HL Deb 19 July 1921 vol 45 cc1139-64

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, I regret very much that the important discussion which has taken place has somewhat delayed the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, which is to effect the union of the Scottish Churches. Since I occupied my present position I have not had placed in my hands a task in respect of which I have felt an equal degree of responsibility. It is not long ago, about a month, since I happened to find myself in Edinburgh on the occasion of the meeting of the National Assembly, and I had some discussion with our late friend and colleague, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the subject of this Bill. I cherish the melancholy pleasure of remembering that he was good enough to express to me his satisfaction that I was charged with the fortunes of these proposals in this House.

The question is one of the deepest moment. It involves an area into which statesmen and politicians should intrude only with the deepest self-distrust, and then only with complete and certain assurance that the spiritual interests involved require the intervention of Parliament. The situation, which I must shortly explain, is in my judgment most clearly one of those which satisfies the formula I have laid down. The ecclesiastical history of Scotland, as many of your Lordships know, is a remarkable one. It is remarkable when contrasted with the ecclesiastical history of any European country known to me in the comparable period, and the principal ground of difference between the development of view in the Scottish Church, or Churches, and the other churches of Christendom, has been this, that where there has been dissidence in the other countries of Europe that dissidence has in almost every case been confined to some difference of dogmatic opinion.

If you trace the great movements in this country and in the Latin countries of Europe, where we set up the great chronological landmarks on these issues, you will find that it is rarely that the minds and consciences of men are stirred except by points in which at some stage it comes in contact with dogma. It is a peculiar circumstance in the history of the Church in Scotland that differences which have proved to be most lasting and exacerbating in their results have taken place, in the main, on some point which, in relation to the great points involved, must be pronounced secondary, and which, indeed, are recognised as being secondary in the proposals to which this Bill gives statutory effect.

Another reason which in any circumstances must incline this House to consider most indulgently the proposals I now have to recommend, is the consideration of the immense gain in strength which is immediately effected by union in such a case as this. Napoleon, in a cynical phrase, said that if there were no religion it would be necessary for statesmen to invent one. What he meant was that the most sublime foundation upon which the moral conscience, whether in an individual or in a nation, reposed lies in the sanction which is contributed by devotion, by a belief in a future state, by a belief in the obligation imposed not by an earthly code of morality but by one of more sublime origin and superior sanction. If that be true—and, indeed, it is a commonplace—it would appear to be clear that there could be no excuse for maintaining or supporting a system under which, in the opinion of those most competent to form a judgment, there is a dissipation of energy, a weakening of strength by the division of energies, which were divided only in relation to historical causes which have long since passed away—a division which can be swept away to-day by a simple legislative Act.

The true position, as we find it who must apply our minds to this question, is that a number of pious and learned men in Scotland, each of them charged with the responsibility for that branch of the Church to which he belongs, having become con- vinced some years ago that there was such a dissipation of energy that the work which, to them, is the work of their lives, could be more efficiently discharged if union were established between themselves and other bodies in Scotland, have come to Parliament to-day and have asked that, by stages which I will presently, however shortly, explain, Parliament shall give effect to that which it is no exaggeration to say that the leading theologians and divines of Scotland, with a surprising degree of agreement almost amounting to unanimity, have come to Parliament to request. I cannot, in any circumstance, conceive that such a claim would be made in this House to deaf ears, and, indeed, if ever there was a question in which supreme importance should be conceded to the local opinion, in which effect should be given, in substance if not in name, to that power of independent wish which we associate with the term of Home Rule, it is surely in a case like this, when it is substantially true to say that all the divines and all the leading Churches of Scotland have come to Parliament to say that., deeply conscious of their spiritual responsibilities, they are persuaded that they can discharge them more efficiently and with more adequate return in the fruits of their ministrations, if the facilities are given to them which are contained in this Bill.

One other observation falls to be made at this stage. There have been in Scotland, as in other countries, great movements and transmigrations of the population from rural districts into industrial districts. Any person who examines a map of Scotland as that map was observable forty years ago, and then examines a map of to-day, which exhibits the relative population of the two areas, will be immensely struck by the change that has taken place during that period in the direction of concentrating great masses of population in Scotland between the two great Firths with which many of your Lordships are familiar. Ecclesiastical readjustment has by no means kept pace with that migration of the population, which has, of course, been the result of economic causes. One of the principal reasons why the ecclesiastical movement has not corresponded has been the artificial and stereotyped condition resulting from the disunion which it is the object of this proposal to alleviate and to end. I should be sorry to pretend to give your Lordships the exact figures—I was astonished when I was informed of them two weeks ago on my visit to Edinburgh—which would exhibit in how many small villages, making, indeed, under modern conditions, an inconsiderable claim upon the ministrations of clergymen, you can find two devout men, two scholars who—if I may use mundane language in relation to matters much higher—are, indeed, if you analyse their activities, competing in a small parish for the suffrages or the preferences of the population.

At the same time you can find, in the industrial centres of population of which I have spoken, great collections of people living under condition's in which it might be that the ministrations of pious, efficient, able ministers would bring a message of hope and improvement, moral, material and spiritual, in their condition. Here there is starvation of the ecclesiastical resources which can be brought to bear to deal with the local difficulties. It is the object, and it will most certainly be the result, of this Bill, if and when it receives the assent of Parliament, to enable a distribution of resources to be made which will be at once commensurate with the united resources of these Churches and appropriate to the necessities of the districts to which it will apply.

Before I approach the actual terms of the Bill, it may be convenient that I should give your Lordships very shortly one or two of the material dates in this controversy. It would, I think, be substantially true to say that the movement in the direction of union began in the year 1907. It continued until 1919 under circumstances to which, in a moment, I will briefly allude. But it is true that. in 1907 conferences took place between representative Committees of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church upon the obstacles to union. It is broadly true to say that in 1907, when these discussions first took place, most of those who were well informed thought that the difficulties in the way were likely to prove too great to be surmounted in any reasonably short period. But those who took the other view persevered, and in 1919, after long years of discussion, which reflected great credit upon the humanity, tolerance, industry and cultivation of those who took part, draft Articles were prepared by the Church of Scotland Committee and approved by the United Free Church Committee as the basis of a union under which the Church would be both national and free. Nothing else would satisfy those who are, in fact, if one analyses the situation, the contracting parties, except that that Church shall be both national and free. It is the claim of the parties who are contributories to this settlement that they have drafted Articles which preserve the twofold feature of the Church of Scotland, without the maintenance of which it would, in their judgment, be neither Scottish nor a Church.

The Articles to which I have made reference, with such minor amendments as have been introduced at a later date, as the result of further discussion, are printed in the Schedule to this Bill. The earlier paragraphs of that Schedule deal with matters which are too sacred, whatever be the political beliefs of any individual, to form the subject of a Parliamentary debate. I am not hold enough to trespass upon topics which are too high for me. I pass them by; and I recommend them to this House solely with the remark that the learned and devoted men who have agreed upon these formulae—formulae which have escaped any defect of generality, and are precise and scholarly in their expression—claim to have embodied in them the ancient view upon these sacred matters held by the Scottish nation through the centuries with rugged and vigorous independence.

To have attained this astounding degree of unanimity would in itself be a very considerable feat, but those of your Lordships who are familiar with the argumentative resources of the Scottish nation in all its social divisions, from the highest to the lowest, would not commit the superficial error of supposing that because the Assembly agreed upon given Articles such an agreement would necessarily mean that the matter was disposed of for all time and among all sections of the Scottish people. But tact, conciliation and the merits of the case did their insensible work, and in May, 1919, the Church of Scotland Assembly submitted the Articles to the Presbyteries, and authorised the Commission of Assembly to instruct the Committee to approach the Government with a view to necessary legislation, if a majority of the Presbyteries approved.

Those of your Lordships who have closely studied, or indeed are generally aware of, the democratic constitution of the Church, know how great a part is played by the majority of the Presbyteries when set in motion by the Commission of Assembly. On December 17 there was a meeting of the Commission of Assembly. It was reported that seventy-four out of eighty-four Presbyteries approved, while nine disapproved, and the Commission, by a majority of 219 to 36, authorised the Committee to approach the Government. On May 30, 1921, armed with this high authority and expression of opinion, which must be pronounced to be almost unanimous, the Church of Scotland Assembly approved the Bill introduced into Parliament by 292 to 14.

When one reflects upon the great sacrifice in the lovefor individual ceremonial of worship (which is ingrained and inherited) involved in a vote like that, the conclusion must be pronounced to be a remarkable one. It is a feature that is as familiar in the Church of Scotland as it is familiar in some of the smaller Nonconformist communities in England, of which 1 have personal knowledge. They like that ceremonial better than that of another Church because their fathers taught it them, and because they learned it at their mothers' knees, and they have grown up with it as children. The most rev. Primate, who, with statesmanlike effort, has been attempting to deal with these difficulties upon a larger scale, will, I think, join with me in recognition of how important matters, which on first impression appear to be not essential, may grow to be, and therefore that a majority so great should have accepted this Bill is really a phenomenon which entitles him who recommends it in this House to say that the Church of Scotland upon this point is unanimous. On May 30, 1921, the General Assembly of the United Free Church, by. a majority not less overwhelming, approved of the Bill being proceeded with.

I have mentioned only two Churches, but none of your Lordships who are in detail familiar with the question will make the mistake of supposing that I take no cognisance of the smaller communities affected by these proposals. Within the limited space of time at our disposal, however, one must, of course, deal with the bodies which represent the great mass of the population, without closing our eyes to the laborious and meritorious services which are rendered by the smaller communities. These two Churches embrace within their membership the very great majority of Scottish Presbyterians, and include actually more than 95 per cent. of the Presbyterian congregations in Scotland. Therefore, the fact is that 95 per cent. of the Presbyterian congregations in Scotland have actually agreed upon the proposals contained in this Bill, and come before your Lordships and ask that these proposals should receive Parliamentary sanction.

It of course, true to say that the main operative force of this Bill is contained in the statement and the definition of the Articles. No constitution which was the creature of Parliamentary enactment could or world be accepted by the United Free Church, even if so enacted with the assent of the Church. The situation requires, indeed, to be very carefully defined. The true position and the only position, which will he effected by this Bill, if it is carried into law, will be that the Articles framed by the Church of Scotland Committee have been accepted by the United Free Church as embodying declarations as to the spiritual liberty of the, Church which are satisfactory to them. The Church of Scotland cannot, of course, adopt those Articles as declaratory of her constitution in matters spiritual, without the intervention of the Legislature. The true position, therefore, is that in this Bill the Church of Scotland seeks to obtain not the enactment of these Articles by Parliament, but the removal of statutory obstacles to the adoption of these Articles by the Church itself, and recognition of them as lawful if and when adopted by the Church.

In these circumstances, I might dilate at length upon the purport and effect of this Bill, but in these sentences is contained the whole substance of this change. Let me, in still shorter sentences, attempt to define them. The United Free Church cannot, on conscientious grounds, accept the assertion or dictation of the Legislature as to the views held by them upon sacred and religious matters. The Church of Scotland finds itself in agreement with its sister Church upon the Articles upon which they have agreed, but under the terms of its own constitution, and under the obligations of a State institution, the existing Statute Law is such in its application that the Articles cannot be changed without some such statutory convenience as is provided in the existing Bill. The effect of the Bill, the only relative effect, is that statutory power is given to the Church of Scotland to effect this change, and it has been used with so much humanity, so much sagacity and compliance with historical evolution of theological belief in Scotland, that it has procured the assent of the other bodies in Scotland, which comprise 95 per cent. of the whole Presbyterian population.

Those two bodies, therefore, approach Parliament through different doors. One conies and says: "I ask for this Bill because, under my constitution, I cannot amend or define these Articles without Parliamentary sanction." The other comes through a different door, but approaches the same conclusion, and says: "We agree with these Articles. We have not been accustomed to premise, before making changes in our religious constitution, that we require your Parliamentary sanction, but in pursuit of that unanimity upon which we are both agreed we are here to ask for a Bill that Parliament shall record and register and act upon"—one of the most surprising acts of agreement in ecclesiastical history. It is well known that there are other matters—matters not spiritual in their ambit, but material—which will undoubtedly require treatment and agreement at the later stages of these proposals. It has been thought wise—and I entertain no doubt as to the sagacity of this view—to postpone till a later stage the legislation which must needs deal with the questions of endowment which still require attention. That it would have been unwise to embarrass this Bill, which deals upon grounds of fundamental principle with spiritual matters, with a great deal of discussion on the subject of endowment must, I think, be admitted by any student of our Parliamentary institutions. Those who objected to one part of the Bill would have concentrated in their attacks upon both, and it may well be that the enemies of the Bill, who would have been mustered in one Lobby, had the two been combined, when their opposition is defined and the causes of their antagonism more closely explained, will be found to be opposed to one part of these proposals only. And therefore it was decided—and, I think your Lordships will conclude, rightly decided—that this Bill should be separated, and, if and when the present proposals pass into law and are accepted in the manner provided by the Bill, it will become necessary at a later stage to introduce proposals the general nature of which I understand has been discussed and is already the subject of a great deal of agreement, in relation to endowments.

There are only four clauses of this Bill, apart from the Articles of which I have spoken. Clause 1 lays it down that The Declaratory Articles are lawful Articles, and the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual is as therein set forth, and there is a complete statement, together with every safeguard that prudent care would suggest. The clause has not been technically adjusted between the two Churches—one must be careful upon that point—but it recognises the lawfulness of the Articles in terms which were suggested in conference, and which one is entitled to say are acceptable to both Churches.

Clause 2 provides that Nothing contained in this Act or in any other Act affecting the Church of Scotland shall prejudice the recognition of any other Church in Scotland as a Christian Church protected by law in the exercise of its spiritual functions. This clause is also in accordance with the desire of both Churches, and it comes before your Lordships as an agreed clause.

Clause 3 provides that Subject to the recognition of the matters dealt with in the Declaratory Articles as matters spiritual, nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the jurisdiction of the civil courts in relation to any matter of a civil nature, or all or any of the temporalities at present or hereafter belonging to or enjoyed by the Church of Scotland. The purport of that clause explains itself as I have read it. Clause 4 is merely a clause which defines the proper method of reference to the Act.

Such are the terms of a proposal which, as I have said, come before this House with a singular weight of union, of thought, of preparation, behind it. It comes before this House as the expression of opinion and of conviction on the part of the overwhelming majority of those pious and learned men who have devoted all their lives to spiritual causes in Scotland. Seldom has a case, concerning most especially them and their charges, been presented to this House with a greater degree of force or of weight than in the memorandum in which their claim is embodied, and which many of your Lordships have read.

We live in days in which those who devote themselves to spreading high conceptions of conduct, on whatsoever creed or belief those conceptions may in a particular case be moulded, are every day discharging duties which are increasingly vital in the complex fortunes and development of that troublous world in which we live our lives. The body with which we are dealing is not one of the least devoted, not one of the least learned in the world, and with a reward which in their hearts they believe to be a spiritual one, its members have devoted their careers to spreading doctrines upon which the most sublime morality known to the world can he grafted, and which are being daily recommended by them to their congregations. When they come, with a degree of unanimity as singular as it is unprecedented, to this House, I know well that your Lordships will give them that pledge which they ask, and will send them back to Scotland with that which they regard as a charter, and with the good wishes of every section of the House. I beg to move.

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

VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, some of us who sit upon this side of the House are keenly interested in the fortunes of this Bill, and it is right that we should say something at least of the reasons for which we support it. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has made a very lucid exposition of the substance of the Bill, into which I do not propose to follow him. He has shown that he has mastered the spirit in which this Bill is brought forward. In his speech the Lord Chancellor referred to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I cannot pass the moment by without saying how tragic it is to me that Lord Balfour should not be here to support this Bill. His whole soul was in it. The other day the most rev. Primate, in what he said about Lord Balfour, touched the true note, the true distinctive feature of the individuality of the man. In his simple way, with his unspeculative mind, he was a profoundly religious man, and the practical side of that religion was in no way more exemplified than in his earnestness about the future of the Church to which he had devoted and consecrated so much of his life.

To understand the present situation it is necessary to remember its genesis. Seventeen years ago I stood at that Bar, convinced as an advocate is rarely convinced of the justice of my cause. I fought for what I believed to be its just title of spiritual liberty of conscience on the part of the United Free Church of Scotland. We turned out to be wrong in our contentions. By a majority this House decided that the United Free Church of Scotland had turned itself, in virtue of its trust deed and declarations of doctrine, into a body which could hold its property only on trust to promulgate and pursue particular doctrines of an older type than seemed to the majority suited to the time, and that to deviate from those doctrines meant the forfeiture of over £2,000,000 of property, the peculiarity of which was that nearly the whole of it had been subscribed and collected by the very people from whom it was taken. It was taken from them, and they had to pay the costs of the litigation.

Parliament said, "That may be the law, but it is a law that we are not content with. These funds have a greater public application. We propose to appoint a Commission and apportion them between the people Who are entitled to them." That Commission was appointed by an Act which was passed in 1908, and the greater part of the property was given back to the United Free Church with freedom to apply for purposes which meant that the Church was a real Church; not a mere trust for the promulgation of certain doctrines, but a Church with spiritual powers of self-government which enabled it to mould and determine its own creed and to enjoy the privilege of spiritual liberty.

I want to refer to that for a single purpose, which is to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the success of the appeal which the United Free Church made to Parliament to pass the Bill was largely due to the generous support given by the Established Church of Scotland to her sister Church in its dire necessity. The Established Church came forward and fought for that Bill as if it had concerned itself. The late Lord Balfour of Burleigh took a very active part in the struggle, and the result was that at that time, with the co-operation of the Church of Scotland, the United Free Church won her liberty of constitution, and she won it because she was enabled to make and maintain what she had already put forward—the very declarations in substance which are contained in the Schedule to this Bill—and declare them to be her own constitution, and to embody the purposes to which she wished to consecrate her fortunes and her means.

When that was done, when the United Free Church of Scotland was emancipated from the shackles of the old trust deeds, naturally she began to look to union, to the healing of old strifes, and the Established Church on its part also began to look to the healing of old strifes and to union. The Established Church was in. a position not altogether dissimilar from that in which the United Free Church had found itself, to its cost. It was hampered not by old trust deeds, but by Statutes of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, old Scottish Statutes passed before the Union which put great obstacles in the way of the Established Church of Scotland having freedom over the moulding of her own creeds, and being able to make an effective fight for spiritual liberty. That is what stood in the way of union with the United Free Church which had come out on the disruption for the very purpose of vindicating its liberty and failed to do so because of the very old trust deeds. The Established Church said: "Let us be free from the Statutes." That was the basis of the negotiations which began in 1907, have been continued up to the present time and were not interrupted, I believe, by the war, although there was a cessation of activities during that time.

The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has with perfect accuracy described the nature of this Bill. It is not a Bill to set up a constitution. The Church would not ask that constitution from Parliament. What the Church says is: "We ask Parliament to say that if we wish to pass that constitution we shall be free to do so notwithstanding the existence of these old Statutes which have hitherto blocked the way." If this constitution is sent down from Parliament to the Presbyteries through the medium of that highly delicate apparatus, which I have not the slightest intention of occupying your Lordships' time in describing, the Barrier Act, as it is called, and if it goes back to the Assemblies approved by the great majority of the people who form the Church of Scotland, it should be in the power of the General Assembly to pass that constitution as the constitution of the Church free from the hindrances of which this Act has got rid.

The constitution will be essentially a constitution adopted by the Church, which the Church was free to mould and free to use. It has been the subject of a very great deal of consultation between the two Churches and represents a substantial agreement. There has been only one point of doubt and difficulty, and I wish to say something about it because, as a Scotsman not wholly unversed in these things, I have been brought into contact with it. I do not speak as an Established Churchman, or a Free Churchman, or even as a Presbyterian. I am not connected with any particular Church, although they all form to me the subject of profound interest. But I have seen a very justifiable apprehension arising among people in Scotland as to whether, even with the constitution given by this Bill, there will not be some power on the part of the Civil Court to interfere. That is a very justifiable apprehension.

Dr. Chalmers thought he had made a magnificently free constitution for himself when he drafted his claim. and trust deeds in 1843, the year of the disruption. And so he would have done, if he had not trusted the theologians, but had trusted himself to the lawyers instead. He had the most eminent legal advice, and had one of the greatest Lord Advocates of the time and other legal luminaries to help him, and they framed a skeleton trust deed. But Dr. Chalmers and his advisers were not content with a skeleton trust deed; they filled it up with magnificent theological phrases, upon which those of your Lordships who constituted the Law Lords of this House had to pronounce, and said that the United Free Church had bound themselves to certain doctrines and had stamped them as the doctrines of the Free Church of that date, which had been introduced into legal documents. The Church found itself laid hold of by the Civil Court because the Church had between two and three million pounds worth of property to dispose of at that time.

The Church of Scotland will have a great -deal of property to dispose of. It will depend upon the title which the Church of Scotland can make oat to its identity and continuity whether it can hold that property. When you get to property you cannot altogether oust the Civil Courts, and therefore, to that extent, I think the Civil Courts always must come in. Whether it be the United Free Church or the Established Church of Scotland, they must have the right to see whether identity has been preserved.

If a number of burglars got into the Carlton Club—I call them burglars, though they might be any other sort of people—took possession of the place ousted the committee and declared it an institution for the promulgation of Bolshevism, I think it would not be in vain that appeals would be made to the Courts, notwithstanding that there would be a new committee or majority of members to mould the constitution, and I think the Courts would say that identity had ceased and continuity was non-existent, and at an end between those two bodies. So it may be if the Church of Scotland or even the United Free Church were to go over to the creed of Mahomet or even to adopt the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that the Civil Courts might intervene and say: "Are the people who have this property people who are continuous with those who have hitherto enjoyed the title?" That might be the case. But it is abundantly clear that so far as doctrine is concerned, so far as the spiritual side of the constitution is concerned, so far as doing everything which can appertain to continuity of existence and is consistent with it is concerned, the Church of Scotland will have under this constitution the most unlimited power of determining in its own courts, and free from intrusion from the Civil Court, the doctrine which will be taught. No Civil Court can intrude. That principle is conceded in the fullest form, and, speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the misgivings which have been expressed are misgivings which amount to nothing.

One of the most awkward things in Scotland just now is that the theological chairs in the universities have to be filled by people who belong to the Established Church. It sometimes happens that in the Established Church there is no one so well qualified by learning as the candidates who may be found elsewhere. I have known a professor of theology in the theological faculty appointed who would not have been appointed had it been open to choose a very eminent person who was available from the United Free Church at the time. This restriction of choice in the appointments to theological chairs will be removed if union takes place. All that, and a dozen other things which are difficulties, will disappear. There is everything to be said for the Bill from that point of view.

Again, take the Churches. It is too little realised how Scotland has changed since the old days. The population is concentrated into a narrow belt. Half the population of Scotland is in the narrow belt between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. More churches are wanted there than in other places, with the result that tie distribution of churches is very uneven. What is urgently needed is the co-operation of all bodies into one single church for the bettor distribution of the full spiritual activities of the churches of the country.

Let me refer for one moment to the other side. There are those who think that this union, if adopted, will give rise to a renewal of old, or perhaps to the creation of new, spiritual differences in Scotland. I doubt it. Things have changed enormously. It is not too much to say that the very breath of the keenness of spiritual life in Scotland used to be the old doctrinal disputes. The differences that seem very slight now were matters of life and death in those days, and the earnestness to which they gave rise is something which no one can understand who has not lived in contact with it. The doctrine of the Churches is giving place to practice, and practice has been very closely associated with social questions. Go to the Scottish churches, make friends with their ministers—it is my privilege to be friends with many ministers, both Established and Free—and you will find that the rapid growth of their religious work is closely bound up with social affairs, and that in their preaching the two are nut severed. Doctrine is rapidly giving place to practice. That results in a certain diminution of the old keenness about religion in the older sense, but it has also given rise to increased opportunities and contact between the people and those who are their ministers, and my hope is that the passing of this Bill may bring ministers into still closer touch with the people.

There is one thing that I should like to say in conclusion. Some of your Lordships perhaps may marvel why I support this Bill, though I opposed the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act is an Act for diminishing the ambit of the Church of England. It was an Act for putting in qualifications as to membership. It was to be no longer a Church of the nation, but was to be the Church of very excellent people no doubt, but yet people who were not the full nation. This Bill, on the other hand, perhaps almost goes too far the other way. Our standards will not be so stringent as those in England. This is an enlarging Bill, calculated to bring in as many of the people as possible. That constitutes the difference to me between this Bill and the Enabling Act, and it is a determining difference. I did not rise to enlarge upon that, however, but merely to tell your Lordships why, having voted and spoken against the Enabling Act, I now stand here to speak and vote in favour of the present Bill.

I think, on the whole, that this Bill will prove to be a useful one. I do not think it will make the revolution that some expect. I do not think it will make things so enormously better as some people seem to believe, but it will do a good deal to lead to the solution of a number of difficult and delicate problems, and still more, I believe, it is necessitated by the development of the conscience of the time. It will minimise overlapping of the Churches and waste of spiritual activity, and will do much to bring spiritual activities into harmony. For those reasons it has my support.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, perhaps I ought to apologise for intervening in this debate, but I should like to say a few words. The Bill is one which concerns Scotland and the Churches of Scotland. Very obviously, I am not a member of any section of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. My predecessors of a long time ago, and the predecessors of those divines who are promoting this measure, were distinctly at variance, and said very unkind things about one another a few centuries ago. That is perhaps putting it mildly, but I believe, and I always have believed, that the depth of that divergence was considerably exaggerated, and that some of it was due to accidental rather than to necessary incidents in the history of the sixteenth century. John Knox was offered the Bishopric of Rochester. After a considerable interval I accepted that Bishopric. I have sometimes wondered what would have been the history of the two countries if John Knox had accepted the Bishopric of Rochester. Whether the conditions which prevailed when I was consecrated to the office would have been precisely what they are I leave to others to conjecture.

But I am clear about this—that I am not relieved from the obligation of saying something on this subject by the fact that I am not a member of the Presbyterian Churches. In the first place, I am a Scotsman with a deep love for my country, and I believe that this Bill is going to do that country good. Then I have been familiar all my life with the questions which are raised by or touched upon in this measure. If your Lordships were to institute an examination as to knowledge of Scottish ecclesiastical history in the last seventy or eighty years—an exceedingly tangled subject—I should enter for that examination with very fair hopes of success. There are two noble and learned Lords who have occupied the Woolsack who would be formidable competitors, but I believe I should have a very fair chance of success in the competition. I have been familiar with the subject from the outset of my life. More than that, I am a believer in the diminution, and even, it may be, the ending of schisms within the Church of Christ. I am giving no small part of my time to the endeavours which are being made to diminish and reduce to smaller dimensions the schisms which have entirely kept us apart.

Allusion has been made to the contrast between the schisms and divisions in England and those in Scotland. In England we have still marked lines of cleavage in matters theological and ecclesiastical, schisms and rifts which have their source and origin in the troublous period of English history after the Reformation English had begun and 300 years before the present time. I believe that these schisms are on the wane and that a measure like this, though not touching English matters, will not be without its effect on the divisions which sunder us still in England. That bearing is not, of course, close.

The whole effect and history of the divisions which sever sections of the Churches in Scotland are based upon something very different from the causes which brought about the schisms and divisions in England. The absolute identity in doctrinal teaching and modes of worship, which have led to the possibility of interchange of pulpits between the ministers of one Presbyterian denomination and another, are indisputable facts. When we look into it we find that the divisions which exist are all due to the very limited range of questions relating to the exercise of patronage, partly to the relation of the Church to the State, and partly to phrases upon which too much stress may easily be laid.

If our divisions in England are open to criticism, the divisions which separate the members of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, whose doctrine, worship and whole attitude to these things is in other respects identical, are inconceivable to those who have not been brought up in their midst. In a controversy like this there is a tendency now and then for those who are opposing a measure of union to dwell upon the advantages which have come to a country from the multiplication of its churches, and they argue the consequent gains which may even arise out of schisms. They sometimes argue that schisms are good. I do not believe that at all. I believe that greater unity of corporate life in the body of the Church of Christ will enable it to make the strongest impact upon the evil it has to contend with, and. therefore, anything that removes difficulties, schisms and rifts which are keeping people apart, is to be supported with all the strength we have.

Those men were absolutely right who deprecated the schism which took place eighty years ago in Scotland; and I am certain they are right who are now trying to heal the schism. If any one will read the words of that great man Dr. Chalmers, he will see how deeply and intensely he deplored the necessity of bringing about the schism, the mischief of which he foresaw. He, however, considered that the cause was sufficient to justify the extreme action he took. Half a century later the gravamen of that difficulty was removed and patronage was placed in almost the position Dr. Chalmers desired to see it occupy. Since then other efforts have been made. In the year 1900 the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church joined themselves into one and made the United Free Church. It was a move of the most wholesome kind in the direction we are carrying still further to-day. The leaders, whom we are now trying to follow in what they are doing in Scotland, have approached Parliament with definite suggestions for practical action. They do it with a fine view of what is right, with a great desire to remove stumbling blocks standing in the way of unity, and with a readiness beyond all praise to sacrifice reasonable predilections of their own.

To give legal effect to what they desire, two things are obviously necessary. The first of these they ate attempting by this Bill; the second is postponed for a future Bill. They ask Parliament to declare that they have the power to make effective the Declaratory Articles which are appended hi the Schedule of the Bill. They feel that one step is quite necessary at the outset. Before any negotiations can take place on the business or mundane side of the controversy they feel that they must make sure that both parties are really agreed upon the great fundamental principle upon which the Church rests in its corporate life. Long ago, I believe, they were very much nearer each other in these matters than they supposed. The more I read the controversy of 1843 the more I marvel at the power that was allowed to phrases over principles. Phrases were dwelt upon and bandied about to such an extent that they became watchwords of strife, when a more careful and humble-minded endeavour to explain the position one to the other would have brought about that union which was not then apparent. However, I am certain that Dr. Chalmers would have welcomed with enthusiasm and acclaimed with his own unapproachable eloquence the substance of the Declaration appended to this Bill. And, if that is true, it would seem very strange that difficulties should now be made in bringing about a conciliation of an eighty year old strife and divergence.

At this moment the great General Assemblies in Scotland have given their support in no uncertain language. It has been my privilege upon two occasions to be present in Assemblies when these matters were under discussion. I was in the Assembly of the Established Church two years ago when they passed a Resolution by an overwhelming vote in favour of the preparation of this measure. I was present in the United Free Church Assembly a few weeks ago when, by an overwhelming majority, that Assembly endorsed the actual measure which is now before your Lordships' House. The Established Church Assembly (at which I was not present) endorsed the proposal, as we have been reminded, by about 300 votes to 12. It is practically with unanimity on the part of those who speak for the Churches of Scotland that this Bill is supported. They have the right, therefore, to come to us and say: "If that difficulty stands across our path, we trust you to help us to remove that which it is our unanimous desire to see removed."

The other Bill is still to come. People ask: "Why two Bills, instead of one?" The answer is obvious. If only one Bill had been introduced, all those who were hostile to the business proposals would have given their support to the people who were hostile to the theological propositions, and all those who disagreed with the theology of the Bill would have taken the occasion to support those who were criticising it on the other ground. There would, therefore, have been an amount of I opposition to the measure quite out of proportion to the real force of those who were criticising one part or the other. We are taking one step at a time in the right way. We are taking a step now in the most sacred action of giving Parliamentary authority to the Churches' declaration of the doctrine common to both the great sections in Scotland, and sweeping away-the difficulties which arise between them. We are doing this at the bidding of great religious leaders, to heal a schism which, whatever may be said about its origin, is needless and unnecessary. To-night, with all my heart, and with real hope of the high result that will follow, I wish it God-speed.

VISCOUNT FINLAY

My Lords, as one closely connected with Scotland, I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I desire in the first place to express the gratitude which I am certain that every one connected with Scotland feels to the most rev. Primate for the kind and sympathetic words he has used with regard to this measure. The most rev. Primate touched upon one feature in Scottish ecclesiastical life which is noteworthy. It was embodied in one sentence of Thomas Carlyle when he said that in Scotland all dissent is merely stricter adherence to the National Kirk on all points. The whole ecclesiastical history of Scotland is an illustration of the truth of that pregnant sentence. Every schism that has taken place in Scotland has taken place, not because its authors departed from the doctrine of the National Church, but because they thought that the majority of the day were not carrying out these doctrines or the ecclesiastical policy which flowed from them with sufficient strictness. If that be so, it surely gives us good ground to hope that at last we are not merely within sight of union, but that we shall very shortly see it achieved. What Scotland desires is a National Church, and we trust we shall see that National Church built upon foundations which will last.

One point on which most differences have arisen in Scottish ecclesiastical history has been what is called spiritual independence. I shall not enter deeply into that subject. I think it has been said that it would require a surgical operation to get the notion of spiritual independence into an English head.

LORD PARMOOR

No.

VISCOUNT FINLAY

There are, of course, exceptions, and my noble and learned friend is, I am sure, one of them. At the same time, one has sometimes been struck by the considerable amount of ignorance with which the subject has been viewed in Scotland. The doctrine is simply this: that the Church, in its own province, is supreme, and that that ought to be admitted by the State. It is not that the Church asks, or ever has asked, the State to confer upon it spiritual independence. The State has not that to give. What the State is asked to do is to recognise that the Church has it from another and higher Source. The State, as it has always been held by Scottish Churchmen, ought not to interfere in sacred matters. The Church Courts should be supreme in their own province in dealing with sacred matters.

I wish to say one thing about the practical working of that doctrine. It does not mean anything like priestly or clerical domination. In the Scottish Church courts the laity and the clergy sit side by side, and the laity may rely upon it that their interests and their point of view are fully appreciated and represented. There is another thing I wish to say about the spiritual independence which has always been the ideal of the Scottish Church. It is spiritual liberty, but it is not spiritual licence. The Church, according to the Scottish conception, is not -adrift on the sea of speculation. Take this Bill. It declares that the constitution of the Scottish Church in sacred matters is what is set out in the Articles which are appended to it, and it goes on to provide that, while there is power to alter the Articles in minor matters, there is no power whatever on the part of the Church to alter the provisions of the first Article, which sets forth sonic of the most essential verities of the faith which is the faith of the Church of Scotland. There is the Church, if this Bill becomes law, anchored, so far as the profession of its faith in spiritual matters is concerned, to the verities which are set out in the Schedule. A good deal has been said elsewhere about the power of interpretation which is conferred upon the Church with regard to the Articles. The eighth Article begins by saying that the Church has the power to interpret these Articles. That power of interpretation certainly does not extend to interpreting away any part of the first Article, which is declared to be a part of the very essence of the continuity and corporate existence of the Church.

It has been pointed out by more than one speaker that this Bill is a preliminary Bill. The reason for this was given both by the Lord Chancellor and by the most rev. Primate. It is necessary that the Church of Scotland, having regard to its constitution and the existing Statutes, should have Parliamentary sanction for making the chant in its standard which this Bill is intended to authorise. It is for that purpose that the Church of Scotland has come to your Lordships' House. The United Free Church does not come here on this Bill. The United Free Church is no promoter of this Bill. It most. cordially approves of it, and wishes it every success, but is not promoting it. The Bill is promoted to enable the Church of Scotland to enter upon the work which remains to be done with the security that that work can be done thoroughly. if there were any uncertainty as to whether Parliament would sanction what the Church of Scotland is now doing, the whole life would be taken out of the efforts of the two Churches to come to an agreement, and it is for that purpose, and for that purpose only, that the measure is brought forward by the Church of Scotland. The Bill, your Lordships will observe, does not profess to enact that the powers contained in the clauses of the Bill are conferred upon the Church. They are not conferred; they are recognised as already existing. It would be a great thing to have this Bill passed, even if the union never came about. It is necessary as a step towards union, but it would be worth doing in itself.

It is thirty-five years since, in 1886, when I was in the House of Commons, I introduced a Bill for the purpose not of enacting, but of declaring, the independence of the Church of Scotland in spiritual matters. This Bill is, in substance, for the same purpose, but it varies in detail. It varies in one respect which is not unimportant—namely, that the Bill of 1886 proceeded on the basis of the Confession of Faith. This Bill extracts the vital propositions of the Christian Faith, as held in the Church of Scotland, and they are all found in that part of the Schedule which has often been referred to but has not been read in the House, because the subjects are rather too sacred to be treated in detail. This Bill, if it passes, will put the Church of Scotland in a position to say to the United Free Church. "We are able now to go on, with the assurance that we will have the concurrence of Parliament in making the necessary change ire our constitution."

Of course, a good many points have been raised in connection with this Bill. The Scottish temper has a great affinity for metaphysics, and metaphysics are still more attractive if they have an ecclesiastical flavour about them. The power of interpretation may be dangerous, and it has been asked: If the interpretation is in the: eyes of lawyers erroneous, will not the Civil Courts interfere? I say without hesitation that on the terms of this Bill the Civil Courts could not interfere. The whole scope of the Bill is to oust any interference by the Civil Courts by way of suspension or anything of that kind. The terms of the alliance between Church and State are modified and stated in the Schedule of the Bill. If it can be conceived possible that the terms of that alliance should be violated or strained by the meaning put upon the terms of the Articles, it would be a case for reconsideration of the whole subject of the, relations of Church and State, and so much mischief has been done in the past by the attempts of the Civil Courts to intervene in ecclesiastical disputes, that to my mind the sagacious and statesmanlike policy has been adopted of making it impossible for the Civil Courts to assert themselves in the manner in which they have sometimes, in the distant past, asserted themselves. I believe that when the Bill becomes law it will be a great achievement. It cannot do any harm to the Church. There is no reason for supposing that the Church courts will go wrong, in the perverse way which is sometimes suggested as possible, and 1 think we may trust the clergy and laity of Scotland, sitting side by side, to work this Bill, when it becomes law, in the spirit in which the Bill has been drawn and in the spirit in which it has been discussed in the speeches to which your Lordships leave listened.

I have already said that the provisions of the first Article cannot be touched by the Church under the power of modification contained in Article VIII, and there is one thing more that I wish to say about that Article. It gives power of altering the less important Articles—those which are subsidiary to the first Article, which contains matters absolutely vital. That power is subject to very stringent precautions—precautions which it would take a very long time to enumerate, and upon which I shall not attempt to enter. These safeguards could not be in any way trenched upon, under the power of modifying the provisions of the Articles. The power of modification never could be used for the purpose of doing away with the very safeguards which are an essential condition of the power to alter being recognised. I really have nothing more to say, except to commend this Bill most earnestly to the acceptance of your Lordships' House. It has met, I think I may say, with a most favourable reception in every quarter. I believe the people of Scotland are practically unanimous in its favour, and I trust that your Lordships' House will pass a measure which is good ire itself, even if it he not followed by the act of union, as a first step towards that great achievement, the reconciliation of secular differences, which have existed in Scotland as to what are the true doctrines of the Church of Scotland.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I desire to say one or two words only in hearty commendation of this Bill, because I am sure it will have the hearty support and approval of the lay element in the Anglican Church. I want to ask your Lordships' attention to the extreme similarity between that which the Church of Scotland is desiring in this Bill, and that which the Anglican Church attained in what was known as the Enabling Act. For at least 25 years I have been cognisant of all the steps that the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh took in order that a Bill of this kind might finally be developed, and he, at the same time, gave cordial assistance in the attempts which were made to pass a similar Bill for the Anglican Church. I make that statement because I agree with the noble Viscount that the whole basis of this Bill is to preserve spiritual independence in an Established Church. That was exactly the effort and desire of all Anglican Churchmen ire supporting what is known as the Enabling Act. Something like twelve years ago I brought forward a Motion myself at one of our great Church meetings, that a committee should be appointed in order to see whether we could find a road by which spiritual independence could be asserted at the same time as the benefits of establishment were preserved. It was in consequence of that Motion that subsequent committees brought forward reports which eventuated in the passing of the Enabling Act.

There is one other matter in which I very much agree with the noble Viscount. According to the Articles of the Anglican Church, the Church is "the congregation of the faithful," which, of course, implies both clergy and laity, and the authority which is given in our Articles to the Church is an authority given equally to laymen as to bishops and clergy. I want to emphasise that point, because I agree with what the noble Viscount has said, that the safeguard required in these matters is that the position of laymen should be fully recognised and ascertained, and that we should have nothing nowadays in the nature of what we call clerical dominance —not that I think that there is the slightest prospect of any such dominance being even asserted or suggested in the case of the Anglican Church.

I also agree with the noble Viscount in what he said about the framework of these Articles in reference to spiritual independence. Everything has been done, as appears to me, in the wording of these Articles to ensure spiritual independence. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, may be right in suggesting that some flaw may be found by the ingenuity of lawyers, but what these Articles do—and I wish we could have the same provisions for the Anglican Church—is to provide that there is no appeal from the Church courts to Civil Courts in any form; indeed, they say that the final power to adjudicate in all matters of doctrine, worship, and government shall be with the Church alone, and that there shall be no interference from the civil authorities. Surely, in spiritual matters, that is right. We make exactly the same claim here as is made on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland—namely, that although we are an Established Church, our spiritual authority has no connection whatever with the State, and was not derived in any form from State authority.

The other matter which I hope we may some time attain ourselves in the Anglican Church, and which is given here to the Church in Scotland, is that the Church has the right to interpret these Articles. That is a matter of the first importance if you are to have spiritual independence; because, if you allow the interpretation of the Articles to be carried out before a Civil Court, it is quite clear that the so-called independence of the Church is not a real independence, but is subject to superior authority. But if you both take an appeal to a Civil Court and also say that the interpretation is to rest with the Church itself, everything in my opinion has been done, as it ought to be done, in order to ensure the spiritual independence of the Church. I only hope that before long the Anglican Church, as an Established Church, will have the same freedom and liberty in its spiritual independence as this Bill undoubtedly confers upon the Established Church in Scotland.

To one clause in the Articles I particularly want to call attention. I think the most rev. Primate spoke none too strongly on the dangers of schism. He spoke none too strongly on the question of the possible effect of schisms on the general Christian outlook. I find that in Article VII the Church of Scotland—they are very important words— recognises the obligation to seek and promote union with other Churches in which it finds the Word to be purely preached.". Every Church ought to be regarded, as the Church of Scotland says it is here, as a branch of the Church Universal, and every Church ought to use its influence to seek to promote union with other Churches in order that Christian effort may be united, and that in this form both Christian teaching and Christian morality may be assured to the utmost of human power.

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