quarrel with them, for, in my speech, I carefully refrained from referring to Presbyterian bodies outside the Established Church. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord opposite, who preceded me as Lord President
  390
  of the Council (Lord Aberdare), I may say the intention of the Bill is that there shall be no exceptions whatever, and that all patronage shall be abolished from the Crown downwards. It may be, however, that there are cases which have escaped my notice, and I will look into the matter, but the intention of the Bill certainly is that there shall be no exceptions whatever in regard to Church patronage in Scotland. With regard to the Question put to me by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) as to what I meant by "communicants," I may state that as the Bill is drawn it will mean "male communicants," that being the recommendation of the General Assembly. I ought to apologize to the House if I have led them to think that the opinion of the General Assembly was unanimous on the subject of patronage. I had no intention to convey such an idea, as the Papers I cited showed that divisions have occurred; but my point was that the conclusion the General Assembly came to by a majority of votes was that the subject of patronage ought to be dealt with. There was one statement made by the noble Earl which I cannot pass by in silence. I cannot think it possible that such a thing could be perpetrated as what he called a "Tory job," and certainly I never made use of such an expression.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a accordingly: to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 2nd June next (No. 72).
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, 'till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.