CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 4 August 1905)

§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSS,
who was received with cheers in recognition of his having that day completed his 87th year, said: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for renewing the kindly greeting you gave to me on this day last year. It encourages one to fight on as long as I can for what I believe to be right. I think it will be for the convenience of the House that as my remarks on this Bill will be somewhat general in character I should make them before the noble and learned Earl leaves the Woolsack. My attitude in regard to this Bill is a thoroughly mundane one. My position as regards the Presbyterian Church in Scotland is precisely that which was so effectively and clearly stated by my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson the other day as regards himself. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, have received a circular which has been sent round 232 by the Free Church containing the Amendments I have put down. Those Amendments were drawn up by that body, and I have been requested to move them. Their object is to guard against the establishment of the principle of the State taking possession of property and dealing with it without the full sanction, of the owners previously given, and that they are not to be deprived of any property which they can show their capacity beneficially to use. These are the objects of the Amendments, which in no way interfere with the intended action of the Bill. The purport of the Amendments is to secure that the property dealt with in this Bill shall be distributed by the Commission in such a way as to leave to those who are now possessed of it all that they can reasonably require for the purposes for which they hold it.
This property is as much the property of the Free Church as is the property of any of your Lordships his own. The title is absolute and indefeasible It is a title granted on appeal by the highest Court of the realm. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chanceller and the other noble and learned Lords who heard the appeal in this House sat for seventeen days and gave the matter the fullest consideration. It was said by the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill that there were only twenty-seven of these Free Church congregations. It matters not if they could only say "We are seven," but I am credibly informed that he greatly understated —of course unintentionally—the number, and that there are from 170 to 180 organised congregations. I quite admit that the state of things which has been produced in Scotland should be remedied. The Amendments I am going to move are intended to improve the Bill, and in no way to interfere with its progress. I will read to your Lordships a letter showing the state of excitement on this subject. It is dated from the United Free Church Offices, 1, Castle Terrace, Edinburgh, June 22nd, 1905, and signed by Dr. Rainy, and it proceeds— It is necessary now to apply our utmost strength to procure the Amendments which the general mind of the Church, supported, I am glad to say, by the Press of the country, feels to be essential. How is this to be brought about? By two means. Heaven and earth are to be 233 moved in furtherance of these measures. The letter proceeds— It is hoped that you will, with the help, where possible, of one or two intelligent and influential friends, apply to voters of weight in your constituency, asking them to write as soon as possible to their M.P. And then there is this postscript— The foregoing relates to practical effort. May I suggest that the situation calls for earnest prayer. And who is the writer of this remarkable letter? No less a person than Dr Rainy. Thus the constituencies are to he moved, and prayers are to be offered up, and all for what? In order that property which has been given by law to one body may be taken away and given to another.
But this Bill I admit to be a necessity of the situation, and I think His Majesty's Government deserve every credit for bringing it forward in the interest of peace and goodwill in Scotland. But the Bill involves a principle which I hold to be full of danger. It is another case of State interference with property. If your Lordships admit the principle that the State can step in and say, "Here is property absolutely belonging to one set of persons, but we think others ought to have it," and then distribute it amongst those others, where are you to stop? There may be some day a Government with a socialist Prime Minister and Home Secretary, and they may bring in a Bill to distribute private property. They may say to your Lordships, "You have more than is adequate for your wants." They may say to the popular and genial Leader of the Government in this House, the Marquess of Lansdowne, "You have Bowood, and you have Lansdowne House and other places. You cannot want them all. We will take some from you, but we will leave you enough to take a flat in Victoria Street or a top floor in Hankey's Mansions." That may be an exaggeration, but the principle in this Bill is one which may be applied to private property as well as to corporate property, and that is why I venture to ask your Lordships to be careful in dealing with this measure.
It may be said that this is an exceptional Bill, but since 1870 we have had pretty good experience in exceptional 234 legislation. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne found out in Ireland what exceptional legislation meant and how it grew. This exceptional legislation, which began in Ireland, moving like an Irish bog, has already crossed the Irish Sea to Scotland, where it settled itself in the crofts of Mull, and now your Lordships have this exceptional legislation in every one of your estates both in England and Scotland through the Agricultural Holdings Act. Thus, when you break through sound principles, the evil thing catches. When I was a member of St. James's Vestry a motion was made, on the principle of the Irish Land Act of 1870, that there should be set up by the Government in London Courts for the purpose of fixing the rents of houses and business premises. That shows how this principle grows. Let me state what the present feeling of Socialist agitators in this country is with regard to property. I see the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice in his place. Lord Alverstone will recollect that three or four years ago he was chairman of a meeting at the Society of Arts, the object of which was to discuss and stop, if possible, the wild, ill-considered municipal trading of the present day. Mr. Burns, M.P., was there, and he attacked me for something I had said, and when he sat down I asked him this question, which, like an honest man, he answered with perfect candour. I asked— Is it or is it not the case that you and those who agree with your policy mean this as the ultimate object to which you are striving, that all property of all kinds, in land, in manufactures, in ships, in everything, and all distribution of property should be in the hands of a labour-governed State. Mr. Burns simply stood up, bowed, and said "Yes." It is good to take stock of the situation, and in order to show how we stand I will remind your Lordships of a congress held a few days ago at which representatives of all kinds of societies attended. There were represented the International Congress, the National Reform Union, the Indian Home Rule Society, the new Reform Club, about a dozen trades unions, and about as many Liberal, Radical, and Progressive Associations in London. At that congress Mr. Pickersgill moved, and Mr. O'Donnell 235 seconded, the adoption of a programme including the following:—State payment of Members and election expenses; adult suffrage; one man one vote; State registration of voters; the establishment of a universal system of old-age pensions free from pauperism; the democratisation of the land laws—that is, if they were in power they would take advantage of this Bill and take your property; equalisation of rates; fair-rent Courts; Home Rule all round, Ireland first and India second; the abolition of the hereditary principle in legislation, and protection of workmen's rights and power of organisation by legislation. That is, they would establish unchecked the tyranny of trade unionism. There is a paper called The Clarion which represents Socialist views in this country, and I have been told as a fact that the editor of that paper says he is eagerly and anxiously looking to what happens to this Bill in your Lordships' House. Thus unless something is put in which will give security against the abuse of what you intend to be a wise provision for the good of the United Free Church, our Socialists will trade upon it as soon as this Bill passes, and they are in a position to do so.
I would press on your Lordships the necessity of dealing very carefully with this question, and I ask that you should give greater security than there is in the Bill that the Free Church will be allowed to hold as much property as they can reasonably and legitimately require for the purposes for which they exist. I venture also to impress upon you that you should insist upon something being put in the Bill to secure that the property is taken voluntarily. I have in my hand a pamphlet in which reference is made to a manifesto that was issued before this question got into its present state and before the Elgin Commission. In this statement the Free Church intimated that they desired to retain only what was necessary for their Church, and hand on the remainder to the Crown. Their ipsissima verba are these— We claim, as an undeniable right, possession of Free Church property to the extent the Church may require it, with a reasonable measure of opportunity to ascertain her requirements; but we have no desire or intention to retain anything which may be 236 beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Provided the scope of the judgment in congregational property was first admitted, as has been done in regard to the general property, and further, provided possession was given to the extent indicated, we should not only loyally submit to, but gladly welcome, the lawful authority which should undertake to administer the remainder. If such an offer was made why was it not accepted? Why was the state of consternation that existed in Scotland not put an end to at once by accepting this offer instead of waiting all these months and hiving the Elgin Commission and this Bill? At any rate that shows a readiness on the part of the Free Church to give up all that they cannot beneficially use. What I want further, as said, is to secure that there shall be a provision that what is done up to a certain point is done with the full knowledge, wish, and consent of the legal owners of the property. If it was enacted that the consent of the owner was required, that would guarantee your Lordships against the dangers which might possibly threaten property if this principle were pushed at any time in the direction I have stated. I will adopt, as my concluding remarks, the words contained in a letter issued from the office of the Free Church of Scotland, and which are as follows— I beg your Lordships' earnest consideration of this Bill, which not only deeply affects the interests of the Free Church, but also raises most important questions of property, and proposes to introduce into legislation perilous and far-reaching principles.

LORD ROBERTSON
My Lords, on the Question for the House resolving itself into Commitee, I wish to say two or three words which, I think, will have the effect rather of accelerating business than of retarding it. It had been my intention to put Amendments on the Paper, but, on reflection, I decided not to do so, and I do not intend in the Committee stage to trouble the House with either Amendments or observations. My reason is this, that I have to view the matter as a practical man speaking on the 4th of August. I called the attention of the House on the Second Reading to some of the grave principles which I thought were involved in the Bill, and 237 which I intended to develop in Committee by Amendments; but I am bound to say that while the House, during the debate on the Second Reading, bestowed on me the generous attention which it is their custom to bestow on infrequent speakers, I felt that I made no headway, and I found, to change the metaphor, the ground around me extremely hard frozen. Even from very sound politicians I got extremely little encouragement. The real truth is that this is, as Lord Tweedmouth said, an agreed Bill, the agreement being that noble Lords on the other side should shut their ears very hard when the Question is put on Clause 5, while noble Lords on this side of the House should I pass by on the other side during the greater part of the proceedings.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
I do not admit that. Personally, I am entirely in favour of Clause 5.

LORD ROBERTSON
I do not know whether the noble Lord's colleagues are. When I find that the Government have at their disposal the vast forces of which any Government disposes at this time of the year, General Waldegrave and his faithful ally, General August, it would require greater courage than I possess to carry oat this enterprise. There are two advantages which I think the House will derive from my abstaining from moving Amendments. One is that I shall not inflict upon them several very tedious speeches, and I daresay that if I had done so that dulness would have proved infectious in some other quarters. The other advantage is this—great principles are involved, and I shrink strongly from crystallising opinion on this side of the House in favour of the dangerous principles to which I object. At present on this side of the House I believe there is a half-contemptuous tolerance for this measure as a Scottish experiment. If specific Amendments were put down and pressed to a division, the effect would be that good sound Conservatives would be committed to negative propositions of absolute soundness, and would specifically adopt measures which in the generality they are willing to allow to pass by 238 Upon these grounds, I think I do wisely, in the interest of the social convenience of the House, and in the interest of those great principles I have at heart, to abstain from opposition to the Bill.