SECOND READING.

HL Deb 31 July 1905 vol 150 cc840-82

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess OF LINLITHGOW)

My Lords, l am well aware that those of your Lordships who come from Scotland have a full knowledge of the reasons which have made it necessary, and a matter of urgent necessity, for the Government to introduce a Bill of this kind without delay; and were I addressing them alone I should feel that I was guilty of an impertinence were I to attempt, to explain the situation to them. But some of your Lordships who come from this side of the Tweed may not have had the same opportunities forced upon them of studying this question as we have. In their interests I ask the permission of the House to describe as briefly as possible the circumstances which have led up to events which have stirred the religious life of Scotland to its very foundations, and which have brought about a state of things there the like of which, has not been known for over sixty years.

I may remind the House, in the first place, that the great majority of my fellow-countrymen have for 300 years adhered, and do still adhere, to the Presbyterian form of religion. During the last fifty years of the past century this great body of Presbyterians have been divided into three parts—firstly, the Church of Scotland, established in the land; secondly, the United Presbyterians, composed of various bodies who had seceded from the Church of Scotland during the eighteenth century and who were united in one body in the year 1817; and thirdly, the Free Church of Scotland, which had its origin in the great Disruption of 1843, when a large proportion of ministers and congregations left the parent church—the Church of Scotland—and seceded from it upon the vexed question of the patronage of the livings. May I be allowed to remark, in passing, that between these various Churches little or no difference of doctrine existed. The two great Churches outside the Establishment cannot, in the ordinary sense of the word, be called dissenting Churches. There has never, I believe I am right in saying, been a secession from the Church of Scotland upon a question of doctrine, but secessions have invariably taken place on questions of Church government or of forms of worship, the seceding Church generally taking up a conservative attitude and desiring to maintain its doctrine and form of worship unimpaired.

We have our differences in Scotland, and no doubt at times those differences are acute, but I do not think it can be laid to our door that we hate one another for the love of God. Such being the case, it will not surprise you to hear that in the Colonies no differences exist between the different forms of Presbyterianism. They are all under one Church, and it has been the dream of many of our wisest and best men in Scotland to bring about a reconciliation and a reunion between these three great bodies. I need not weary your Lordships with the reasons which have stood in the way of a successful attempt being made to bring the Established Church of Scotland into this union. I will only remind you that, after negotiations extending over a very considerable period, a union was arranged in the year 1900 between the Free Church and the United Presbyterians under the name of the United Free Church. The vast majority of the Free Church were favourable to this union, but there were, as your Lordships will remember, a small minority who refused to come in, and who raised an action to the effect that the union was unlawful, that it was ultra vires of the Free Church, and that effect could not be given to it. However, the larger body raised an action to prove that the smaller body were no longer members of the Free Church, and ought to be evicted from the churches and houses which were then in their possession. The Scottish Courts decided in favour of the United Free Church, but the smaller body took their case to your Lordships' House, sitting, of course, in its judicial capacity, and won it.

The judgment of your Lordships' House declared that the United Free Church had no right, title, or interest in any part of the whole of the lands, properties, and sums of money, and that the Free Church of Scotland lawfully represented the old Free Church, and were entitled to have the said lands, properties, and funds applied. In plain English, my Lords, the effect of this judgment was to hand over, subject to certain conditions, to a small body, consisting of twenty-seven ministers and 2,743 members, not only a considerable quantity of hereditable property, but also sums amounting to any thing between£l,500,000 and £2,000,000 sterling. A great deal of litigation also took place in the Scottish Courts regarding congregational property, which bad not been technically included in the judgment of the House of Lords. The spectacle of a great and vigorous body stripped at one blow of a great part of its worldly possessions, and those worldly possessions being declared to be the property of a body which, though no doubt vigorous, could not, in the very nature of things, make a proper use of it, came as a great shock to the religious feeling of Scotland. At this stage I fear a great deal of ill-feeling and bitterness was imported into the dispute. I will say nothing more upon that subject because I do not think it is a phase of the proceedings upon which any Scotsman can look back either with pleasure or satisfaction.

Matters, however, were in a condition so painful and so unsatisfactory that the Government felt that the time had come when it was incumbent upon them to step in, and in December of last year a Royal Commission was, as your Lordships are aware, appointed to inquire into the whole matter. In April of this year the Commission reported, and in their Report they declared that the situation was one which demanded Parliamentary interference, and they recommended that an Executive Commission should be set up with powers to deal with the property in question and with other subjects in dispute between the two Churches. They made certain other recommendations, the principal amongst which were briefly as follows. They recommended that the whole of the funds and property of the Free Church as at October, 1900, should be vested in the authority of the Commission; that in the administration of such property the first consideration should be the observance of trusts and adequate provision for the performance of the purposes for which the money was raised; that, in cases where the Free Church appeared unable to execute the trusts, the Commission should be empowered to transfer the funds and property to the United Free Church. They recommended that, consideration having been given to the due performance of trusts, liberal provision should be made for the equipment of the Free Church for its mission as a Christian Church according to the standard which prevails in other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. Then there were certain recommendations as regards congregational property and as regards foreign missions and, finally, the Report recommended that the decisions of the Executive Commission should be given authority by Executive Order.

The Bill which is now before your Lordships is founded upon the recommendations in this Report. I do not, of course, pretend that all the recommendations of Lord Elgin's Commission have been rigidly adhered to, but such changes as were proposed have been introduced into the Bill after friendly discussion with both parties to the dispute, and after considerable deliberation and discussion in the other House of Parliament. I would now ask your Lordships to turn to the Bill itself. Clause is the ruling clause of the Bill. By the first sub-section of that clause the Commission are empowered to divide the whole of the property between the Free Church and the United Free Church as they think proper, taking into account the whole of the circumstances. The second sub-section of Clause I deals with churches and other congregational property, and when the Commission find that the Free Church have one-third of those who were at the 30th of October, 1900, members or adherents of the Free Church and are now members and adherents of the Free Church and resident in the district, they are to give the congregational property to the Free Church; but in particular circumstances they are empowered to make special arrangements.

The Commission are required, under Sub-section 3, to make adequate provision for the Free Church for certain objects. This sub-section should be read in relation to the first schedule on page G of the Bill. Your Lordships will observe that in the first column of the schedule these objects are set out, while in the second column the funds are specified out of which the Commission are to draw, and, should these funds prove insufficient for these purposes, the Commission may bond hereditable property other than what is specified at the foot of column 2; in other words, they are entitled to put a bond over the Assembly Hall. In making these provisions the Commission are to have regard to congregational contributions and other income of the Free Church. The effect of this schedule, read along with this sub-section, is that trust purposes are respected.

The first sub-section of Clause 2 sets out that the orders which the Commission think necessary for carrying into effect the allocation are to have statutory force. The Commission may also make interim orders which are to have temporary effect. The second sub-section enables the Commission to raise money by way of bond, and I would ask your special attention to the next sub-section. The Free Church and the United Free Church are to receive the property allocated, to them on the basis of their present constitution. Accordingly, no conditions as to their power to change this constitution are inserted; such matters must be left to the two Churches. Subsections 4 and 5 set forth that no legal proceedings as to the property in question are to be allowed to continue, and that no Court of law is to have power to review the decisions of the Commission. Under Clause 3 the Commission is set up and machinery provided for its working and procedure. Sub-sections and 2 of Clause 4 define the property which, is to be dealt with by the Commission. Broadly stated, it includes the whole property of the undivided Free Church immediately prior to the union. By Sub-section 3 of that clause legacies now in dispute are to be determined and allocated by the Commission. All lawsuits regarding them are to be stopped.

Clause 5 deals with the formula of subscription for ministers and professors in the Church of Scotland. It gives the General Assembly power to prescribe what the formula shall be, subject to the approval of the majority of the presbyteries. This latter provision is inserted in order to recognise the check imposed by the Barrier Act—an Act of the General Assembly of 1697, which proceeded upon the idea that important changes should be made by the Church as a whole and not by one representative Assembly, which may be regarded as merely an annual organ of the Church. The Act of 1690, which established the Westminster Confession as the public and avowed confession of the Church of Scotland, may be regarded as the bed-rock of our ecclesiastical constitution so far as we are concerned in the present day. This Act—the concluding one of the Revolution Settlement—insisted upon no formula, and required no subscription but in that very year the General Assembly, and not Parliament, did prescribe a formula, for it passed an Act requiring that all persons admitted to the Church as ministers, preachers, or elders should be obliged to subscribe their approbation of the Confession of Faith. In 1693, however, Parliament for special reasons, and at the instigation of King William, passed another Act, which set forth that— No person be admitted or be continued hereafter a minister or preacher within the Church unless that he, having first taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and subscribed the Assurance in manner appointed by another Act of this present session of Parliament made thereanent, do also subscribe the Confession of Faith ratified in the aforesaid 5th Act in the second session of this Parliament, declaring the same to be the confession of his faith and that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to. My Lords, there were very strong reasons from King William's point of view why this very rigid sub-section should be insisted upon. At that time there were a large number of men who had before the Revolution acted as Episcopalian clergymen, and who were anxious to come into, and conform with, the Presbyterian Church, but that Church looked upon them with suspicion, and would have none of them. The King, nevertheless, said— If these men are prepared to subscribe to this formula and to make this declaration, both of which I invite Parliament to pass, I do not see that you have any cause for further complaint against them, and you must take them in. My Lords, we do not propose to touch the Act of 1690. All that we propose to do is to repeal certain words in the Act on 1693, an Act which was forced upon the Church against its will, and which the Church never accepted as a Bill which Parliament ought to pass. The actual words which we propose to repeal will be found in the second schedule on page 6 of the Bill. They are as follows— The same to be the confession of his faith, and that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to. We propose this change in the future in regard to ministers, and also in regard to professors appointed to the Church of Scotland Chairs of Theology in the Scottish Universities, as it would be obviously impossible to take one form of subscription for ministers, and another form for those who are charged with the duty of training young men for the ministry. One is the complement of the other.

We are not asking Parliament to do anything revolutionary. We do not propose to tamper with the creed of the Church. All we seek to do is to revert to the state of things which existed from 1690 to 1693 and to give the Church that small measure of relief which she has been asking for many years past. I could, my Lords, if I felt justified in taking up your time, quote the opinions of many of our ablest and best men, both laymen and ministers, as to the desirability of this measure. I will only quote an extract from a letter which came under my notice a few weeks ago. The writer of it is a parish minister in the North of Scotland, a sensible, temperate, moderate man, an example of hundreds of other sensible, temperate, and moderate men whom you will find occupying parishes all over Scotland. He says— We do want this Clause 5 in the interests of getting back our old class of constitution and for the future of the Church. At present, owing to the results of modern research and science, our best University men do not enter the Church because they cannot sign the Confession in its present rigid form. They are quite prepared to sign the Confession as a public Confession of the Church, and to accept any symbol of the reformed doctrine. This the proposed clause enables them to do, and, besides, it only reconstitutes the old law of Scotland which held at the Revolution Settlement. The Bill, including this clause, is wanted by every fair-minded man in Scotland. Times change, and the theology of 1905 is not the theology of 1693. We are under this Bill fully recognising the claim of the Churches outside the Establishment to complete freedom as regards their constitution, and we feel, therefore, that under the circumstances the time is not inopportune to grant this small, this reasonable, this much-desired boon to the Church of Scotland.

It has been suggested, rather unkindly, I think, that the Church of Scotland and those who favour the Church of Scotland have seized upon an opportunity offered by the dispute between the two kindred Churches to force on their request for this measure of relief for their own Church. To put this contention in somewhat concise and brutal language, it has been hinted that when honest men fall out, thieves may step in and get their due. I belong to the Church of Scotland and am a well-wisher of the Church of Scotland. Those who know me in my own part of the world will tell you that I am not a bad friend to the Churches outside the Establishment, and, therefore, I think I have a right to repudiate once and for all any suggestion that I would allow myself to be made the humble instrument of such a selfish and cruel transaction.

I feel that I have detained your Lord-skips already at great length, but before I conclude I should like to say a word or two upon two other matters. I am sure that all of your Lordships, upon which-ever side of the House you sit, will one and all agree with me that nothing could have exceeded the ability and strength of purpose shown by my noble friend Lord Dunedin, the then Secretary for Scotland, in grappling with the very difficult and perplexing problem which presented itself to him during the closing months of last year. It was a fortunate thing for Scotland that matters were in his strong and capable hands. He has had all the hard work inseparable from preparing the ground. Fortunately for me, and fortunately, perhaps, for Scotland, I have only had to play a humbler part in assisting to put in the crop. I should like also to say a word about the Commissioners who are to be appointed under this Bill. I do not believe it would have been possible to obtain a better Commission. I may remind your Lordships that Lord Elgin, Lord Kinnear, and Sir Ralph Anstruther had already done a great service to their country by sitting on the Royal Commission which was appointed at the end of last year. The work which they had then to perform was no sinecure, and they might, with good reason, have turned round to me when it became my duty to ask them to sit upon this new Commission and have i told me to go elsewhere for the Commissioners. But they did not do so. I The other two gentlemen who are appointed under the Bill, Sir Thomas Carmichael and Sir Charles Logan, are I well known and highly respected in Scotland, and they have accepted service on this Commission at no small inconvenience to themselves.

The Government feel themselves very fortunate in having secured the services of these five gentlemen, and the country will, I know, appreciate their patriotic and unselfish action in taking upon their shoulders what must at the very best be an arduous and troublesome task. Knowing as we do, my Lords, the characters and public records of these five gentlemen, we feel certain that their work will be admirably and expeditiously completed. We cannot, however, hope that the mere passage of this Bill, or, indeed, the mere completion of the work which Parliament has thrown upon the Commissioners, will once for all put a stop to the ill-feeling which unfortunately exists amongst some of our fellow-countrymen in Scotland; but I, for one, have faith in the good sense of Scotsmen, and I believe that when once the questions in dispute have been settled, and when the flame of the acute passions has burnt I itself out, as it will undoubtedly quickly do when it is not fed by current events, matters will settle themselves down, and that all that has been best and most noble in this movement for the union of these two great Churches will be remembered, and all that is most regrettable will be forgotten. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)

LORD ROBERTSON

My Lords, this is a thorny subject, but am certain the Government have been most fortunate in having an exponent of their measure so well qualified to bring an atmosphere of conciliation and reasonableness with him. I should like to say one word, and one word only, as to the position of the humble individual now addressing the House. I was, as your Lordships may be aware, a party to the judgment out of which this Bill has arisen, and if the question before the House involved the merits or the Tightness of that decision I should take no part in the proceedings; but, my Lords, that is not the case. We are now past the stage when any question of that kind is possible. The judgment as a decision is an historical fact, and we are now dealing with the remedies that must be applied to the situation which has arisen, and accordingly, as a Peer connected with Scotland, I feel not merely that there is no delicacy in my touching the subject, but that I should fall short of my duty if, with a very competent knowledge of it, failed to express my views.

My noble friend has given an account of the Bill which places everyone. in possession of its scope, for it was fair and complete; and I may say, at the outset, that I recognise the necessity for legislation. I think it is impossible that Parliament could leave existing the situation which was brought about by that judgment. I think also that the Government are perfectly right in appointing a Commission, and an Executive Commission, to deal with the matter. But, having said that, I am sorry to say that my objection to the Bill is that the Government have not adhered to the principle which they have laid down in the preamble of the Bill, but have embarked the Commissioners upon a course which I think necessarily involves a most dangerous interference with the rights of property. I am quite aware that this is a subject very difficult to explain in its very intricate untheological aspect, but I do hope that English Peers will attend during the Committee stage of the Bill, because cannot help thinking there are questions raised which involve the most serious consequences to property and to trusts all over the country, and also that in one part of the Bill there are very dangerous precedents laid down which are extremely easy of application to England.

What I hold to be the true principle of this Bill is this. You find here a comparatively small body in possession of very large endowments. That body from its limitations in point of number, is not in a position to administer the money in accordance with the trusts on which it holds it. The obvious remedy is to relieve it of so much of the property as is applied to trusts which it cannot administer. am speaking in the hearing of very distinguished constitutional authorities. I appeal to any one of my noble friends on the Front Bench whether have not accurately stated the principle applicable to such a case. You have no right, because a Church or a lay corporation is rich, to take its riches from it. You have no right, because another Church side by side with it is very much more numerous and not so rich, to take from the one and give to the other. I am not speaking of law; I am speaking of justice. All that was settled so long ago as the days of Cyrus, who refused to give the coat which belonged to the little boy to the big boy.

The noble Lord has somewhat ignored one part of the Bill, although he was extremely careful in taking us over it. He has somewhat ignored the preamble. The preamble seems to me to start with an exceedingly good doctrine, only it very soon lapses from it. Here is how it begins— And whereas a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter have reported that the Free Church are unable adequately to carry out all the trusts of the property— That is exactly the position which I have described— and that it is desirable to provide for the allocation thereof— and "thereof" is the whole property— provision being made for the equipment of the Free Church. The true logical sequel is to provide for the allocation of such part of the property as the Free Church are thus unable to apply. That is not a mere verbal criticism, because, unfortunately, the first section, which is the operative part, shows that having made their bow, as it were, to this sound principle, the Government take leave of it altogether, because they say that their Commission shall allocate between the Free Church and the United Free Church— The property in question as defined in this Act, in such manner as appears to the Commission fair and equitable. Therefore, while the theory of the preamble is a sound one, that the property being that of the Free Church you are only to deal with what is superfluous and what it cannot use for the purpose of its trusts, the first section places the two bodies before the Commission as if they were competitors instead of one of them the true owner and the other not the true owner, and says to the Commissioners: Do whatever you think is equitable.

I have always in the course of my public life had an extreme suspicion of the word "equitable" in matters of this kind. In a law Court we know what we are doing when we use the word equitable, but in my experience if you tell anyone to do what is equitable it means do what you have a mind to and cannot give a good reason for; and that is what I am very much afraid will happen in the present case. It seems to me the mandate to the Commission, if the Act were properly expressed, is this—Do not think about the United Free Church at all in the meantime; concentrate your attention on the Free Church and ascertain her limitations and superfluity of property, and then turn round and. proceed to deal with the superfluities. I am well aware that in using the terms "limitations" and "superfluities" I amusing terms which require a little ascertainment, but I cannot help thinking that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that this small Presbyterian body ought to be dealt with a little generously by both parties upon this head. You are to consider what it can do, and not take it at a moment when it has been stripped of all its goods—it all being lawfully its own—and left for five years to struggle on with practically no property at all, and then say, "Oh, it is a terrible scandal that all this property should belong to you we will take away all that it is thought equitable to give to the United Free Church."

I think it is necessary, not merely that fair Commissioners should be appointed, as I daresay has been the case, but that they should understand that they are not to treat these two bodies as co-owners between whom a fair division is to be made, but are only to take away from the Free Church what it cannot deal with, and cannot deal with assuming it to be recuperated and refreshed from the condition in which it was placed by its opponents. Only then will you arrive at a conclusion which is consistent with sound legislation. When I have said sound legislation, observe I am not speaking as a lawyer at all. Do not let anyone say something so trivial as that I am a lawyer, and that I take a strict view. I am here as a Member of Parliament, and I am speaking not on litigation, but on legislation. I say there are limitations which are imposed on legislation not by any strained force of law. You could, so far as Parliamentary power goes, give this property to the Archbishop of Canterbury if you liked to do so, or to any noble Lord, but I say that morally you cannot do that. Such a course would not be within the moral competence of a responsible Legislature; and in like manner I say the only extent to which this Commission is justifiable is to the extent of finding out what are those trusts which cannot be performed, and relieving the Free Church of those only.

I will give an instance or two to show with what an entire impartial eye I view this situation. I observe from the Report of the Commission that the Free Church—the small body—has now come into a very large sum for foreign missions. I am not aware that the Free Church has any equipment for dealing with foreign missions, and accordingly I should be surprised to hear that a case could be made out for its retaining that money. I should unhesitatingly take it from it because I hold that in that case there is a trust attached that it shall apply that money to foreign missions. I do not think the Church is entitled to melt the foreign mission fund and apply it to general uses, and I arrive at that conclusion more readily because I cannot suppose that la the view of any intelligent Hindu converted from the error of his ways the question of Establishment in Scotand can bulk very largely.

I do not forget that I am speaking on the Second Heading, and I do not wish to enter into any details, but merely to deal with principles. I have said that the Free Church are entitled to have this matter viewed in a broad and liberal way, but I am bound to say that the circumstances under which this Bill has passed through the other House are not favourable to such consideration. I am speaking now not of noble Lords opposite or of their political friends. But I cannot help knowing that we are now—I must not say on the eve of a general election, because it may recede still further, but let me say that a general election must fall within the next eighteen months. I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen in another place felt the shadow of that election upon them, and had a disposition naturally to cultivate those who have the larger number of votes. I suppose that the number of votes in the Free Church is not very large, and I think that unconsciously it is possible that the views and, still more, the speeches in another place may have been influenced by those considerations. Therefore, I do not think we have had very much criticism of this Bill on such points as I have referred to.

Another difficulty is thrown in the way. The Government have, for reasons which I must not conjecture, introduced Clause 5 into the Bill. I do not intend to discuss the fifth clause to-day, but I think it fair to say that upon constitutional grounds I am opposed to that clause. I think it endangers the stability of the Scottish Establishment and opens a new chapter in the ecclesiastical life of Scotland, and for that reason I am opposed to it. But I am not going to discuss that now. I am aware that amongst those whose opinions I share on questions regarding property and private rights that view does not generally prevail, and I am not going to make differences gratuitously at this stage of the Bill. There are some noble Lords who are extremely anxious for this fifth clause, and I regret to think that their interest in the Bill is to a large extent this—that this is possibly the only opportunity when Clause 5 could pass in a Bill of this kind with the present Government in power, and, therefore, the I whole Bill should go through. No one supposes that if a Bill of this kind, caused I by the present emergency, were introduced by the Party opposite it would contain Clause 5 as one of its natural parts; and accordingly, what want to say now is this, that I deeply regret we have not applied to the question which I have been arguing the unbiassed judgment of many men whose judgments I should like to have had. I will name one for the sake of honour—Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He, know, is immensely interested in Clause 5. I should have liked very much to have had his most just and discriminating mind applied to the question which I have been discussing. I know perfectly well that quite unconsciously he is anxious to get this Bill through, and will think me a troublesome person because I am endangering Clause 5, not by discussing Clause 5, but the other clauses. Yet, think, that is the more reason why noble Lords in this House should look at this matter very closely.

I said there were some parts of the Bill which formed dangerous precedents for England, and I will mention one. You are going to make your Commissioners take a sort of head poll of the adherents of the Free Church, and if they fall short of a certain standard then you are going to deprive them of the property. Now, I want to know how far that is to be applied elsewhere. Suppose we have a Welsh Disestablishment Bill, is the property of the Welsh Church to be taken away in those parishes where they fall below a certain standard, and are my noble friends on this side of the House to back up the Government in that system? The noble Lord says the Bill is one and indivisible. You see now the kind of enterprise you are embarking on. When the time comes I shall have other things to say about the application of Clause 5 to affairs in England, but I think that is rather a serious matter even as regards the rest of the Bill. I have said that the proper view of this question is to treat it briefly as dealing with the superfluities of the Free Church, and I should like to read a passage from a public declaration of the Free Church. I mention it because one is very apt to suppose that this is an excessively obstinate and unreasonable set of men, whose ideas are entirely out of date. Here is what they say on this very question—the question of the relinquishing of property which they cannot deal with— 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 nor intention to retain anything which may be 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. That authority, it seems to us, is to be found only in the Sovereign power of the realm. Therefore, let no man say that these people are claiming everything. They are not claiming everything, but only what is within the scope of their duty and power to administer. All the rest they place at the free disposal of Parliament. What shall Parliament do with it? I hold that Parliament is absolutely free to dispose of it to that body which is most able to administer it as nearly as may be in accordance with the old trusts. In selecting which ecclesiastical body in Scotland meets that description, I hold that the Legislature has an absolutely free hand. I think, for my part, it being to a certain extent property in peculiar parts of the country, that the Legislature might very well have said that the Established Church of Scotland and not the United Free Church was the better fitted for that duty. I mention that merely by way of illustration; and it would certainly be contrary to the duty of the Legislature to give it to the United Free Church merely because it had claimed it in litigation and had lost it. We have to deal with the state of Scotland as a whole, and, on the whole, I make no doubt whatever that the United Free Church, which in numbers, in character, in ability, and in zeal is so strong, is the proper recipient of this State endowment, but State endowment it is. It is conferred upon them by the Legislature for the purpose of fulfilling trusts which have lapsed in the hands of their proper holders, for that purpose and on that occasion only.

I do not intend to touch at any length on one incident in the progress of these events. I have indicated that the difference between those two bodies is to a certain extent extremely imperceptible and evanescent; but, on the other hand, it touched a point upon which the conscience of religious people in Scotland has always been extremely sensitive. Although I do not in the least degree share in the opinion, I highly honour people who stand to principles, and think that is the case of the Free Church. But, my Lords, in the course of the proceedings leading up to this Bill, the other body has taken a step which I think the House ought to know. It has made as part of its constitution a declaration that it is absolute master of its own creeds, that it can alter them to any extent and to all extent to-day, to-morrow, and to the end of the chapter and it holds out its hand to receive the money which the State is now dealing with on the footing that its creed, so far as legal obligations go, is absolutely fluid, and that it is not bound to any doctrine whatever, even in Christian, let alone Free Church, theology, longer than it pleases. If anyone thinks that a strong statement, I will just read the words. They are as clear as noonday. It declares that— This Church has the sole and exclusive right and power from time to time, as duty may require, through her Courts to alter, change, add to, or modify her constitution and laws, subordinate standards, and formulas, and to determine and declare what these are, and to unite with other Christian Churches. I am sure everyone in the House knows that an appeal to the Bible is an appeal which is made by everybody, and accordingly so far as any restraining power is concerned that may be regarded as nugatory. Further, the General Assembly declares that— A decision of the Court given either unanimously, or by a majority of its members present and voting, is the decision of the Court, and the decision of the General Assembly so reached is final. I part from this branch of the subject, having pointed out that it is perfectly idle to represent the Church which, I agree, must receive this large sum of money as a Church holding, in the sense of being bound to the standards of the old Free Church. That is not historically the fact.

I would like to say one word in conclusion. The bulk of what I have said, although not the whole, has its drift in favour of the Free Church Let me say that I have personally no relation or sympathy whatever with either one body or the other. Trojan and Tyrian are alike to me, and I am afraid I stand equally in the black books of both, because I am a Prelatist, and therefore a malignant and a heretic. Accordingly I have no favour to make or conciliation to procure with either body. I am afraid they take a very gloomy view of my future but, at the same time, when a man has no character to lose he perhaps more boldly faces the consequence. That is my happy position. The other word I want to say is this. I am not without sensibility to the ecclesiastical traditions of my own country, but on an occasion of this kind I do not think it fitting, at least for a layman, to run about holding candles at every shrine all at the same time. I think that on the Second Reading, and particularly in Committee we had very much better cultivate such mundane virtues as justice and fair play without aspiring in the meantime to any of the other Christian graces; and perhaps at the Third Reading all these things may be added to us.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

My Lords, I think the House will appreciate the impartial tone in which the noble and learned Lord has addressed himself to this question. The noble and learned Lord quoted a declaration by the legal Free Church in which they say—and a most praiseworthy sentiment it is—that they have no desire or intention to retain anything which may be beyond the limits of the Church's capacity to use and administer when fairly ascertained. Well, my Lords, I understand that one of the chief objects of this Bill is to provide an authority which will ascertain the fair administration of the property. The noble and learned Lord went on to say that he agreed with the further statement of this body, that the authority was to be found only in the Sovereign power of the Realm. After all, the Sovereign power of the Realm is invoked in the proposal to pass this Bill, and a statutory Commission is appointed under no other authority than that of the Sovereign power of the Realm.

If I may refer to the extremely interesting opening statement of the noble Marquess, I venture to think he might have made the review of the past events which have rendered this measure necessary even more fully than he did. In one point the noble Marquess did not, so far as my information goes, give the version which will be received with agreement throughout Scotland as to some of the steps which occurred before the decision of your Lordships' House was given. I mean when he said that after the union of the two Churches in 1900, the United Free Church—that is the majority Church—took action to expel the minority—the old Free Church—from certain churches and buildings. My impression is that the procedure was rather the other way, and that the minority Church took the initiative on that occasion. Then the United Free Church, in order to defend their position, took action in the case of four churches, I think it was, and gave private intimation to the other side that the procedure was in the nature of a test case. No agreement was arrived at, and the minoritv Church took proceedings against the United Free Church claiming practically the whole of the property in question. The decision of the Scottish Courts was given against them, and they then appealed and, as your Lordships know, the decision of this House was in favour of the minority Church.

I hope no one will suggest that approval of this Bill is in any way inconsistent with due respect for, and deference to, the decision of the noble and learned Lords who formed the Court which dealt with this case. I should have thought that no one in this House would welcome this measure more than the noble and learned Lords who were called upon to take part in that judgment. It is no new thing that the literal application of the law may not really attain the end of justice in the ordinary sense of the word. We were taught at college that the origin of the great department of law, which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack represents, was simply that it was found in early days that the strict application of the law might work hardship, and in order to bring about an alleviation of that state of things an officer was appointed to cancel decrees and decisions which seemed to be inconsistent with equity and justice. The recognition of that principle may be found in rather a notable decision given by a Judge on a certain occasion when he addressed the accused person thus— 'You say that you broke the law inadvertently and in ignorance. Very well, the law says that to keep within the law you ought to have done so and so. Among other things, to put yourself right you ought to have taken proceedings which might have cost you £500, though apparently you do not possess five hundred pence. In the circumstances the sentence of the Court is that you are to be imprisoned for one day, and as you have been detained the whole of this day you are now discharged. I admit that that particular case was one of bigamy, but I do not think that makes mv illustration less appropriate. This Bill has been found necessary because there was a union between two Churches. That union was declared to be irregular, and consequently pains and penalties ensued.

I have spoken as to the necessity of the Bill. In this country we have sometimes heard this matter spoken of as if it were a quarrel or dispute between two bodies, a sort of ecclesiastical tug-of-war; and such expressions as these might be heard, "A plague on both your Churches." But those who know the facts know what a very different aspect the matter really holds. It must be remembered that those who form what we used to call the Free Church of Scotland obtained at a very great price their freedom to manage their own affairs as they thought right. That was in 1842, and they did secure, as they thought, the right to carry out a union with any other body and the decision which was given in this House was to most people in Scotland a most astounding decision as regards its effects. I do not want to lay too much stress on the disproportion in the membership of the two Churches, though that must not be lost sight of. It might almost be described in the words of a former Prime Minister, who on one occasion during the recess had as a guest at his place in Scotland a distinguished Austrian statesman. When driving through the park the guest remarked to his host, "I see you keep sheep." "Yes," said the host, with modest complacency, "I keep a thousand." "Ah," said the Austrian, "I keep a thousand shepherds." Really, as to numerical proportion, you may almost say that the number of the ministers of the United Free Church constituted a very consider- able proportion of the number of the membership of the legal Free Church after 1900.

I am the last person to speak disrespectfully of minorties. Those who sit on this side of the House are not likely to minimise the rights and privileges which attach to a minority, but there is a certain amount of anomaly when we speak of the apportioning of property between such disproportionate bodies in numbers. The judgment of this House laid stress on the importance of recognising the intentions and the wishes of the donors of the property which was being dealt with. Well, my Lords, that sounds as if it referred only to donors who are past and gone, but some of the donors are still alive. I see one in this House who is one of the strongest supporters of the union. I think you would find a great many more donors who are in favour of the union than of the other way of thinking. It is stated in the clause dealing with the proportion which the Commission are directed to keep in view in dealing with the property that if one - third of the congregation can be shown to belong to the legal Free Church they may claim the church building in dispute. Perhaps I may be excused for alluding to the fact that one of the noble and learned Lords who were called upon to give judgment in the recent decision has since suggested that he thought the basis of a mere majority would have been quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the case—I mean that instead of two-thirds of the membership being necessary, a majority should have been sufficient. But that is in some sense a point of detail.

I think it may be maintained that this B II really does provide what is sufficient and nothing more than sufficient for the purpose in view. I cannot help thinking of a phrase which the noble and learned Lord used in his speech last week when he spoke in a different connection—"the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." Leaving out of the question Clause 5, I would say that the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, will meet the case before us in order to secure that equity which the Bill speaks of. I do not think I need say anything about Clause 5. I am afraid that the Parliamentary student of the future will be puzzled when he finds the apparition of Clause 5 rearing its head in a Bill which deals with a very different class of matters altogether. The noble Marquess disclaimed with some warmth—and we all know that that is so—that he is incapable of being a party to anything dishonourable. I entirely agree, and I support the insertion of Clause 5 in this Bill. Those who represent in Scotland the United Free Church have shown on the whole considerable self-abnegation and calmness in very trying circumstances. There can be no doubt that this question might have been made a Party political question at a certain period, namely, before the Commission was appointed; but I think it was a wise decision on the part of the leaders of that Church to discourage any such intention. I rejoice to see the Bill before the House, and though my noble and learned friend has rather intimated that it is his intention to move Amendments, my hope is that there may be no material Amendments, so that the Bill may go back to the other House without substantial alteration and have a prospect of being passed into law. without delay.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I do not think that I can refuse altogether to take part in this amicable and friendly discussion upon so important a Bill as that now before the House, but I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to hear that as there does not seem to be the slightest chance of any opposition to the Second Reading stage of the measure, it will not be necessary for me to say very much on this occasion. I really could not allow this discussion to close without adding my humble tribute of congratulation to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland for the manner in which he dealt with the introduction of this Bill. I venture to say that a more calm and temperate and equitable statement was never made with regard to any Bill before the House. But it is such a one as we should have expected from him who has lived amongst us in Scotland from his earliest years, who has held the post of Commissioner to the General Assembly, I and who throughout his life has shown his interest in all the branches of the Presbyterian Church.

Although, as has been said, we have our controversies, and sometimes rather bitter controversies, amongst Presbyterians in Scotland, I think there is an over-ruling feeling amongst all of us that the interests of Presbyterianism and of the Church of Christ in Scotland are superior to the special interests of any one particular branch of it; but I venture to say, if ever that feeling seemed by our controversies to have been overclouded during the last few years, and more particularly during the last eight or ten months, at any rate in the case of some of us that feeling has come to the front and has done something to still some at any rate of those bitter controversies. The noble and learned Lord who spoke from the bench behind me was most generous in his acknowledgment of the necessity of the Bill and the necessity of having an Executive Commission, and did not, therefore, contest anything that I should call a Second Reading principle of the Bill, although I understood him to say that in some of its clauses it contained a dangerous interference with rights of property, with trusts, and with some principles which might be extended to the South of the Tweed; and I understood him to say that the right principle to have gone upon would have been to take nothing from the Free Church which it was not absolutely proved up to the hilt that that body could not administer.

LORD ROBERTSON

I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that I thought that the proper scope of the inquiry for the Commission was what parts of the property the Free Church on a reasonable view of the whole circumstances might be found to be unable to administer.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I absolutely accept that definition, and I should say that the noble and learned Lord had stated in the most accurate terms what is the intention and purport of the Bill. The Commission is to find out what there is a reasonable chance of the Pree Church being able to administer, and only to deal with that which it is not able to administer. The noble and learned Lord, in the earlier part of his speech, quoted a passage from the preamble of the Bill, and contrasted it unfavourably with the words in the first clause. The words in the first clause which he quoted were that the Commission established under this Act are to allocate— The property in question, as defined by this Act, in such a manner as appears to the Commission fair and equitable. The noble and learned Lord stopped there. But the clause goes on— Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, but subject to the provisions of this Act. The judgment is obviously one of the circumstances of the case. It could not be anything else. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships would support this Bill for a moment if that were not perfectly clear on the face of it. It is not the case to say that the Commissioners are turned loose upon the property. You do not distribute it under the nebulous conditions of being fair and equitable without any directions, because in the subsequent clauses of the Bill there are, as I think, reasonable, but certainly fairly elaborate, provisions as to the conditions to which the Commissioners are to have regard. All I can say, in addition, upon that point is that when we see the Amendments we shall be able to judge of the points in which the Bill, I will not say offends, but in which the Bill is not pleasing to the noble and learned Lord, and discussions upon such points as those can be deferred until the Committee stage.

What I am anxious to emphasise is this, that those who consider this Bill should come to it carefully remembering the facts of the judgment. The judgment said that the United Free Church had no right or title in the property it said that the Free Church had a right and title to it according to the terms of the trusts, and those trusts contained different and varying conditions and I contend that it would be just as great a diversion of trusts, just as great an invasion of the rights of beneficiaries in trusts or in private property, to divert from the purpose designed by the testator or the donor of the special trust as it would be to divert the property from one Church to another. The noble and learned Lord was quite candid about this. He evidently felt that in the case of foreign missions that contention was absolutely correct, and he said so with great fairness. But that does not exhaust the whole of the different trusts. There are funds devoted to the support of aged and infirm ministers, to colonial schemes, to Continental churches, and to purposes for the conversion of the Jews and others and I think I may say it is a matter of public notoriety that at any rate of the great majority of these cases those who have been adjudged to be the real trustees are not able to administer the funds. That is the point upon which the Commission will have to decide, and the whole scope of the Bill is that on such matters, subject to the conditions laid down in the Bill, we should trust the Commissioners and leave them to decide the matters upon the evidence brought before them.

The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that principles equivalent to these might have effect in, I think he specified, the Established Church in Wales. I do not see how that parallel holds good. These Churches which are concerned in this property are in no sense Established Churches. The Church in Wales could not be the subject of a judgment such as this, and, therefore, I do not see that the parallel indicated by the noble and learned Lord is really germane to the point at issue. At one period of his speech the noble and learned Lord seemed to indicate that either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Established Church of Scotland might, on principles analogous to these, come in for some part of this property.

LORD ROBERTSON

I did not say that. I said the competence of Parliament was so absolute that it was within their legislative powers to give it to the head of the Church of England; but in another part of my speech I discussed the question whether the Established Church of Scotland might not be a possible depositary for some of these funds.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is obvious on the face of it that that would be a diversion of trusts and an interference with the principles on which the property is held far in excess of anything suggested by this Bill; but I am most anxious not to widen the range of controversy, and perhaps, as it was only used as an illustration, it would have been wiser if I had made no allusion to that part of the noble and learned Lord's speech. In one part of his speech, however, he made a direct appeal to me as to whether I, except for the appearance of Clause 5, would not have perhaps scrutinised the provisions of the Bill rather more closely. I do not think that was, under all the circumstances, an altogether fair insinuation. I do not think that this is an ideal method of doing what is necessary after the judgment. Some of us last year would have preferred if the matters could have been arranged by private negotiation between the two parties chiefly interested. Among others, I did my humble best to bring this about. I failed, and I believe I failed mainly because the spirit of controversy ran high, and because some of those who were concerned thought it was contrary to their consciences to allow the diversion of anything which had been adjudged to them. When people in a case of this kind bring in an argument from what they conscientiously believe it is not possible to go further, and I frankly admit that the effort which I and others made failed, but I would rather have made that effort and failed than that it should not have been made at all. From that moment, I think I am within what is known to a great many more than those who are in this House when I say that I recognised the necessity for the intervention of the Government, and according to my own humble ability I have done my best to bring about a reasonable settlement such as is embodied in the Bill.

I am in favour of Clause 5, and if it is attacked in Committee I venture to say that I shall be able to give good reasons for its retention. I am not going into that now, because it has not been attacked. I do not say that I, like the noble I Earl opposite, would not have preferred to see Clause 5 in a separate Bill. But we know the circumstances and conditions under which legislation is transacted in another place, and I cannot say that I think the discretion of the Government to insert this clause in the Bill, to which in some aspects it is certainly much more relevant than many people seem to think, was not a wise discretion. There has been no contest or hardly any contest in Scotland about this clause upon its merits.

It has been suggested that this Bill has been passed in the form in which it stands because a general election is impending, and the votes on one side are supposed to be more worth having than the votes on the other. I do not think that in itself is an altogether worthy insinuation. I believe that the heart of Scotland has been very deeply stirred in this matter, and that in the main this Bill reflect the sound and matured Judgment of the people of Scotland as being likely to bring about as fair a settlement as is possible under the circumstances. But if it is contended that Clause 5 would not have passed had it been by itself and judged purely on its merits, surely I am entitled, bearing in mind that a general election is impending, to refer to the vote of the Scotch Members in the House of Commons when Clause 5 was proposed by itself. On July 12th, when in Committee the Question was put from the Chair, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill," fifty-four Scotch Members voted for it, and only one against it. Surely, under the political circumstances in which we live, that is as near an approach to unanimity on the part of the representatives at any rate of the people of Scotland as to the merits of Clause 5 as we can reasonably expect. And if a general election is impending, and if the votes of those who are interested in various parts of the Bill are supposed to be reflected by the votes of their Members in Parliament, surely it is a pretty good indication of what is the feeling of the people of Scotland on the merits of this clause that on one occasion the Question of whether this clause should pass or not was carried by fifty-four to one, and on another occasion by forty-two to eight. I venture to say that under all the circumstances that is an ample justification for the intro duction of this clause, and is a full answer to those who think that it should not have appeared in the Bill.

I think that most of the other matters which have been referred to are matters which can be much better dealt with when we come to the Committee stage. I here is much in this Bill which is of great interest to the people of Scotland, much which has been the subject of great discussion, but I think that on the whole we may fairly pass this Bill with the feeling that it meets with approval in Scotland, and that the Government have done what is right. They and their Commission have had a long and laborious task, and I for one shall be very glad to see the consummation of a hope of a greater amount of peace brought about by the passage of this Bill. I believe with all my heart that that will be a permanent result of the measure, and that it will work for the good of religion and for the peace of the Presbyterian Church.

LORD OVERTOUN

My Lords, the noble Lord, who with so much ability, moved the Second Beading of this Bill, said that noble Lords South of the Tweed might probably have some difficulty in understanding all the divisions of our Scottish Presbyterianism. I suspect that that is true. I would like to add that when one of the largest Churches in Scotland set about trying to heal those divisions the result was that it was despoiled of all its property. I need not go into the question which has been so ably set forth by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, except to remind your Lordships that in 1843 at the time of the Disruption the majority of the Church of Scotland believed that the State was encroaching on their spiritual independence and they voluntarily gave up all the benefits of Establishment—they gave up their manses, their stipends, and their churches—and left the Establishment in order that for conscience sake they might be free.

I shall say nothing about the notable judgment of August 1st last, beyond that the Free Church, having voluntarily left the Establishment and all its emoluments and severed their connection with the State, were certainly amazed to learn that in spite of all they had said I and suffered, Establishment was decided to be a vital doctrine of the Free Church, and that by treating it as an open question—which to my knowledge I for the last forty years has been done in the Free Church—they had violated i their trusts and forfeited their property which was valued at many millions. The Free Church believed, and still believe, that they possess the right of self-government in doctrine and creed. The noble and learned Lord opposite said that the United Free Church claimed to be the master of its own creed. And so we do, and we think it much more reasonable and right, and scriptural too, that a Church should be master of its own creed rather than Parliament, which is composed of many heterogeneous elements. In the Auchterarder case which was decided in the House of Lords, Lord Campbell—one of the Judges—said that clergymen of the Church of Scotland were servants of the State and that they must do what the State bade them, and he added, "It is only a Church self-founded and self-sustained that has a right to self-government." That is a right which we believe we possess. At any rate, the judgment of August 1st came as a thunderbolt and was felt far beyond these Islands. It convulsed Scotland to its centre, and the country was amazed that the Church of at least one-third of the people of Scotland should be dispossessed of property provided by themselves and that it I should be handed over to a small fraction of about one - fiftieth of its members who contributed practically nothing to that property, and who admittedly could not administer it. The first instinct of the Scottish people who were thus mulcted was to resist such a decision which appeared to them unjust. But, animated as the Scottish people are by a strong law-abiding spirit, they obeyed the law, though they felt none the less keenly the injustice and the hardship which it involved. he Free Church congregations who entered the Union in 1900 numbered 1,132, while those who refused to enter the Union numbered twenty-seven, and those twenty-seven, though they were assured of generous treatment if they did not see their way to enter the Union, began law proceedings immediately after the Union for the purpose of having it declared that they were the Free Church and that all its property belonged to them.

Besides the question of Establishment, one of the grounds of the charge against the United Free Church was that it had departed from the Confession of Faith by adopting, in 1902, a Declaratory Act as to the free offer of the Gospel. A small secession from the Free Church took place in 1902, and I am afraid that then, as also in this later case, which I suppose I should not call a secession, a great number of people were utterly ignorant of the principles involved. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one illustration of that. In 1902 when the secession took place in regard to the Declaratory Act one of the office bearers of those who left the Free Church and formed the Presbyterian Church of Scotland called upon me, and I said to him— I am very sorry to bear that you have left the Free Church. Why have you left?" "Well," he said, "I could not stand the Declaratory Act." "Now, my friend," said I, "might I ask you a question? Have you ever read the Declaratory Act?" "No," he replied, "I never did." I asked, "Are you aware of the contents of the Declaratory Act?" "No," he answered, "I am not aware of what is in it at all." "Well," I said, "I honestly think you had better hear it read. So I told him what was in the Declaratory Act, and he expressed his intense amazement, because he had believed that the Declaratory Act had for its main issue that we were descended from monkeys, and that various tenets of scripture were set aside by arguments such as that. But the body that left the Free Church in 1902 made no claim whatever to property, nor did the twenty-seven ministers who refused to enter the Union suggest that any such proposal should be made. When the judgment of August 1st was given, some imagined that the United Free Church would at once proceed to dissolve the Union for the sake of keeping their property. But those who held that view little knew Scottish character, for now, as in Covenanting days, spiritual independence and sacred rights were involved, and no such course was for a moment thought of.

Happily, by strenuous efforts, as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned, this question has been kept out of Party politics, and the Scottish Members, of Parliament, and the people of Scotland, with few exceptions, have insisted that whatever might be said as to the legality of the judgment of August 1st, a cruel injustice had resulted and that it must be remedied by Parliament. It was hoped that a Suspensory Act would be passed to preserve the status quo until Parliament should move and decide as to what should be done. But the Government did not see their way to such a course, and the minority at once seized by force twenty-eight churches and then applied to the Court for execution; they evicted nearly 100 flourishing congregations from the churches, and gave notice to 115 clergymen to leave their manses; they evicted Principal Rainy, and the professors and students from the Edinburgh College, and they took possession of our great Assembly Hall. Some noble Lords may perhaps say that, after all, this small body were only retaliating for the harsh treatment they had received. I would like once and for all to put an end to such a belief. At the opening of this Parliament in February last, the noble Lord who in this House seconded the Address, said that it was well known that the minority had been harshly treated. May I assure your Lordships that that was not the case. There was not one minister evicted from his manse; there was not one congregation evicted from their church; and I challenge anyone to prove a single case of harsh treatment in the case of the smaller body. On the contrary, they were personally and officially assured before the Union that they would receive the most generous treatment if they thought it right to remain outside the Union.

At length the Government appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the situation, and after much labour that Royal Commission gave in a Report which everyone viewed as admirable the United Free Church had vainly tried by negotiation to bring about an amicable settlement by arbitration. The Government succeeded no better, for they appointed Sir John Cheyne to arbitrate, but the small body, the Free Church, refused to fall in with his suggestions, for the Free Church demanded their last pound of flesh and would entertain no proposals whatever. The evictions proceeded, and I can speak with feeling, because I happen to be an officer-bearer in one of the largest congregations who have been evicted from their church. We number nearly 1,000 members, while of the body who have evicted us not more than twenty ever belonged to the congregation. On June 7th the Government introduced their Bill, which, however, did not entirely follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission and it contained provisions to which the Scottish people could not assent. I would like to say that we do not quarrel with the very unusual provision that was suggested by the Royal Commission and is embodied in this Bill, that if a body of trustees were unable to fulfil their trust they should be asked to fulfil such part of it as they are able to do, and that the remainder should be handed over to another body to fulfil. We do not quarrel with that exceptional treatment, because the circumstances are so entirely exceptional that I do not believe in the story of Christendom a parallel case could be found.

I shall not refer to Clause 5 further than to say that while the United Free Church could not think of refusing to her sister Church, the Church of Scotland, the liberty which they themselves claim to have, we do think that it deals with an important question which has little or no relation to the Bill and which ought to have been separately dealt with.

With regard to congregational property, we were under the belief that it should have been dealt with in accordance with the one trust deed of the United Free Church, which provided both for union and for change of name, and which under its model trust deed provided as follows—and I hope noble Lords will notice this— Whatever the Courts of law may determine as to which of the contending parties is to be held to be the Free Church, it shall be competent for each congregation, by a majority of its members in full communion, to decide that question for itself, so far as the possession and use of their place of worship and other property are concerned, with or without compensation to the minority, and such compensation to be settled by arbitration. The noble Lord, Lord Davey, one of the Judges in the case, was distinctly of opinion, and said so, that the property I thus provided for should be arranged in accordance with that deed. His Majesty's Government are fully aware of this, but they think that in view of the minority being successful litigants they ought to recognise the situation by fixing the proportion at two-thirds in place of a majority. Might I draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland so one word that he used in moving the Second Reading. In speaking of the allotment of property and of the provision in the Bill to allot to the Churches according to their respective constitutions, he put in the word "present" constitutions. Now, while that is all right, and we are glad that the Government in the Bill has recognised our constitution as made since the Union, the noble Lord will notice that we do not intend that we should be tied down to our present constitution, because we hold that we possess the liberty to vary and alter that constitution as within Scriptural authority the United Free Church from time to time may consider it right to do.

In sitting down, let me say that on the whole we feel that the Government lave met the wishes of Scotland reasonably in this matter, and while we cannot help feeling that it is a little hard that our trust deed, the only one we have, should be departed from in dealing with property, we are willing to suffer this loss for the sake of a settlement, and while in addition to this important point there are some minor matters which we should be glad to have seen altered, we are glad that the Bill has unanimously passed the House of Commons. We hope that it will now meet with your Lordships' approval, so that the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty may be enabled to enter on their labours, and that in the wisdom of the Commissioners and their noble Chairman, all of whom have the full confidence of the country, the distracted condition of Scotland may soon be brought to an end, that the controversies and litigation which unhappily have done so much to injure the highest interests of the country may cease, and that the Churches may be thus enabled to pursue in peace their great and divine work.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I will not detain your Lordships many moments, but I should not like this Second Reading debate to close without my having said a single word upon a matter which must be profoundly interesting to all those who are specially concerned in the religious welfare of Scotland and of England too, even though they may stand quite outside and have little or nothing to do with the actual litigants in the recent controversy. Exactly a year has passed since the decision was given upon which our attention has been concentrated tonight, and your Lordships know how many were the offers and how many were the endeavours that were made a year ago by those who had very closely at heart the great interests which are at stake, in order, if it were possible in any voluntary way, to compose so wide and important a difference. When I came down to the House tonight I anticipated that we should hear some objections at least raised to this Bill upon questions of fundamental principle. We have heard one speech from a noble and learned Lord—a speech as lucid in its argument as his arguments always are, and as pointed in its phraseology as his phraseology always is, but it did seem to me—it may have been due to my inadequate appreciation of some of the points of his argument—that he was dealing not with the fundamental principle which underlies this Bill, and with which alone we are concerned on Second Reading, but with the question of whether or not the words set forth in the preamble as the principle upon which the Bill should go had been adequately given effect to in the subsequent provisions of the measure. If I understood the noble and learned Lord rightly, his argument amounted to this that when the property claimed by the larger body had been decided to be in fact the property of the smaller body, the money then allotted to the smaller body could be legitimately administered by them only in so far as they were capable of effectively using those trusts, and that any balance which lay beyond was at the disposal of Parliament absolutely without any direct or prerogative right on the part of the disinherited body to claim the money thus set at liberty. If that be so, is it not—1 shrink from saying it—purely a legal rather than a general argument, for this reason? If I understand the story of these, monies aright, their origin and source all date back to donors who belonged to one or other of these two bodies, the United Free Church and the Free Church. If that be the case, common sense would seem to say that it was between those two bodies alone that the money could be legitimately and fairly allocated, inasmuch as it was not derived from sources which lay outside the two taken together. If I might venture with some trepidation to say so to one who argues with the weight and authority of the noble and learned Lord, that appears to me to cut away somewhat the ground from the argument on which he laid stress to-night.

On the practical issue now before us, I do not understand that the noble and learned Lord or any other Member of your Lordships' House thinks for a moment that the money ought to go elsewhere than to one or other of the two bodies who are at present concerned in the controversy, and, that being so, it is, as it seems to me, a question for the Committee stage of the Bill rather than for Second Reading whether or not the allocation, such as it is, which the Bill proposes, has been fairly arranged for in its provisions. When the time comes we shall all be prepared to give attention to the matter in its details, and I, for one, shall look with the most respectful care at any suggestions or Amendments that may emanate from so high a source as the pen and brain of the noble and learned Lord.

But, my Lords, I should intensely regret if anything were to happen which should imperil a measure which does seem to have commended itself to the common sense of the country, both north of the Tweed and south of the Tweed, as being likely, with whatever modifications of detail may be necessary, to bring about peace where peace is so sorely desired, and, as I venture to hope, to bring about peace on lines which may lead to a yet larger reconciliation and to a wider area of union or at least of unity than we should have dared to anticipate a year or two ago. Therefore, my Lords, I hope a Second Reading will certainly be given to this measure.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I intervene to say only a word or two on the Second Reading of this Bill, not because the subject is one that is not full of interest, because it is full of interest to all Scotsmen and to me personally, and not because there is not plenty of subject of debate, because undoubtedly you can hardly conceive a subject which could more naturally give rise to debate, because your Lordships have heard from various noble Lords different accounts, but all agreeing in the main, of what has taken place during the last eighteen months. The events of those eighteen months, so far as the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland are concerned, have been full of incident and full of danger and it seems to me that the first duty that is laid upon Parliament is to meet the danger which has arisen amongst our Scottish Churches. I will not for a moment attempt to go into the causes which led to this condition of danger and risk. I think that the great majority both of Englishmen and Scotchmen will agree that the time has come when this condition of things must be abated. I do not say that the proposals in this Bill are absolutely I deal or that they please me or would perhaps exactly please anybody who takes an interest in the subject. But they do seem to me to give good grounds for a settlement that will, on the whole, satisfy the people of Scotland and meet the difficulties which have arisen. I believe, therefore, that the less debate and the less controversy we have, and the less we attempt to amend the Bill in this House the better. I would remind your Lordships that this Bill is, after all, to a large extent an agreed Bill. It is a Bill of which the proposals have been carefully discussed by the Government on the one side, and by the representatives of the Churches on the other, and an agreement has been come to on the terms of the Bill itself, even though there had to be a certain amount of give and take on either side. It was a rather remarkable thing, I think, to observe the last Notice Paper of the House of Commons on, I think, the Report stage of this Bill, when throughout that Notice Paper Amendments were down in duplicate in the names of the Lord-Advocate for Scotland and of my hon. friend Mr. Thomas Shaw, the Member for the Border Burghs. Amendment after Amendment appeared on the Paper in exactly the same terms, and those Amendments were accepted by the House of Commons as a whole, and the Bill passed by consent of the House. I hope that English Peers will not be led astray by the arguments of one Scottish Peer, however eminent a lawyer he may be, but that they will grant us again, as they have before granted us, some share in the management of our own affairs and in dealing with questions which pertain especially to Scotland.

THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE

I hope I may be allowed to express my most earnest hope that this Bill may pass unanimously through your Lordships' House. My wish is founded not entirely on the grounds which have been put forward this evening, but largely because of the effect it will have on the religious life of Scotland. It is impossible not to sympathise with all the Churches in question in view of the magnificent work which they have done. I make no distinction between them. The United Free Kirk, which has sprung to arms during the troubles of the last year or two in a way which does it the highest credit; the Free Kirk, small though it may be, which sacrificed all it had for the sake of principle, and the Established Church, to which I myself belong, which through the centuries has done a work which has formed, I think I may say, the best part of the Scottish character—all these three deserve, I think, the deepest sympathy of everyone in the difficulties in which they have been placed. They have all done good work; they all work from principle, and the only difference between them, I think, is entirely one of sentiment. In Scotland the other day I was asking members of these three different Churches whether, if there had never been any rupture, there was any ground for such a rupture now, but I could not find anyone to say that there was. The difference, I think, is purely one of sentiment, and it requires an adept to say what the difference really is. In my opinion this Bill, if it passes, will tend to broaden the foundations on which these Churches stand, to help them to work together in the cause of religion, and to humanise hundreds of thousands of men who at this moment, owing to the divisions between these three Churches, are left entirely outside the pale, not only of Christianity, but of civilisation. In our great towns—Glasgow and elsewhere—hundreds of thousands of men never go to Church, but we have these three Churches, practically in agreement one with another in all essentials, but counteracting one another's good work, overlapping in many directions, and one preventing the good which another might so well accomplish. I do most earnestly hope that the condition of the country and the religious life of Scotland will be borne in mind, and that any questions of detail that may arise will receive only their due amount of consideration in view of the great importance that this Bill may have with regard to the religious life of the country.

LORD KINNAIRD

May I echo the hope of the noble Lord opposite that we may be able speedily to pass this Bill without any Amendment? I can assure your Lordships that the feeling in Scotland is very keen upon it, and I believe that the sooner we get out of the present position, in which we have been placed by the decision of the House of Lords on August 1st last, the better. Take one point as an illustration, namely, the Aged and Infirm Ministers' Fund, to which over a thousand men have been subscribing, many of them for forty or fifty years. At the present moment, according to the legal position, the fund to which they have been subscribing has been transferred to other hands, and, but for the expectation that the people of Scotland will back them up, these people, owing to that unfortunate decision, are, so far as the legal position is concerned, without any certainty of pension or relief should occasion necessitate it. This and other points which might be urged will, I think, convince every Member of your Lordships' House that the sooner this Bill is passed the better. As the measure is a compromise, it will not be wise to go in it too closely or to amend it to any large extent. I venture to think that the unanimity of Scotch Members. with reference to Clause 5, to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded, was possibly due to the feeling that unless the Bill went through as a whole it would not be passed at all, and not because they approved of the provisions of this clause.

The only other matter to which I would refer on the present occasion is that portion of the speech of the Secretary for Scotland in which he said that it was assumed on all sides that the religion us opinions of the people in the Church of Scotland had changed, and that there fore the creed and formula of subscription of the Church of Scotland must be amended so as to meet that change of opinion. I understand that in another place it was asserted that no change in the creed of the Established Church is proposed by this Bill and that all that is proposed is that the terms of subscription should be changed for Ministers and professors.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I do not think I used the word "creed."

LORD KINNAIRD

Belief or dogma.

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW

I said that the theology of to-day was different from the theology of 1693.

LORD KINNAIRD

I will not enter into any theological argument, but the creed is the outcome of the theology of the people, and I do not think that that has been to any serious extent changed. I do not think those who have signed a certain creed and departed from it, and who are filling certain ecclesiastical appointments, are the proper people to come forward and ask for a change in the terms of subscription. This argument applies not only in Scotland but also in England, and, therefore, I did not wish this opportunity to pass without contradicting the idea that because a few people in a Church change their theloogy, therefore the creed of the Church in England, Scotland, or Wales should be altered. With these few words I beg to express an earnest hope that the Bill will go through, so that we may have in Scotland the assurance that we shall be able to continue the work of the Churches as it has been through so many years, for the glory of God and for the benefit of the nation.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I shall not detain the House a moment, but I should not like this discussion to close without saying one word, not to disturb, but to swell the general chorus of harmony which has prevailed throughout this discussion. The only exception, perhaps, has been the singularly brilliant and interesting speech of my noble and learned friend opposite, who, I think, took some intellectual pleasure in the differences which he indicated, because they did not seem to me to be founded on any very deep principle of objection, or based on anything more than the Committee spirit of looking at a Bill, which has much larger aspects than the merely legal condition to which it applies. My noble and learned friend seemed to think that this was an almost piratical measure, containing certain principles of a noxious and dangerous kind which had been set afloat like a fire-ship on the waters of controversy, and which might in the long run set on fire many institutions, many trusts, and even one Church Establishment which at present conceived itself to be free from its dangerous operations. With great humility, I venture to say that that is a very narrow view to take of this measure.

I think we have all recognised, and I have observed with great pleasure in the discussion of to-night, that the one important preliminary in considering the Bill is this—that we are bound to respect the soundness and the legality of the decision given by this House last year. I have not heard a word of criticism of that decision, although I think I caught a tinge of regret in the speech of my noble friend Lord Overtoun; and it would have been most unmeet if any such word of criticism had been offered. But, at the same time, we must recognise the fact that that decision, legally sound as it no doubt was, did appear to the great majority of Scotchmen, to whatever Church they might belong, to have effected substantial injustice, to which at the first blush, at the first agony of that decision, it did not seem easy to offer any effectual remedy. We turned to the right and to the left; efforts at conciliation were made, among others, by my noble friend at the Table, as he has mentioned to-night but it was felt from the beginning, I think, by some of us, that the only possible remedy for the anomaly which had been created by the undoubted operation of the law was by the interference of the Government and the Legislature. And the result of that has been that we have had one Commission already; we have had now this Bill, which is setting on foot another Executive Commission, with the largest discretion and the most effective powers, to put in order that which has been put in some disorder by the law. It is a rough and ready remedy for a condition of things which had arisen in that strange fashion. In these circumstances I would appeal to my noble and learned friend not to apply too much of his legal acumen in Committee to the various clauses in which he sees a germ of danger.

This is, after all, a remedy, perhaps unprecedented, for a state of things which I hope will have no repetition in this country. We must not be tied absolutely in large matters of policy of this kind by considerations of rather nicely-drawn disquisitions on legal points. We must apply ourselves to this matter with a broad wish to meet the equities of the case or, let me say, as I know my noble friend objects to the word "equity" in this connection, with a broad wish to meet the necessities of the case. I. for one, having lived for some months last year in Scotland, when the feverish passion and stress of this matter were at their height, do offer my hearty thanks to the Government for having brought forward a measure which has received the acceptance of the United Free Church and the submission, I cannot say more, of the smaller Church which claims and has a legal title to the epithet "Free." I thank the Government for having made this effort, and I thank my friend the noble Marquess for the spirit and largeness of view with which he has presented it; and I hope, in view of all the considerations, that this Bill will return at this late period of the session to the other House as it came, because even a word or two of amendment might retard the beneficent operation of a measure which every patriotic Scotchman desires to see passed.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.