asked the First Lord of the Treasury, referring to the Report of the Auditor General upon the Account of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, Whether the reason therein given for not presenting the Report up to December 31st, 1872, until June 1st, 1874, is satisfactory to the Government; why, in accordance with sec. 37 of the Irish Church Act, the Accounts of the Commissioners up to December 31st, 1873, have not yet been laid before Parliament, with the Report of the Auditor General; whether, in view of the fact that it appears that the Solicitor to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, is stated to have "received moneys on behalf of the Commissioners, the orders being payable to him, and lodged them in his own bank in his own name," retaining them there instead of paying them into the Bank of Ireland to the proper account; that it also appears that although on the 18th September 1873, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury "informed the Irish Church Commissioners that they considered that the arrears recovered by the Solicitor should be paid direct to their account in gross instead of to himself personally," yet, on the 24th November, 1873, Mr. Treherne wrote to the Treasury reporting that "notwithstanding the instructions contained in Mr. Stronge's letter, the Solicitor still continues to receive these arrears of rent, and retains them for varying periods," as by a Schedule therewith enclosed, printed in the Re-port; and, further, that it appears that on May 21st, 1874, Mr. Treherne again called the attention of the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners to the fact that the Commissioners had not followed the course directed with regard to the said payments into the Bank, the Government will state if the Solicitor is still to be continued in office, and what steps they propose to take to punish and restrain such irregularities; whether, in view of the fact that a discrepancy of opinion relating to considerable sums of money as to limitations of the audit of accounts by the Controller and Auditor General, appears by letter on p. 13, to have arisen with the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland, involving an objection to produce vouchers, and also involving the right of inspection of commutation claims, the Government intends to take any steps to enforce the Law if existing, or to correct it if defective; and, whether the Returns promised by the First Lord of the Treasury of the payments made under the process of commuting and compounding in the Irish Church, and of the names, livings, and residences of the Clergymen who have commuted and compounded, are in course of preparation, and when they will be laid upon the Table? The hon. Member said he had put the Question in the shape it appeared, in order to save the time of the House.

Sir, I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desire to save the time of the House by asking this series of Questions; but he must know that they necessarily require rather long Answers. With reference to the first point referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I believe there is no doubt that the terms of the Irish Church Act with regard to the presentation of the account of the Church Temporalities Commissioners and the Report of the Controller and Auditor General have not been strictly complied with. It must, however, be borne in mind that the account is a complicated one, and that it has given rise to considerable correspondence between the Commissioners and the Controller and Auditor General, which led to delay in the presentation of the Report. With reference to the second part of the Question, the accounts for the year 1873 were ready on July 15th, 1874, and the delay in rendering them, I am informed, arose from the magnitude and details of the transactions. I feel assured the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners will use every effort to comply with the directions of the Act of Parliament, and that the accounts will in future be completed within the time specified. In reply to the third part of the Question, I may say that Mr. Ball has been acting as solicitor under the authority of the Commissioners, who express their confidence in him. It is true, however, that the Treasury differ from the Commissioners as to the regulations under which the moneys collected by Mr. Ball are brought to account. The subject is still in discussion, and I trust that means will be found for bringing about an agreement between the Treasury and the Commissioners. If it should not be the case, the accounts will be laid before Parliament, and it is always in the power of the House of Commons to refer disputed points of account to their own Committee on Public Accounts. It is a delicate question up to what point the orders of the Commissioners are a final authority, behind which it is not necessary that the Audit Office should go. The Government are in favour of giving all information to the Controller and Auditor General, in order to enable him to discharge his duty fully and freely; but questions of this kind will from time to time arise which should be decided on principles of common sense. If a solution should not be found, it will be in the power of the House to examine the dispute by means of its own Committee. As to the last part of the question of the hon. Member—namely—

"Whether the Returns promised by the First Lord of the Treasury of the payments made under the process of commuting and compounding in the Irish Church, and of the names, livings, and residences of the Clergymen who have commuted and compounded, are in course of preparation and when they will be laid upon the Table?"

I can only reply that I did not promise the Returns. What I said was, that I saw no objection myself to the production of them; but that till I made in- quiry,it would be impossible for me to say whether they could be produced. I have now made that inquiry, and find I have no power in the matter. The Returns would have to be compiled, not by the Commissioners, but by the Irish Church Representative Body. It would be a very long and expensive affair. They are an independent body, and it would not be within the power of the Crown to control them.

gave Notice that on Monday he would move for the Returns for which he had asked.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the capital sum expended in the purchase and formation of the Post Office Telegraphs, amounting at the 31st of December 1873, to £9,465,197, has yielded a net revenue of only £95,956 (Parl. Paper, No. 266), or about one per cent on the outlay; whether the Treasury have taken any steps to prevent the expenditure of additional capital for unremunerative works, or any steps for reducing the expenses of management, with the view of obtaining a better return for the capital invested; whether he can state the amount of additional capital expended since 31st December last; and, whether he can give an estimate of the probable amount which will still have to be paid to Companies for Telegraphs and rights which had been acquired by the Post Office, and had been worked during the last year, so as to contribute to the small net revenue received, although not yet paid for to the Companies from whom they had been acquired?

, in reply, said, that his attention had for a considerable time been directed to the general position of the Telegraph Service, a subject of very great importance, involving an expenditure of great magnitude, and requiring very careful control and supervision. All expenditure upon new works or extensions out of capital had been stopped since October last, and no new works or extensions could now be undertaken except out of sums voted by Parliament. The Treasury exercised the same care and supervision in respect of the Votes which might be proposed to Parliament for works in this service, as in regard to any other expenditure for Government purposes. During the present year there had been very considerable strictness in revising the Estimates, with a view to asking for as small a sum as possible. He was in constant communication with his noble Friend the Postmaster General, for the double purpose of keeping as low as possible the expenditure upon new works, and reducing the expenses of management, and, at the same time, of providing as efficient a system of control as possible over any expenditure connected with this service. In reference to another point referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, he had to say that since the 31st of December last, the Treasury had created stock to the amount of £325,000, and that of that sum about £70,000 was still in hand. The amount expended had been applied to the purchase of works which had been taken over, but not paid for. No part had been expended on extensions or new works. The hon. Gentleman had asked, in conclusion, whether an estimate could be given of the probable amount which would still have to be paid to companies for telegraphs and rights acquired by the Post Office. There were claims which were still under consideration and arbitration, and therefore, in the interest of the public service, it would not be desirable to give an estimate of the kind suggested.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the facts connected with the loss of the "Thistle" steamer, of Hull, have been brought to his notice; and if so, if any action thereon is proposed to be taken?

Sir, the facts connected with the loss of the Thistle have been brought to my notice, and an inquiry was ordered; but as the captain had gone to Calcutta and would not return for some months, it was considered inexpedient to retain the crew as witnesses for so long a time, and the inquiry has been abandoned. The report of the casualty from the pilot at Hel- voetsluys was to the effect that the ship drifted on shore in consequence of her engines refusing to work.

asked the Postmaster General, If in the Contract of July 1874 he has arranged to allow the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to run their steamers with the heavy portion of the Indian Mails through the Suez Canal; and, if so, to what extent the transmission of such portion of the Indian Mails will be retarded; what deduction from the subsidy of £449,000 per annum is to be made on account of the permission thus granted; and, is he aware that his two predecessors in office recommended that a considerable deduction from that amount should be made in that contingency?

, in reply, said, that by the new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, which he hoped would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow or Monday, it was arranged that the Company might run their steamers with any portion of the mails through the Suez Canal. No part of the mails would be retarded in consequence; on the contrary, there would be an acceleration for both the heavy and light mails to the extent of 24 hours. A deduction of £20,000 a-year had been made from the subsidy on account of this change. An additional saving would be effected in consequence of no premium being paid in future, and there would be a further saving arising from the fact that payments by the Company in respect of overtime would henceforth be compulsory. Altogether, the saving under the new contract would amount to about £24,000 a-year.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the often-expressed wishes of the people of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government would consider the expediency of establishing a Royal Residence there, with suitable provision for its maintenance, for the purpose of encouraging occasional visits of members of the Royal Family to that portion of the United Kingdom?

Sir, I am very much in favour of royal residences, particularly when they are inhabited; and the great interest I take in Ireland would make me much rejoice if there were royal residences in that country inhabited by members of the Royal Family.

thanked the Government for having adopted the suggestion he had made that they should withdraw the clauses to which objection had been taken—namely, the clause under notice, as well as Clauses 5, 6, and 7. He would only add one remark—namely, that he thought it was desirable that in future the draftsmen employed by the Government to draw Bills, should be instructed not to prepare clauses which were unintelligible even to the Prime Minister of England. If the Primo Minister could not comprehend a Bill drawn by a draftsman of the Government, was it to be expected that humble Members of the House should be able to understand it?

thought the whole blame should not be thrown on draftsmen. These clauses, if he was not mistaken, must have been drawn to order.

said, the clause was merely substituted for the 48th clause of the Act of 1869, which was repealed in the Schedule.

inquired, whether it was intended that the Endowed Schools Commissioners should submit schemes to the Education Department till December? If Clause 48 was absolutely repealed, it appeared to him that the powers of the Commissioners to submit schemes would lapse entirely. It was desirable that words should be introduced to give the Commissioners power to submit schemes till December.

said, the latter part of the 3rd section of Clause 1 gave the power in question, and removed the difficulty pointed out.

thought the words in Clause 1 related only to the concurrent powers of the Commissioners. By repealing Clause 48 there would be no machinery for controlling those powers. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider this matter before the Report.

promised to give the subject his fullest consideration.

, in moving the following clause:—

(Elective governing bodies and local trustees to frame schemes.)

"When the governing body of an endowed school, or trustees of a charity making provision for an endowed school, are an elective body, they may, as provided by the Endowed Schools Acts, prepare and submit to the Charity Commissioners in writing a scheme relating to such endowment; and any scheme so prepared by a governing body of an endowed school, or trustees of a charity making provision for an endowed school, and submitted to the Charity Commissioners, shall, if approved by them, be adopted and proceeded with by them in the same manner as if it were a scheme prepared by themselves, subject to the following conditions—namely:—

"(a.) That notice be given to the Charity Commissioners before the expiration of three months after the passing of this Act of an intention to submit a scheme by or on behalf of those who are entitled to do so; and that such scheme be so submitted to the Charity Commissioners before the expiration of six months after the passing of this Act;

"(b.) That any scheme submitted shall have been printed and posted as a public notice in such conspicuous places, and in such manner as is usually adopted in like proceedings in the place where the school is situated to which the scheme refers, fourteen days before it is transmitted to the Charity Commissioners,"

said, he did so, because he fully believed that the Commissioners, in undertaking this work, would be assisted by having the co-operation of local authorities.

said, there could be no objection to the principle of the clause; but it appeared to him that it was not necessary.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had a new clause upon the Paper relating to county school committees. In his absence, he (Mr. Whitwell) would simply formally move the clause, in order to afford the Government an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the point.

begged to say, in reply to his hon. Friend, that the Government considered that the object which he had in view would be sufficiently met by the Bill as it stood, as the Education Department had power under the measure to consult the feeling of local bodies. It was the earnest desire of the Government to have their assistance in the administration of the Act, and they would hail with satisfaction the appointment of an influential county committee to co-operate with the Charity Commissioners in dealing with the endowed schools of their county. Indeed, the Government hoped to be able to take the opportunity of the appointment of the new Commission to ask the assistance of the counties in the matter; but at present he could not say how far such a cause would be practicable in reference to the counties as a whole. He need hardly repeat that the Government attached great importance to the free communication to the Charity Commissioners by gentlemen of knowledge and weight in the counties of their opinions, based upon local knowledge, as to the best mode of treating and developing the endowed schools of their counties.

said, he was glad that the hon. Member had elicited these remarks from the noble Lord, as it was desirable that the Charity Commissioners should endeavour to obtain the opinion of influential local parties in the same way as the Endowed Schools Commissioners had been doing. He thought, however, the better way to carry out the object in view would be not to formulate by actual clauses the method in which the committees were to act.

asked, whether it was proposed to consult borough authorities with regard to schemes affecting their interests?

replied that he would be the last person to pass over the claims of the great town populations, with which he was so closely connected.

pointed out that the county committees must not expect to avoid incurring unpopularity, as that was inherent in dealing with the endowed schools.

wished to speak of the present Commissioners in the spirit of the maxim—De mortuis nil nisi bonum. The Endowed Schools Commissioners were not to blame for not having always had the assistance of county committees, as from the position in which they were placed, they found it necessary in dealing with certain local interests, to decline the assistance of local men. He trusted that in regard to these matters the Education Department would not throw the whole responsibility on the Commissioners, but would make it their business to elicit local feeling by such means as might be most advantageous, in concert with them. He, however, did not think it would be wise for the Government to deal with a small portion of the great question of local government. These educational controversies would never cease until good county government was established.

moved, as an Amendment, to omit the following words relating to the amending clauses which had been dropped:—

"Whereas it is expedient to make further provision for carrying into effect the objects of the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 and 1873 (in this Act referred to as the Endowed Schools Acts) and for better promoting the main designs of the founders of endowed schools in respect of a liberal education, and of such part of that education as relates to religious instruction."

thought the Amendment might be accepted.

recommended that the words should be retained.

agreed in the feeling of the hon. Member, but thought it hardly fair to squeeze in an opinion in the Preamble, after the alterations which had been made in the Bill.

held that this portion of the Preamble would convey an insinuation that the Endowed Schools Commissioners did not care for religious education, which was not the fact.

said, that there would be no insinuation in the words, which were simply a plain direction. Although certain clauses had been abandoned, they expected to have an equivalent for them next year. He did not value one rush the material Conservatism of the hon. Member who last night and to-day had put himself forward as the leader of the irreligious Conservatives. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps he ought to say the undenominational Conservatives. ["Order!"]

pointed out that the hon. Member was discussing a subject which did not arise on the Amendment.

said, he should oppose the omission of those words.

retracted the word insinuation, saying that the part of the Preamble he wished to strike out would be a positive charge against the Commissioners.

explained that unless he thought the Bill would promote a better system of religious education he would vote against it.

deprecated any renewal of discussion on these points, and suggested that it would be better to strike out the Preamble altogether.

considered it of great importance to retain the Preamble as a guide to those who would have to enforce the Act. Its terms were often appealed to, and if struck out, he should cease to support the Bill.

asked, what provisions remaining in the Bill, the Ereamble would refer to?

understood that notwithstanding the omission of the clauses referred to, the Bill did more than merely transfer the powers of the Endowed Schools Commissioners to the Charity Commissioners, and the latter were intended to carry out the original Acts in a different spirit from that which had influenced the Endowed Schools Commissioners. ["No, no!"] If not the passing of this Bill would be a farce.

was sorry that a dispute should arise on what was immaterial, when what was really material had ceased to be in the Bill. He did not disguise his opinion on the matter. But he must point out that there was now no necessity for the Preamble. He would remind the Committee that last year, the Commissioners stated, when examined, that they did not consider there was such a thing as a real and liberal education without religious instruction. No doubt the Commissioners who would carry out the provisions of the Bill would act upon that principle.

warned the Committee, that unless the Amendment was accepted, it would be necessary to raise the question of the original founder who had been a Roman Catholic.

advised that the Amendment be withdrawn, in order that the Preamble might be omitted.

said, he would adopt that course.

urged that in future, Bills should be so drafted that the time of the House need not be occupied in discussing the meaning of clauses.

suspected that in this instance the draftsman was not to blame, and that, as had already been suggested, the clauses in question had been drawn to order. He thought that too much had been said about the difficulty of understanding the 4th clause For his own part, he could only say that he understood it too well. He trusted that on the Report the noble Lord would be able to answer a question that had formerly been put, with respect to the names of the additional Commissioners.

pointed out that if the Committee struck out only the first part of the Preamble, they might be held to have negatived the instructions enjoining the Commissioners to promote religious education, whereas if they struck out the whole, it would be clear that they wished to secure peace, and avoid embarrassing the Commissioners. Preamble struck out. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

, in rising to move an Amendment, said: Sir, I rise with much reluctance at this period of the Session, to interfere between the House and going into Committee on the Bill; and it is known to Her Majesty's Government that I should have been willing to withdraw my opposition to the Bill in consideration of the position of Public Business, had it not been that I knew that a number of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, Representatives of Scotland, desire to have an opportunity of entering their protest against the Bill. Intending, therefore, for a brief period to interpose between the House and its business, I may be allowed to crave indulgence whilst entering the protest which I also propose to enter against the Bill. I feel that the Bill is so bad that it could not possibly be made worse, and we cannot make it any better, and therefore I shall take no part whatever in the discussion in Committee on it. But I think it is better that there should be an opportunity afforded to those who hold the views that I do on this question—I mean the views entertained by a large number of Scotchmen—that an opportunity should be afforded us of entering our protest against the dangerous precedents created by it. I trust the discussion on the point, which may occupy a short time, may in the long run save time in Committee. I wish first to point out the difference between the Motion I have put on the Paper and that put on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). For his was a Motion for delay, and on details; mine is a Motion which asserts a principle—a principle which ought to be asserted on this side of the House in reference to future legislation. His was a Motion which called for inquiry; but mine is totally irrespective of it. I beg to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient, in abolishing the existing rights of Patronage in Scotland, to ignore the other Presbyterian bodies, and to legislate for the exclusive benefit of the Established Church."

Now, Sir, I venture to say that I conscientiously believe—and the House may accept my opinion for what it is worth—that this expresses the opinion of the vast majority of the people of Scotland, if we take those tests of public opinion which are open to us. Whether we take the Press of Scotland, with respect to its ability, or with respect to its circulation; or whether we take the Resolutions of the Free Church Assembly, I think I am practically justified in saying that in making that Motion I am expressing the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland. In whose interests is the Bill proposed? Is it proposed in the interests of the Church of Scotland? Then it is in the interests of the minority of the Scotch people. Is it proposed in the interests of the Scotch people? Sir, Her Majesty's Ministers have had their mouths full of the Scotch Church, but never in all the time have they spoken of the Scotch people. The people's interests have not been consulted. From first to last, I venture to say, that this is a Church Bill, and is against the popular will. If it were in the interests of the Scotch people, then it is too narrow and too weak, and too exclusive altogether, to be accepted as a boon by the people of Scotland. We have asked upon what principle this Bill is based, and I have endeavoured to ascertain whether there is any great moral or political principle in it, and I have come to the conclusion that it is utterly unprincipled. But when I say that, let me say that I do not for a moment say that the right hon. and learned Lord does not see and feel a principle at the bottom of the Bill. I believe the right hon. and learned Lord is really sincere and earnest when he says this Bill will conduce to the progress of Christian principles in Scotland. He thinks it is a good Bill; but I think if he will allow me to say so, that that is simply an amiable delusion, and that in this case he is acting as the cat's paw of certain very clever people in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are entitled to ask on what principle the Bill is based. Is it introduced for the purpose of correcting admitted blunders in the Act of 1843? If it is, it will be at the expense of persons who were injured by the blunders of 1843. It is a Bill introduced to strengthen the Church, and to spite the people of Scotland. When we examine the antecedent circumstances of the Bill what does it show to us? Was the Free Church consulted? Was there any attempt to establish those friendly relations between the Free Church and the Established Church which the right hon. and learned Lord says he is desirous of promoting? Because, if we are going to establish friendly relations between two ecclesiastical Bodies, surely the way to do it is not to come to Parliament to ask for an Act assented to and promoted by only one side. If the right hon. and learned Lord had received assurances by the Free Church and by the Established Church, then it would have been proper for him to come here and ask that this measure should be passed. But instead of instituting attempts at conciliation, what have we? We have first of all a deliberate attempt to injure the Voluntary Churches by attracting adherents from them, for the object of the Bill is to create a State Church in Scotland, and to hold out inducements to members of other Churches to come into that Church. I say such a policy as that may be only an insidious policy for a Church to adopt; but, and I say it not offensively, it is a fatal course for a national Government to adopt. Then the object is to unite the right of presentation with the enjoyment, and I cannot help thinking that the object in the minds of those in Scotland promoting this Bill is, that by uniting these two rights under this Act of Parliament, it may be impossible for us easily to upset the arrangement; and when it is proposed, as it inevitably will be, to disestablish the Church of Scotland, we shall be told that we have united the right of presentation and the right of enjoyment, and that we cannot expect Scotland to restore the national endowments. I cannot help feeling that that is really the principle, if there is any principle, which has been at the bottom of the agitation which has resulted in this measure. I think it is right, therefore, that a protest should be entered on this side of the House, on behalf of the Free Church of Scotland, against this being accepted as a finality measure. We enter our protest here to-day that this is not to be accepted as a finality measure, and we say that we hold ourselves free to open the question in future, whether the endowments of the Church of Scotland shall be enjoyed by one Church alone. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen on the other side have gone into every issue involved in this case. It involves some of the most important issues ever raised, with respect to ecclesiastical subjects, in this House; and in that respect, it is really the most important Bill that was ever brought before the consideration of the House. And I say this—I cannot help feeling that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had gone into the question, and seen what all its relations are, they would have hesitated a long time before they supported Her Majesty's Government on the Bill. We do think that we see a little deeper into the future of the Bill than hon. Gentlemen opposite, with regard to taking advantage at some future time of the precedents which are afforded by it. There have been, in the discussions which have taken place on the Bill, his- torical references, researches, and disquisitions; but I venture to tell the House that this is not a matter for historical research. It is a matter of the immediate present. When such a question is brought before the House of Commons, what are the issues involved? What are the immediate circumstances of the case? Is the proposition with respect to those circumstances, considering the duty of the Church and its relation to the country, its numbers, and all other circumstances—is it a righteous proposal that is put before us? It is not a matter of history. The history of the Church of Scotland is a thing of the past, if I may be pardoned the expression. I moan it is a thing with respect to which we have little concern in reference to this discussion. Now that Her Majesty's Government have raised the question, we are bound to take heed of the present circumstances, and to ask ourselves whether this is a righteous or an unrighteous proposal. If you did look into the history of the question, history would give you examples of but one conclusion, and that conclusion is that that which would have been right to do in 1843, when the Church of Scotland embraced the vast majority of the Scottish people, it is unrighteous and improper to do in 1874, when the Church of Scotland includes only a portion of the Scotch nation. This is to unite ancient wrongs with modern institutions. We ask—What are the claims which the Church has for this measure to be brought forward? They have neither a superior majority, a superior spirituality, nor superior munificence to the Churches of the majority of the Scotch people. Efforts have been made on that side of the House to show that the Scotch Church really does constitute the ecclesiastical back-bone—if I may say so, of the Scotch people. What are the facts? Look on their munificence. Out of £1,000,000 contributed, the contributions of the Established Church were only £270,000. What are the conclusions to be drawn from that? Either that the Established Church does not embrace the majority of the Scotch people, or else that the nippings and fightings in the Establishment are so great that, although they may be in a majority, the amount of their religious sacrifices amounts only to one-third of those of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church. During the last two weeks this House has been engaged in ecclesiastical debates. There was an old woman, who was asked by a clergyman whether she had got religion, and she replied—"Yes, I have a slight touch of it now and then." That seems to be the position of this House. We are able to go on, for a considerable period, without any touches of religious discord; but now we find ourselves suddenly immersed in ecclesiastical and religious debates. Two remarkable Bills relating to the only two State Churches which now survive in the Imperial dominions have been brought before this House during the last two or three weeks, one of them introduced by Her Majesty's Government, and the other introduced by a right rev. Prelate in the other House of Parliament, both raising questions of the extremest gravity and extremest peril to the relations between Church and State. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire, at the close of his speech upon this question, taunted my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich with reference to the part which he had taken in the disestablishment of the Irish Church, by saying that he hoped that upon his tombstone, at all events, he would not be enabled to have inscribed the epitaph that he has disestablished any other Church. Sir, I say it with all meekness and submission to the opposite side, that it seems to me that between right rev. Prelates and Her Majesty's Government, if things go on as they are going now, there will be no Church left for my right hon. Friend to disestablish. I introduce these questions only because they form part of the conscientious protests which I am entering at this moment against the Bill. I know and feel how painful some of the things which I am saying may appear to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I can assure them that but for a sense of duty I would not utter one word that I thought would in any way wound their feelings. But I cannot help feeling that the Bill does raise questions which the friends of Establishment might very well have allowed to rest—questions which once raised amongst Scotchmen, we may depend upon it they will never allow to sleep. With the exception of a very small party in the Free Church, who have very peculiar views upon State endowments, this Bill has converted every Free Churchman from this time forth into a disestablishment man; and I ask the right hon. and learned Lord opposite, with his amiable desire to promote the union of the Free and Established Churches, and his extreme anxiety to see that there should be religious progress in Scotland, whether in raising the question, he has not raised other issues of the most perilous character to those very institutions which he desires to strengthen? The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) put this question—whether we could not discuss a matter like this without introducing the question of disestablishment and disendowment? My answer is "No," and that is why I got up to speak this evening. We cannot discuss the question without raising those issues. The Bill itself introduces them to our notice, and if they are raised at all, they have been raised by Her Majesty's Government. It is idle to say that this is a mere matter of internal arrangement. The proposal touches the very terms and conditions of the relations between Church and State, and I would put two points very briefly in proof of that. It proposes to transfer the patronage, which is legally vested in a body of national trustees, to another body who are not national, but who are sectarian trustees. Does not that touch very deeply the question of Establishment? And therefore, with hon. Members on this side of the House who agree with me in reference to Establishment, does it not fairly raise the question whether or not it is more righteous than to accept the proposals of the Bill, to sever the patronage and the property altogether from the Church? The second point which I put with reference to that is this—that the Bill creates as managers and administrators of Church property, a body of constituents selected, not with reference to their faith, because their faith is the same as that of the majority of the people of Scotland, but with reference to their adhesion to a narrow ecclesiastical body; and it excludes a large number of citizens of the same belief equally entitled to the benefits of the national endowments. Sir, it appears to me, with all submission to Her Majesty's Government, that these two positions are irrefutable—that they can-not be answered, and that no attempt has been made to answer them on the other side. And those two positions, taken as we take them to-day, will be positions which will have a very powerful effect on discussions which must inevitably ensue in regard to this measure. The arguments in favour of the Bill have been based almost entirely on fictions. Perhaps that is not to be wondered at. English statesmen, perhaps, are not very intimately acquainted with Scotch ecclesiasticism. One of the most brilliant of modern novelists, and one of the most able and practical of modern statesmen, in a novel which he wrote not long since, put into the mouth of a Cardinal of the Romish Church a sort of description of ecclesiastical affairs in the Church of Scotland. In this conversation, a lady says to the Cardinal—

"You were telling me about Scotland, that you yourself thought it ripe."

The answer is—

"Unquestionably—the original plan was to have established our hierarchy when the Kirk split up; but that would have been a mistake. It was not then ripe. There would have been a fanatical reaction. There is always a tendency that way in Scotland, As it is, at this moment the Establishment and the Free Kirk are mutually sighing for some compromise which may bring them together again, and if the proprietors would give up their petty patronage, some flatter themselves it might be arranged. But we are thoroughly well-informed, and have provided for all this. We sent two of our best men into Scotland some time ago, and they have invented a new Church, called the United Presbyterians. John Knox himself was never more vigilant or more mischievous. The United Presbyterians will do the business; they will render Scotland simply impossible to live in; and then, when the crisis arrives, the distracted and despairing millions will find refuge in the bosom of their only mother. That is why, at home, we wanted delay in the publication of the bull and the establishment of the hierarchy."

Sir, the author of that passage is the right hon. Gentleman who has defended this Bill in the House, and brought it forward at the head of Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that of all men in this House who would be inclined to resent such references as these on the part of young Members, the right hon. Gentleman would be the last; and he will surely not be angry with me for saying that if he were great in political fictions, he has now apparently become great in fictitious politics. ["Oh, oh!"] I maintain that there never was a greater fiction than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the relations of the Established Church in Scotland to the Free Church. What did he say? He said that this is an Act which does not interest in any degree those who are outside, and which greatly interests those who are inside. Now, I ask hon. Members opposite who represent Scotland, whether such a statement as that is not almost an insult to the intelligence of the people of Scotland, and whether it is not almost in fact a contradiction of the circumstances of the case of the history of the relation of the Scotch Church to the people? From first to last, the Scotch people have been bound up with this ecclesiasticism. Those who have left it did so reluctantly and under protest, and nobody can doubt that the natural position of every Scotchman is under the wing of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, whether it be established or whether it be not. Why—if what the right hon. Gentleman had said were true—call this a national Establishment? If it is a matter which concerns only the people inside of the Church, why should it be brought into Parliament and discussed here? The right hon. Gentleman very candidly, the other night, when matters were rather pressing upon the Public Worship Regulation Bill, accepted the assurance from one of my hon. Friends behind me, who is a Nonconformist, that he took an interest in the Established Church; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that every Nonconformist ought to take an interest in the purity of worship in the Establishment. Is that to be good for England and bad for Scotland? Are the Nonconformists of Scotland, who really have the same creed, the same faith, and the same doctrines and formularies, not to take an interest in the condition of the Established Church in that country, while the Nonconformists in England, who are opposed on many points of doctrine to the Established Church, are permitted, and even invited by the right hon. Gentleman to aid him in purifying and regulating the worship of the Church of England? It is true that those inside the Scotch Church have an interest in this matter, because it combines for them the disposal with the enjoyment of the benefit of these endowments; but has the Scotch nation, to whom the property belongs, no right to come here and protest that this is a proceeding which is invidious, inequitable, and unjust, and against which they strongly protest? Again, the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, that the Established Church drove out the Free Church, said—"That, however, is not my view of the great struggle. I think the Free Church resigned, and abandoned her rights and claims in the Established Church, and that, therefore, those rights and claims ought not now to be acknowledged;" although upon the principal questions upon which the Free Church seceded, we are now about to concede to the Established Church those rights. One of the most remarkable things that ever happened was the great sacrifices made by these great Scotchmen when they withdrew from the Church. They sacrificed all the benefits of her endowments, and went out for the purpose of asserting what many men in this House would no doubt be inclined to regard as merely theoretical principles. But when that took place the word "Ichabod" was written on the walls of the Established Church, and the right hon. Gentleman, by introducing a Patronage Bill, thinks he can entirely obliterate it. It is upon such fictions as these that the Bill is founded, and is being carried through the House. Let me, at risk of detaining the House for a moment or two, read one or two passages from the Claim, Declaration, and Protest of the General Assembly of 1842. They say, with reference to the Courts, that—

"not confining themselves to the determination of civil actions, they have stepped beyond the province allotted to them by the constitution, deciding not only actions civil but causes spiritual and ecclesiastical, and that too even when they had no connection with the exercise of the right of patronage; and have united the jurisdiction, and encroached upon the spiritual privileges, of the Courts of this Church."

Then they proceeded to give several instances: and then in 1843, in the last protest they made before they went out of the Assembly, they say—

"And we further protest that any Assembly constituted in submission to the conditions now declared to be law, is not, and shall not be, deemed a free and lawful Assembly of the Church of Scotland according to the original and fundamental principles thereof, and that the Claim, Declaration, and Protest shall be holden as setting forth the true constitution of the Church, and that the said Claim, along with the laws of the Church now subsisting, shall in no wise be affected by whatsoever acts and proceedings of any Assembly constituted under the conditions now declared to be law, and in submission to the coercion now imposed on the Establishment."

In the face of such a protest and declaration as that, how is it that the right hon. Gentleman can say that the Free Church resigned; that it was not driven out of the Established Church; and that it did not, in going out, assert that it was the Church of Scotland, and that the Established Church remained simply in connection with the State, and was really not entitled to the endowments which it enjoyed? There was but one ground of recommendation, and that was a ground which for some time occupied my attention, and rather drew me in the direction of the Bill. It was that the Bill was likely to be a conciliatory measure, and lead to a reconciliation between the diverse elements of Presbyterianism in Scotland. But, Sir, the noble Lords who in "another place" supported the Bill, and some hon. Members opposite, have admitted that there is no hope whatever, as the result of the Bill, of union with the other Churches in Scotland; and thus the only ground which at all could recommend it to me is cut from under my feet by the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. There is one other matter which I desire to point out. An attempt has been made from the opposite side—and the right hon. Gentleman himself was a party to that attempt—to draw a distinction between patronage in Scotland and patronage in England. The right hon. Gentleman said practically, that patronage in Scotland and patronage in England was not an identical article. I beg to protest against any such assumption as that. I would point out to hon. Members opposite, that in so far as concerns their legal and constitutional relations, patronage in Scotland and patronage in England are precisely the same; and that what is professed to be done by the Bill will be creating a precedent hereafter with reference to patronage in England. Why, Sir, we already see the signs of this in the action taken in the English Church. If anyone reads the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon Church Patronage, they will find that to a certain extent, they actually propound views which are in the direction of Lord Aberdeen's Act, and which are intended to give the congregations a certain right of resistance to the appointment by the patrons of their ministers. And the thing will go on, and if this precedent is established for patronage in Scotland, we may depend upon it, that the time will come when it will be carried out with refer- ence to patronage in England. There is only one other point which I feel it necessary to touch upon, and it is this—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who spoke the other night, and the noble Duke who in the House of Lords supported the measure, are at direct variance with reference to the principles of an Establishment. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that an Establishment should be a universal comprehension of opinions, doctrines, and customs. The noble Duke, on the other hand, said that if they were to make the Church as comprehensive as that, he for one would go in for disestablishment. So we see that the two issues are raised upon which alone Establishments can be defended or supported in the country. Either an Establishment must be as comprehensive as the right hon. Gentleman says, in order to make it a national Establishment; or a fixed and definite creed, to which you will insist that every person who enters it shall subscribe. And what is the natural consequence of such a position as that? It is that when the Church is made to include what it does not comprehend, you form a secularized and divided ecclesiasticism; and, on the other hand, if you deny to it the comprehension of every phase of Christian religion, you make it an impracticable civil institution. On either side, with reference to it, you must fall into the ditch, and my object has been to point the moral of the Bill. It seems already that, even with many hon. Members opposite, the only hope of maintaining a national Church in these days, is that you should emasculate the religion of it, or anything like creed. There is an epigrammatic saying that perplexed Churches were made by Act of Parliament, and not by God. There never was a truer epigram than that, for two perplexed Churches have come to this House during the last few weeks to ask us to patch and mend them. We feel, and have felt in dealing with these questions, how incompetent we were to do that which they ask of us, and what I venture to say in conclusion, without the least desire to create any ill-feeling, is this—perplexed Churches, when they come to Parliament, should be sent away from Parliament to the source whence they derive their inspiration. Let them be cut loose, and let them be guided and protected by God Himself. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. I do so, because it appears to me that the proposals of the Bill are most ungenerous and unjust to the non-Established Churches in Scotland, and I crave the indulgence of the House while I endeavour as briefly as possible to state my reasons for saying so. I quite agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that the historical aspect of patronage does not help us much in the consideration of this question, because, however interesting it may be to know the law and practice of 150 years ago, they can scarcely be of service in guiding us to a conclusion now, when circumstances are so entirely different. Neither do I think it of very great importance what was the precise attitude of the Free Church in 1843, because the Free Church as well as the Established Church of Scotland have of necessity progressed with the public mind, and are not now what they were in 1843. The real question is—what is the relation between the different religious parties in Scotland, and what will be the effect of the Bill on the public mind in Scotland in the present day? Now, there was no doubt a time when this measure would have been cordially accepted by the Liberal party in the Church of Scotland, and that it would have prevented the great Disruption which took place in 1843. But many things have happened since then. The ministers of the Free Church have had 30 years' experience of practical Voluntaryism, and the controversy which has been going on more or less since has carried the public mind far beyond patronage, which few now defend; and the great Church question of the day is not the question of patronage, but of the disestablishment and disendowment of the State Church. There has been growing of late years, not only among the non-Established Churches, but even in minds of thoughtful adherents of the Established Church itself, a conviction that disestablishment is only a question of time, and that only on the basis of a common religious equality, can any hope be entertained of a union of the various Presbyterian Bodies of Scotland. There has been a hope that public opinion might so mature towards disestablishment, that the very force and strength of that opinion would bring about the disestablishment; if not with the consent, at least without any bitter hostility on the part of the Established Church of Scotland. These are the reasons which explain to my mind, the forbearance of the non-Established Churches in refraining, as they have done, from political agitation to accomplish what has been, with many, a strong conviction and leading principle, and why Scotch constituencies have not pressed more strongly than they have done on their Representatives the disestablishment of the Church. But this Bill changes the whole position—it closely and directly changes the relations of parties. The non-Established Churches must see in it an attempt to re-establish the Church, and to obstruct the fair course of public opinion; and it will consequently be accepted as the challenge to a conflict on the justice and expediency of State Churches, the result of which will involve more than the fate of the Church of Scotland. There has been nothing more surprising to me in the course of this debate than to hear this measure described as a measure of conciliation for Scotland. If that means that it is a measure for the conciliation of the members of the Established Church, I am not aware that they needed conciliation; but if it means that it is a measure of conciliation to the non-Established Churches, I shall be glad to hear in what it is conciliatory? A noble Duke, who has taken a very active interest in supporting the Bill, has admitted that the Free Church was right in 1843, and has stated his willingness to support and acknowledge that right; but has there been any attempt by the General Assembly or by the Government to open overtures with either of the non-Established Churches for conciliation? It appears to me inconsistent of the noble Duke to express his willingness to acknowledge the claim, when it is he and his ecclesiastical allies who have done what they could to urge this Bill through Parliament, thereby preventing the consideration of any claim the Free Church might make. To me, the Bill indicates no desire for conciliation, unless it be by terminating the existence of the other Churches. Something has been said about welcoming back those who have left the Church of Scotland. But on what terms are they to be welcomed back? What inducements are to be offered to ministers and congregations returning to the Establishment? Do the ministers of the Establishment propose to share the emoluments of the Church with their returning brethren? I am fully persuaded that there is no hope and no basis of union of the various Churches in Scotland other than Voluntaryism; and it is idle to talk of the Bill facilitating a union of the Churches, when that cannot come about without the Free and United Presbyterian Churches abjuring the principles to which they only very recently re-affirmed their adherence. I have endeavoured to state to the House what is my view of religious parties and of public opinion in Scotland regarding the subject of the Bill, and I think I can refer to various circumstances which support my conclusions. In the first place, there has not been of late years any demand in Scotland for the abolition of patronage, and no hon. Member has informed the House that in his experience, the subject has occupied public attention at the recent General Election or at previous side elections. But, from what has fallen from hon. Members opposite, it may be inferred that the measure is part of a compact which secured for the Conservative party in Scotland the support and influence of the Established Church at the last Election. We have heard that candidates were privately dealt with on this question. Now, this Bill is recommended to us as a popular measure in Scotland; but to my mind, there is no stronger proof that it is not popular, than that though the attention of candidates was drawn to this subject, they did not venture to allude to it in their public addresses. Some of them at least had ample opportunities, and I should have thought would have welcomed any topic that would have relieved them from harping with tiresome iteration on the political delinquencies of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. In my own experience of three elections within the last two years, I have not found that the abolition of patronage was considered a practical question, but I have found myself called upon frequently to express my views in favour of disestablishment and disendowment, when the proper time should arrive for carrying such a measure into effect. I say there has been no demand by the people of Scotland for the Bill. The proposal, as is well known in Scotland, is the result of an agitation of a section of the Established Church clergy, some of whom were the most strenuous supporters of patronage in 1843, and I think it not at all unlikely they will regret their newborn hostility, as much as they ought to regret their support of patronage during Disruption times. But there is reason to believe—and in support of that I may refer to the speech of a highly-respected member of the General Assembley, Dr. Cook—that this measure is regarded by a large body of the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland with considerable anxiety and apprehension; and, so far as I have been able to form an opinion, the laity of the Church of Scotland are very in-different to it. No doubt, Petitions have been presented to the House in favour of it; but we all know the value that is to be put on Petitions which are got up and paid for by a central organization. But what is the aspect which this Bill presents to the non-Established Churches and their congregations? The Bill completely ignores all the sacrifices which those Churches have made in support and vindication of that very principle which the Bill now declares to be the just and proper arrangement for the election of ministers; and not only does the Bill ignore all their sacrifices, but it is avowedly recommended to Parliament as a measure which is likely to contribute strongly to the ruin of those very Churches which have been built with so much effort, and care, and self-denial. Can it be expected that the non-endowed Churches will submit to treatment so one-sided, ungenerous, and unjust? I am fully persuaded that the passing of this measure cannot fail to evoke a religious strife in Scotland, which, stimulated by a sense of injustice and the duty of vindicating a principle for which so much has been sacrificed, will only be extinguished by the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church, leaving a residue of angry passions that will prevent for many years any approach to a union of the various Churches into what might be one great national voluntary Church. I do not view with apprehension the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, either as regards the Church or the nation, but I view with great apprehension the impending religious strife; and I am sure that the people of Scotland deprecate in the strongest manner, any re-petition of that unhappy strife and social discord which followed for many years the Disruption of 1843. Sir, the responsibility of such an unhappy state of matters will rest with the Established Churchmen, who provoke a contest by endeavouring to secure for themselves an advantage over Churches they consider rivals, partly at the expense of those very Churches they seek to undermine. I might refer to certain objectionable details of the Bill; but it is not on mere matters of detail that I oppose the measure, but on account of the policy and principle it embodies. The avowed object of the measure is the aggrandizement of the Established Church, not by a measure aiding it to reclaim the lapsed masses, but by granting facilities to entice away members of Churches of precisely the same faith, and as pure and Christian as itself, with the mistaken notion that the aggrandizement of the Established Church of Scotland will strengthen a political party in the State. Is that a policy which the friends of the Church can approve, or in which she can embark with honour? The principle that congregations should have the right to elect their ministers is no doubt a sound principle; but it pre-supposes a duty precedent to the right—the duty of congregations maintaining their ministers. Now, this Bill confers the right without imposing the corresponding duty. Under these circumstances, the right ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, and the principle really embodied in the Bill is, that it is the right of a section of the nation to elect ministers to a national Church, without undertaking the responsibility of maintaining that Church; and because that is unjust, and will create a new class privilege, the Bill ought to meet with the opposition of the Liberal party, and is justly condemned by the non-Established Churches in Scotland. And now, in conclusion, I wish to call attention to the mode in which the Bill proposes to deal with what has hitherto been considered a valid right of property, and which was formerly guarded in the most jealous manner. No doubt, Lord Aberdeen's Act removed one of the props of patronage; but the present Bill demolishes the edifice. Compensation, it is true, to an extent not exceeding a year's value of the living is allowed to patrons; but cases have been stated where even in recent years much more has been paid for the right. I have been told on the authority of one who was engaged in the transaction, that the patronage in one of the parishes of Roxburghshire, was within the last 10 years sold separately from the land for £550, the stipend there amounting to £220. In that case the patronage fetched two and a-half times the amount proposed by the Bill. I will not use the words confiscation, be-cause I agree very much with the opinions of the right hon. and learned Lord, that it is very doubtful whether patrons justly held those rights, and whether they were entitled to any compensation at all; but certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) never even proposed to deal with what had been previously considered valid rights of property in so summary a manner. We are told that there is a great difference between advowsons in Scotland and in England; but, certainly the right cannot be more jealously guarded in England now, than it was in Scotland in 1842. In that year in Aberdeenshire, a military force was called out to overawe a recalcitrant congregation, and to support a patron in doing as he liked with what he doubtless considered his own—the presentation of a minister to a church of which he owned the patronage. The House, I think, will listen with interest to a brief ex-tract from the newspapers of the day, giving a glimpse of the state of matters in Scotland in 1842. The Aberdeen Journal of March 2nd, 1842, said—

"The Presbytery of Strathbogie meet to-day at Huntly, for the purpose of receiving the presentation in favour of the Rev. Mr. Duguid to the church and parish of Glaas, and arranging the further proceedings of his settlement. On Monday last, a detachment of the 71st Regiment proceeded from this to Huntly, where we understand they are to be quartered for some time, in case of any attempted repetition of the late scandalous scenes at Culsalmond."

Again, The Aberdeen Herald of March 5th, 1842, says—

"The Sheriff, Procurator Fiscal, and Superintendent of Police were at Keith, but no op-position was offered to the Presbytery. As a preliminary measure, as well as to show that Government are determined to support the Strathbogie clergyman deposed by the Assembly, a detachment of the 71st Highlanders is stationed at Huntly, whore they remain till further orders."

Sir, I think that it adds to the interest of the case to know that the patron who was thus prepared to adopt measures so extreme, was the predecessor of the noble Duke who introduced the measure into the other House of Parliament—the late Duke of Richmond. And now this right is not only condemned as contemptible, but any patron who may demand compensation for its loss is held up to public opprobrium and contempt. Sir, I do not quarrel with the Government in regard to this; but I wish to point out to hon. Members opposite, that there may be other asserted rights of property as jealously guarded now as patronage was 30 years ago, but without any better foundation. Would it not be well, I suggest to them, to moderate such excessive pretensions while it is still time, instead of clinging to them, uncompromisingly, until as is the ease with patronage, it becomes too late? And now, Sir, I thank the House for its kind indulgence, while I have been stating my views on the Bill, which I must oppose both in the interests of the nation and of the Church. Rather than that the Church should accept this fatal gift, it would, in my opinion, be far better for the people of Scotland, better for the interests of true religion, and better for the Church herself, if the State Church of Scotland recognized that her mission as an endowed Church was accomplished, and that the time had come when she must conform her constitution to the mind of the people. By voluntarily accepting the inevitable, she might gather into one fold the various Presbyterian Bodies in Scotland, and trusting not to the State, but to the power of the truths she inculcates and the affections of the people she serves, enter on a new and wide career, no less useful and no less noble than her glorious past.

Mr. Speaker—Considering the late period of the Session, the length of the debate on the second reading of this Bill, and the large majority with which it was carried, I regret that the hon. Member for Dundee—who himself is not a Scotchman, although a Scotch Member—has thought it necessary to renew the discussion and prevent this Bill going into Committee. Both the speeches which have just been delivered might have very well been postponed until the House had before it the question of the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, for, in fact, they were nothing more than disestablishment speeches. I did not speak on the second reading of the Bill as the measure had been so fully discussed, and I was so anxious that the House should come to a vote; but there are one or two points raised by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, which I desire to reply to. He said—this is a Bill brought in by the Church against the wishes of the people of Scotland. I should like to know on what authority he makes that statement? Was it not the case that the General Assembly almost unanimously supported this Bill? Was it not the case that meetings of 3,000 or 4,000 of the laity were hold in Edinburgh and Glasgow which unanimously supported the abolition of patronage? I myself attended a meeting of the citizens of Glasgow, where there were not less than 4,000 people. Have there been any similar meetings held in opposition to the abolition of patronage? Not one. It was a mere fiction, therefore, to say that this Bill was introduced against the wishes of the people of Scotland. The opposition to this Bill is from the clergy, not from the laity of Scotland. We all know that the Liberation Society of England sent an emissary some two months ago into Scotland—Mr. Carvell Williams, I believe, was his name—to rouse the people of Scotland to a sense of their duty, and to warn them that if they allowed this Bill to pass, they would perpetuate the Church of Scotland for generations. What was the result of that visit? A complete failure. That gentleman convened meetings in many of our large cities and towns. Even in Edinburgh and Glasgow I assert, without fear of contradiction, that not more than 100 laymen attended any one of those meetings, and all the resolutions were moved and seconded by clergymen or office-bearers of the Dissenting Churches. The people made no response to this attempted agitation of the Liberation Society. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich in his speech on this question, so hostile to the Church of Scotland, used language so vehement—and his manner almost exceeded his language—that it was well calculated to raise religious animosities—and what has happened since? Has the laity of Scotland shown any sympathy with him? Has there been a single meeting held in support of his views? Not one. I would therefore ask, what right anyone has to assume and assert that this Bill was opposed by the people of Scotland? I believe the case to be the very reverse. I believe the laity of Scotland, if not unanimous, are almost unanimously in favour of the abolition of patronage, which has been such a hindrance to the harmony of religious feeling in Scotland. The hon. Member has made a comparison as to the amount of money contributed voluntarily by the Church of Scotland and the Dissenting Churches of that country. We do not pretend to compare in this respect with Dissenting Churches, because we are relieved from the necessity of raising so much money because of the endowments belonging to the Church—we are able, therefore, to do without seat-rents which Dissenting Churches are compelled to impose, and this is of great advantage to the nation, because it makes it the Church of the poor, as it truly is, for every man, however low his position may be, is welcomed to hear the preaching of the Gospel without money and without price. There is one statement of the hon. Member for Dundee with which I quite agree—the great importance of the question—I believe it to be the most important Scotch measure which has been brought before Parliament since the Union of the two countries. The object of it is to restore to the Established Church of Scotland its ancient constitution, which gave to the congregations of every parish the right, as vacancies occur, to elect their clergyman, of which right they were deprived by the infamous Act of Queen Anne—an Act which was hurriedly passed through Parliament against the feelings of the people of Scotland, in violation of the Treaty of Union—an Act which was brought in by the enemies of the Presbyterian Church in order to harass and disunite her members; and well has the intention of its promoters been realized, for it has been the cause of all the religious dissensions and secessions since 1733 till the great Disruption of 1843, when the Church was rent asunder. I hesitate not to say that, but for the imposition of lay patronage by this Act of Queen Anne, the secessions of 1733, 1752, and 1843, would never have taken place, and but for it the United Presbyterian or the Free Church would not have been in existence. Sir, I believe that if this Bill receives the approval of this House—which I trust it shall—its ultimate effect will be to unite the Presbyterians of Scotland in one Church, for it removes the only stumbling block in the way. Their forms of worship, their standards of faith, their Church government are the same; but whether this union of Churches takes place or not, it will at all events prevent a minister being thrust upon a congregation against their will, and above all, it will render impossible a similar disruption to that of 1843. It has been said in "another place" by the noble Lord whose death we all deplore, and has been repeated in this House by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, that this Bill is not now required; that at present, and for the last 30 years, we practically have had no patronage, for all patrons, including the Crown and corporations, leave the choice of the clergyman, as vacancies occur, to the congregations. It is quite true that it is almost invariably the rule, and it therefore does surprise me that so much opposition should be raised to giving us de jure what it is admitted we have de facto. But while I admit that patrons, almost as a rule, since the Disruption, do exercise their privilege generously towards the congregations, still now and again corporations and individual patrons do not act in this spirit, and do attempt, sometimes successfully, to thrust a minister against the wishes of the congregation, and the fact is, that since the Disruption, we have had in the Church 58 disputed settlements, which have been before the Church Courts. There are also some patrons who consider that it is their duty to perform the responsible trust imposed upon them by law. They therefore, after much earnest consideration and enquiry, present a clergyman to the vacant living, who, however acceptable he may be personally, is not well received, and some members may leave that church, as they feel that the congregation should have been consulted. The Established Church is in this way from time to time weakened. Hence the necessity of this Bill to abolish this excrescence on the Presbyterian Church. But the right hon. Member for Greenwich opposes the Church being released of this incubus. He said—"I am quite ready to make a large admission to the right hon. and learned Lord. From the point of view of a member of the present Established Church of Scotland, it is impossible, I think, to object to his efforts to get rid of patronage. He is acting in conformity with the traditions at least of the popular party in the Church; but as he ignores and sets aside those whom you drove from the Church, he therefore opposes this Bill." I must say this is visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation; but I should like to know who the right hon. Gentleman means by "you," when he speaks of driving those estimable men from the Church of Scotland? Does he mean the Conservative party? Why, the Liberal party was in power from 1832 to 1841—with the exception of a few months in 1834—when this great conflict was going on in the Church, and if they had wished they could have legalized the Veto law, which was all the non-Intrusion party desired, and a moderate and reasonable desire it was. But the Liberal party failed to bring in a Bill during these nine years to prevent this breach in the Established Church. It is true a Conservative Government came in in 1841; but the right hon. Gentleman cannot mean to place the blame upon it, for he was a Member of that Cabinet—President of the Board of Trade—until 1845, when he left it, because of in-creasing the grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, which College he permanently endowed in 1869; and perhaps it would have been well for the peace of Ireland if he had gone a step further and purchased the allegiance of the Roman Hierarchy out of the funds from the Irish Church. We might now have found them a more contented people. Or does the right hon. Member mean by "you" the clergy, the office-bearers, or the laity, who did not leave the Church in 1843. I assure him and the House that many of the clergy and the great majority of the laity who remained in were non-Intrusionists; but while they were so, they loved the old Church too well to desert her at that trying moment, and had those who left her then not acted so hastily, we would have had lay patronage abolished long ago. But a generation has elapsed since then, and is it fair or just that the members of the Church of Scotland should be for ever burdened with this grievance—which the right hon. Gentleman himself admits to be a grievance—because our forefathers in Parliament or in the Church did not grant the reasonable desires of the non-Intrusion party of the Church? It would be preposterous to treat the members of the Church of Scotland in such a way. In another part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich, he made use of the following important words:—"This Bill is introduced to strengthen the Church. But how? By weakening the other religious Bodies; by inducing adherents of the Dissenting Bodies to come over, man by man; and I ask the question fairly and publicly, is this a fair and generous course? You compelled them to become Dissenters by contemptuously spurning and casting aside proposals which you are now adopting. You do not offer to receive them back in bodies. If you did, I would withdraw my opposition to the Bill we are now discussing." Sir, these are important words, which no one occupying the high position that the right hon. Gentleman does would use, unless he was authorized by the parties he represented to do so. I am the more inclined to think that he may be so authorized, for I know he has been in close and confidential intercourse with the leaders of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, who have been daily canvassing Members in the Lobby of this House. I have always understood that two parties were necessary to a bargain. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is authorized to make that statement on behalf of the Free Church, I, on behalf of the Established, beg to state that we will be delighted to receive them back in a body. Nothing will give me so much pleasure as to see the reunion of these two Churches, which should never have been separated. I have always looked upon the Disruption of 1843 as a great national calamity. I will not yield to the right hon. Gentleman in my admiration of those noble men who left the Church then—many of them men of great intellectual power, of great earnestness of purpose, and all of them men of the highest Christian character. There never was a darker day for Scotland than that on which they left the Established Church. I have always looked upon the conduct of the Governments of that time, in resisting the moderate and reasonable request of the non-Intrusion party, as a great political blunder. The passing of this measure will reverse that policy, and I trust it may be the means of reunion of these Churches on terms equally honourable and advantageous. I desire that the doors of the Established Church should be opened wide to the ministers of all Presbyterian Churches. I desire that the congregations, as vacancies occur, should be enabled to elect clergymen of other Presbyterian Churches, and that those clergymen so elected should, after making a declaration that they adhere and conform to the standards of the Church of Scotland, be ministers of the Church, and minister of those churches for which they are elected. I believe the Church Courts have the power of altering the rules for the admission of clergymen belonging to other Churches; but, if not, I hope the Lord Advocate will insert a clause, giving them this power, when this Bill is in Committee. Sir, much has been said as to the position of the Church in the Highlands. I admit, at once, that the condition of the Church of Scotland in these parishes is not satisfactory; although it is not so bad as the enemies of the Church represent, and endeavour to make this House believe. But, I would ask, what is the cause of the weakness of the Church there? The existence of lay patronage, which it is the object of this Bill to abolish. The Highlanders are now as strongly attached to the principles of an Established Church as they were in 1843. They have firmly adhered to the principles on which they left the Church. They have not become Voluntaries—they look upon Voluntaryism as a sin. The Voluntary Church has never taken root there; and hon. Members from Scotland know that one of the main reasons for giving up the proposed union of the Free and United Presbyterian Churches, was the determined opposition of the Highlanders against that union. Well, Sir, if it is true that the inhabitants of the Highlands are still attached to the Established Church, which they left because of the collision between the Church and Civil Courts on account of this law of patronage—is it too much to expect that when this law is abolished, they will again return to the old Church to which they are still so much attached? I hope that, under these circumstances, the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to go into Committee.

said, he was anxious to give the reasons why he could not support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He did not pretend to be an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill; indeed, he felt that the Government had entered into a course of action which might be productive of danger and difficulty. In this case, everything depended on the shape which might be given to the Bill in Committee, whether it would prove merely an instrument of discord or a change for good. He was therefore anxious for the Bill to go into Committee, in order that it might receive the shape which would make it beneficial. He believed that, with certain Amendments, it was a measure which would be beneficial to the Church of Scotland by adding to its members, and that it might give it a better selection of ministers, and a better administration so far as regarded the poor. He did not think that an object to be deprecated. He did not see any reason why that legislation should be vetoed. On these grounds he supported the measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that the hon. Member for Dundee would be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, and allow the House to go into Committee on the Bill.

said, that that was the third day of the discussion, and he would suggest that hon. Members should now allow the Bill to go into Committee. He hoped hon. Members who wished to speak, and who had not had the opportunity, would just console themselves with the reflection—he had often done so—that the speeches not spoken were very likely the best in the debate.

said, he did not wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill, but there were some points in the debate which should not be passed over without observation. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) spoke comparatively of the efforts made by the Free Church and the Established Church to raise funds for promoting religious objects, and he said that the efforts of the latter were especially beneficial to the poor, though less in amount, in consequence of seat-rents being charged in the Free Church and not in the Established. The hon. Member said he was well acquainted with the Highlands, and that he knew those regions well; but he (Mr. Ramsay) challenged him to produce any Free Church case in which seat-rents were levied in the Highlands. The hon. Member could adduce no such case. In largo towns, no doubt it was the custom; but it was equally the custom in the Established Church. Seats allotted free to the poor were as usual in the Free Church as in the Established. That, he would remind the House, was not a Bill for the abolition of patronage—that could not be said of it in the true sense of the word. The Bill transferred the right of electing ministers from those who were at present vested in that right, to a new electoral body, to be created by the law. The people of Scotland had always recognized the right of communicants to elect their own ministers, and that, too, whether they belonged to the Dissenting or to the Established Church; but the Bill admitted also such adherents as the kirk-session for the purposes of the Bill should determine to be members of the congregation. That was a new, vague, and hitherto wholly unknown policy, either in the Dissenting, or in the Established Church. They had been told frequently that that was a Bill with which those who were not members of the Established Church had nothing to do. He could understand that, if it absolved all but members of the Established Church from payments towards expenses of the Establishment. He had, however, heard from its supporters no such thing. It left the Established Church power to extract from the unwilling hands of those who were not its members the same payments as heretofore for the support of that Church. He did think that whatever increase to the members of the Established Church that Bill might bring, there would be no increase to the power of Christian truth and morals, and that he valued much more than the interests of the denomination to which he belonged. What the House ought to consider was, whether the measure would tend to increase and strengthen the beneficial influences of Christianity, and not those of any particular party either in Church or State.

suggested that after the former division which had pronounced the sense of the House in such a marked manner, it would be scarcely fair in the hon. Member for Dundee to divide the House on going into Committee.

also hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

said, he was willing to do so, but would like to know whether the House would go on with the Bill after the adjournment?

said, that would depend upon the courtesy of other hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper.

said, in that case he should not proceed with his Motion calling the attention of the House to the circumstances attending an alleged Zulu rising in Natal.

said, the House would sit at 12 to-morrow to discuss and dispose of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

, in moving "That the Bill be now read the second time," said, the corps to which it referred were excluded from the Army Regulation Bill, and, therefore, there was no power to compensate the officers for the bonuses they had paid on their commissions. The late Government had intended to allow the system of such bonuses to die out gradually, but were advised that such a course was illegal. A correspondence ensued between the India Office and the War Office on the subject, and a dispute arose as to the source of payment. In the meantime, the officers were suffering great hardship. It was therefore agreed between himself and his noble Friend at the India Office to refer that question to an eminent retired Judge, and the Bill was the result of his decision. He made it a condition of the arrangement that the funds now in possession of the different corps should be handed over to the general fund. That condition had been included in the Bill, and its fairness would, he thought, be at once apparent and admitted. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

supported the Motion, and asked that the House should be made acquainted as early as possible with the relative proportions of cost to be borne by the Indian and Home Governments.

, who had given Notice of a Motion in favour of a clasp, as well as a medal, for service south of the Prah, said, that after the appeal made by the Prime Minister, and having regard to the state of Public Business, he should postpone his Motion.

said, with reference to the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone, just negatived, that if he could have supposed the hon. Gentleman would persist in going on with his Motion, he should have been in his place. With regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir Eardley Wilmot), he was anxious that he should have an opportunity of bringing it forward, although he must candidly tell his hon. Friend that he did not think that House the proper place to originate the question of honours to the officers and men in Her Majesty's service.

said, that he had not been requested to postpone his Motion. It was unreasonable of Her Majesty's Government to complain of hon. Members for bringing forward Motions which had been on the Paper for weeks, and which they had not been even asked to defer.

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 1, line 28, after "repealed," leave out to "thereanent," in page 2, line 12, and insert—

"And considering that patronage and presentation to kirks is an evil prejudicial to the liberty of the people and planting of kirks, and unto the free calling and entry of ministers into then-charge, discharge for ever hereafter all patronages and presentations to kirks, whether belonging to Her Majesty or any lay patrons, presby- teries, and others as being unlawful, unwarrantable, and contrary to the doctrines and liberties of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, and do repeal, rescind, and make void and annul all gifts and rights granted thereanent, and all former Acts made in Parliament, or in any inferior judicatory, in favour of any patron or patrons whatsoever, so far as the same doth in any way relate unto the presentation of kirks; and doth statute and ordain that no persons whatsoever shall in any time hereafter take upon them, under pretext of any title, infeftment, or Act of Parliament, possession or warrant whatsoever which are hereby repealed, to give, subscribe, or seal any presentation to any kirk within this Kingdom, and discharges the passing of any infeftments hereafter bearing a right to patronages to be granted in favour of those for whom the infeftments are presented; and that no person or persons shall either on behalf of themselves or others procure, receive, or make use of any presentation to any kirk within this Kingdom; and it is further declared and ordained that if any presentation shall hereafter be given, procured, or received, that the same is null and of non effect, and that it is lawful for presbyteries to reject the same, and to refuse to admit any to trials thereupon, and notwithstanding thereof to proceed to the planting of the kirk upon the suit and calling, or with consent of the congregation, on whom none is to be obtruded against their will; and it is decerned, statute and ordained, that whosoever hereafter shall, upon the suit and calling of the congregation, after due examination of their literature and conversation, be admitted by any presbytery into the exercise and functions of the ministry in any paroch within this Kingdom—that the said person or persons without presentation, by virtue of their admission, hath sufficient right and title to possess and enjoy the manse and glebe, and the whole rents, stipends, and profits which the ministers of that kirk had formerly possessed and enjoyed, or that hereafter shall be modified by the Commission for plantation of kirks; and decerns all titulars and tacksmen of tithes, heritors, life-rentors, or others, subject and liable in payment ministers' stipends, to make payment of the same, notwithstanding the ministers' want of presentation; and ordains the Lords of Session and other judges competent to give out decreets and sentences, letters conform, horning inhibition, and all other executorials upon the said admission of ministers by presbyteries, as they were formerly in use to do, upon collation and institution following upon presentations from patrons: Declaring always, That where ministers are already admitted upon presentation and have obtained decreets conform thereupon, that the said decreets and executorials following thereupon shall be good and valid rights to the ministers for suiting and obtaining payments of their stipend; and the presentation and decreet conform obtained before the date thereof shall be a valid ground and right for that effect, notwithstanding the annulling of presentations by virtue of this present Act: And because it is needful that the just and proper interest of congregations and presbyteries in providing of kirks with ministers be clearly determined by the general assembly, and what is to be accounted the congregation having that interest; there- fore, it is hereby seriously recommended unto the next general assembly clearly to determine the same, and to condescend upon a certain standing way for being a settled rule therein for all times coming. It is hereby provided that, pending the consultations of the general assembly in communication with the various kirk sessions, presbyteries, and provincial synods of the presbyterian churches, in settling the rule for naming, proposing, electing, and appointing ministers to churches and parishes in Scotland, the whole of the presentations hitherto vested in Her Majesty and others shall be vested in the Lord High Commissioner to the general assembly, who shall exercise this right to present to vacancies, subject to the feelings and wishes of the congregation,"

said, he was unfortunately obliged to go back to the past history of the Church of Scotland, because without bearing in mind the circumstances of former years, they could not possibly understand those of the present day. The Reformation brought about a desire in Scotland to be free from the corruptions of the Church of Rome. Not only was freedom of worship established in Scotland, but the people rose up strongly against all opposition. In 1561, the Church was independent, and exercised all her rights, including that of presenting ministers. That continued until the year 1638, when, under the Stuarts, the Church came into bondage, and so remained until 1649. In that year, an Act was passed, distinctly giving the Church the right to nominate its own ministers. The Church was free until 1661, when, with the Restoration of the Stuarts, evil days came again. In 1689 the Stuarts were expelled from Scotland, and in the following year, the Presbyterian Church became entirely free. From that time up to 1712, the Church exercised every power which a free Church ought to exercise. They had the right to choose their own ministers. Again in 1712, an unfortunate Act was passed under the government of Queen Anne, giving certain parties the right to impose on the Church of Scotland whatever ministers they wished, and the Church had never ceased to complain of the tyranny of that Act. At that time, the Church of Scotland was quiescent under that Act; but in the early part of this century, they raised themselves up to try and free themselves from oppression, and in 1833 an endeavour was made in the House of Commons to repeal the Act of Queen Anne; but unfortunately, Sir Robert Peel was successful in preventing the rescinding of the Act. No one could read the debates of that period without coming to the conclusion that the Church of Scotland had invariably been staunch to the principles of the Act of Queen Anne. It was moved in the General Assembly, however, that the Scotch people should have the right of veto on the ministers presented to them. That was in operation for five years. The civil Courts were then called upon to interfere, and they saw that the Veto Act was illegal. Prom that time, various attempts were made to give back to the Church of Scotland the right to nominate her own ministers, but unfortunately all the efforts failed. The Free Church of Scotland had now been in operation 30 years, and during that time, her congregations had exercised the right of selecting their own ministers. With that example before them, he thought it right to come and ask the House that, instead of accepting the various provisions of the Bill of the Lord Advocate, they should give back to the people of Scotland, the right of fixing the mode in which their ministers should be selected. It was true the Bill of the Lord Advocate proposed to give them that right; but he held that this House had no right to dictate to the people of Scotland the manner in which they should nominate their ministers, and to that part of the Bill he distinctly objected. He would therefore ask the Lord Advocate to consider the Amendment he had to propose, which would give to the General Assembly the right to decide the manner in which they would elect their own ministers, and would then give to the people of Scotland an expression of opinion as to the mode in which that right should be exercised.

I must inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that I have had an opportunity of consulting the highest authorities in the House as to the language of the Amendment, and I must tell him and the Committee, that the first sentence being unusual, unprecedented, and irregular, I cannot put it to the Committee. It has never been the practice of Parliament to make recommendations to other bodies, but to enact laws; and I can only put to the Committee the latter part of the Amendment—the operative part.

said, in that case, he would propose the latter part of his Amendment, to leave out from "repealed" to "thereanent," and insert the following:—

"It is hereby provided that, pending the consultations of the general assembly in communication with the various kirk sessions, presbyteries, and provincial synods of the presbyterian churches, in settling the rule for naming, proposing, electing, and appointing ministers to churches and parishes in Scotland, the whole of the presentations hitherto vested in Her Majesty and others shall be vested in the Lord High Commissioner to the general assembly, who shall exercise this right to present to vacancies, subject to the feelings and wishes of the congregation."

The hon. and gallant Member was quite right in having voted against the second reading of the Bill, if he intended to propose this Amendment, for it is quite inconsistent with the purport and tenour of the Bill. I was as surprised that he objected to the second reading of the Bill, because last Session, he said that he would vote for the abolition of patronage. It is, however, quite out of the question that an Amendment of this kind can be adopted by the Committee. The Amendment is apparently of this character—patronage is to be repealed nominally or provisionally, or in some way which I do not understand, and the Lord High Commissioner, representing Her Majesty is to have the whole of the patronage placed in his hands, at least, until the General Assembly of the Established Church shall have made arrangements with the other Presbyterian Churches. But with respect to that, I regret to say that we have had no encouragement to enter into consultation with those Churches. In the month of April, before the Bill was brought forward, there were meetings in Glasgow and Edinburgh of the two principal Dissenting Presbyteries, and there the Free Church and the other ministers intimated that they could have no communication with the Government in reference to the question of the abolition of patronage. Therefore, it would be vain for us to approach those Churches; and although I hope matters may mend in this respect, I regret to say that, so far as any open declaration on their part is concerned, we have had hitherto no encouragement. We are, however, sincerely desirous that there should be a reconciliation of the Presbyterian Churches, and I wish to avoid using any language which might produce an irritating effect, or tend to prevent that good feeling which I trust will yet exist between the Established Church and the other Presbyterian Churches. It has been stated that the question of disestablishment has been raised in consequence of the introduction of this Bill; but that question of disestablishment was raised last year, before there was any discussion in this House in reference to the abolition of patronage. I am sorry to say that a majority of the members of the United Presbyterian Church had declared for disestablishment then, and have declared for it now. Then, further, the Free Church, before there was any movement of this kind in reference to patronage—I mean in Parliament—contended for the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. I think it must be obvious, therefore, that to stop the progress of the Bill until we have had communications with the Churches to which I have just alluded would be not only useless, but a waste of time. We are now trying in the interest of the Church of Scotland to get patronage removed, and I do not see how those who maintain that popular election is the proper mode of electing ministers can oppose such a measure. When we have got rid of patronage in the Established Church all Churches will so far be on a footing of equality, and a barrier which now exists will have been removed. I submit that the proper course for the Committee to pursue is to negative this Amendment.

said, if he were a Churchman he should certainly object to the transfer of the power of electing the minister to a new body not known in Scotland. In Scotland the communicants were regarded as the only congregation. They looked to no Act of Parliament to confer on them that right; but they looked to the charter which was conferred on them by the Founder of Christianity Himself.

suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "shall," and to insert the words "is hereby declared to."

What is the effect of the Amendment?

The congregations of Scotland do not like the Act of Parliament to declare a right which they believe they possess already.

It appears to me that this Amendment is to declare what the law of Scotland is in regard to the power vested in the communicants and other members of the congregation. The hon. Member desires not that we should give the power, but to declare that it now exists in the Church of Scotland.

Before the Act of Queen Anne was passed, the right of presentation was in the communicants and members of the congregation. [Mr. LEIH: No; the congregation only.] In the congregation, which included the communicants. I do not see anything material in the Amendment, but I am not inclined to oppose it.

said, that if the Amendment referred to the state of things previous to the passing of the Act of Queen Anne, it effectually stopped all the Amendments of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friends around him, with reference to the constitution of the elective body.

said, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Leith) objected to the Amendment, because the previous Acts did not mention communicants as forming the congregation. If the House intended that the ratepayers should have the right, then he thought it would be inconsistent to put the Amendment; but he thought they should take a division to settle whether the ratepayers were to have the right.

said, he was rather perplexed with the explanation, but he understood that the Bill was to make a change in the existing law. By the existing law the right of nominating ministers was vested in the patron. They repealed that, and intended to vest it in the communicants and congregation; but he understood the Lord Advocate to say that by the simple repeal of the Act of Queen Anne, things went back to their former state, and vested it in the congregation. Now, by Lord Aberdeen's Act, the right of patrons was continued, but subject to the rights of congregations. That was existing law.

Lord Aberdeen's Act is repealed, as well as the Act of Queen Anne.

denied that the word "Church" would represent the true state of the case, because the Act of 1690 gave the election to heritors and elders. Now, they admitted the heritors here; but beyond that, it would be an unfair proceeding to shut out the Committee from discussing the Amendment by inserting a few words which nobody understood the meaning of.

failed to see that the Act of 1690 gave the people of Scotland a satisfactory right to have a voice in the election of ministers.

remarked that the clause as it stood was an enacting clause. The proposition of the hon. Member for Dumbarton would make it merely a declaratory clause.

was of opinion that the Act of 1690 did not give the heritors or elders a right of presenting a minister to a parish, but merely the right of proposing one. That meaning of the Act was laid down by the official representing the Lord Advocate of that day, and the objection of respectable parishioners was held good.

admitted that there was no doubt patronage was abolished by the Act in question, but it did not follow that it was transferred to the public. That was one of the evils which the friends of the Established Church had to complain of.

contended that the Act of 1690 did not make the Church of Scotland free. It certainly gave the heritors and elders influence over other electors, and that was what had been complained of. At the same time, he did not think the House of Commons should dictate to the people of Scotland as to how they should elect their ministers.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, after "vested in" to insert "the ratepayers of the parish along with," said, he hoped he should not be considered hostile to the Bill in taking that course. As it at present stood, it appeared to him to be of a very sectarian character, and the object of his Amendment was to make it as broad as possible. The Bill was not to abolish patronage, but to transfer it from one somewhat narrow body to another still narrower body. He wished to provide that in making that transference from one body to another, care should be taken that the body to which the patronage was to be transferred should be at least as national as that from which patronage was to be taken. The Bill as it now stood would not do so. The object of his Amendment was to make the constituency somewhat broader than that by adding the ratepayers to the electing body. Indeed, there were others who, in his opinion, ought to be added, although it might be difficult to constitute such an enlarged body, for there were many members of congregations who were not ratepayers who ought to have some say in the nomination to the pulpit. In this country, as well as in Scotland, much was left in the working of the parishes to females, and he thought it entirety wrong not to give them a fair share in the election of clergymen. He should be glad to vote for any Amendment which would make the Bill wider than it was, and there were many Amendments of that kind on the Paper. But on the whole he thought his own Amendment was the best, as it was the broadest, and he therefore moved it.

said, the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) at first sight was very taking; but a little consideration showed that it would be ridiculous to entertain it for a single moment, and not only that, but the other Amendments to which the hon. Member referred. If ratepayers were allowed to have a direct voice in the election of clergymen, every one who had any knowledge of Scotland knew that there would be nothing but confusion and turmoil in such elections. Besides, it was a proposition that no other religious or irreligious community would submit to. What would the Roman Catholics say, if Protestants were to get the legal right to appoint the clergymen of their churches; and what would the other Presbyterian denominations say if members of the Established Church were to claim the right to elect the ministers of their Church? This was a question which referred to the Established Church of Scotland only, and though she would be willing to take in any other Church, or any other persons who would come into her fold, it would not be right to thrust upon her those who had shown towards her dislike, if not hatred, and who might put into the ministry clergymen inimical to her interests. ["No, no!"] What happened at the time of the Disruption, when party spirit ran high? Town councils are said to have taken great pains and trouble to put into the Church pulpits clergymen who were inimical to and hostile to the Church of Scotland. The whole nation had a right to the services of the Established Church; but they would not give the Established Church into the hands of her enemies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, on the second reading, completely passed over that part of the subject. He never sup-posed the possibility of such a thing taking place. He (Mr. Stewart) maintained that no sensible person in that House who entertained a comprehensive view of the Church of Scotland would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow.

said, he must oppose the Amendment, but not on the same grounds as the last speaker, and certainly not on the ground that no sensible man would propose such an Amendment. His motive was his utter objection to a ratepaying constituency as being unsuitable. The great object he had in view in supporting the Bill was to try to conciliate other Churches; and if anything was eminently calculated to have the very reverse effect, it would be the introduction of a ratepaying constituency. He desired to make the body entrusted with that power as ecclesiastical as possible.

said, he was of opinion that if such a power as that proposed in the Amendment were given to the ratepayers, they might elect a minister who might be of some denomination different from that of the Church, or of no denomination whatever, which could not but be regarded as an insult to the Established Church of Scotland. He objected to the Bill altogether, but would certainly vote against the Amendment.

said, every hon. Member who knew the Highland parishes was acquainted with the fact, that in the Highlands there was a particular prejudice against taking the Sacrament, and it was only on particular occasions it was partaken of, and therefore there were very communicants in those districts. He however would repeat what he said on the occasion of the second reading, that the Bill was a matter of internal organization with which Dissenters had nothing to do. They had no right to say that United Presbyterians had a right to choose their own ministers, and to deny Churchmen the same right. If the Amendment were passed, there would be a danger of swamping the Established Church, and the game on the other side would be "Heads, I win, tails, you lose."

said, that amongst other questions raised was this—"What is a Dissenter?" In England, they knew very well what a Dissenter was, and they knew what it was in Ireland also; but in Scotland, there were no Dissenters, and therefore the term was not so well understood. They had the Free Kirk and the United Presbyterians; but there was no difference either in their creed or worship, and they went out from the Established Church merely on the question of patronage. As there were as many as seven Amendments on the Paper, each fixing a different constituency for the election of the ministers, and each evincing a dissatisfaction at the narrowness of its existing scope, the Committee ought to choose that one which opened the door widest, so as to facilitate the return of the Free Church and the United Presbyterians into the body of the Established Church, now that patronage, the point on which they had separated, was done away with. They should choose that Amendment which would unite the greatest amount of support. He did not think the proposal to make the ratepayers the electoral body would meet with much support in Scotland, and therefore he would advise the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow to withdraw his Amendment. It was clear that the constituency must be a religious, a Congregational, a Presbyterian, or a Protestant constituency, and the Amendment which most fully answered those requirements was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther). All the three Churches he had mentioned were identical in doctrine and ceremonial, and would become identical in government, if they had the opportunity given to them to show a common interest in the selection of a minister.

hoped the discussion would not be allowed to range over the whole of the seven proposals, and therefore he would suggest that for the present it should be limited to the question of the ratepayers. He believed that there was a great objection to the Amendment on both sides of the House; and that it was as much opposed to the principles of the Free Church and of the united Presbyterians as it was to those of the Established Church. The object of the Bill was to put the Church of Scotland into the position in which she was originally. The general principle of all Presbyterian Churches, he understood, was that no minister should be imposed upon them simply by the nomination of a patron, but that the congregations should have the power of electing their ministers, and what they wanted by this Bill was to put the Church of Scotland on the same footing as the other denominations. If the Committee were to insert "ratepayers" in the clause, they would do that which no Presbyterian Body would do of themselves.

thought the hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his Amendment. The proposal was obviously an unpopular one at the present moment; but whilst he acknowledged that, he must say that it was not so monstrous as had been endeavoured to be made out by some hon. Members. He knew of churches in which it prevailed, and had not failed to provide them with a succession of excellent clergymen.

asked those who recognized the congregation as having rights, who were the congregation? For his own part he considered the seatowners constituted the congregation, independently of the sacramental test. Unless Her Majesty's Government could lay down some satisfactory test, he would rather take the Amendment of his hon. Friend, than have the matter decided by a purely ecclesiastical tribunal. He did so for this reason—in appointing a minister of a congregation they were not only dealing with an ecclesiastical matter, but they were raising a person to a considerable social position, and one which gave him considerable civil influence in his parish, and therefore it was important beyond the interests of the communicants that the appointment should be a good one. It was only right that those persons who had some influence in the parish should have some influence in the election. That fact was recognized by the right which the heritors possessed hitherto, independently of any ecclesiastical test. Why should the Committee say that any one who did not accept this religious test was necessarily an enemy, and would vote for the worst person possible?

said, if he had to choose one of the seven Amendments, he should certainly choose the one of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, for he considered it the right of every parishioner to vote for the election of minister. Its justice was shown by the fact that half of the people in Scotland did not belong to the Established Church. This, however, might be said against it, that in some instances the ratepayers might be a narrower constituency than the communicants.

said, he failed to discover that there was any virtue in a ratepayer, which entitled him to vote for the election of a minister. However much he desired to liberalize the electoral body, he could not see that it was possible to widen its basis; and he was disposed to agree with the Government that the best thing they could do was to leave the choice of the minister to those who were person-ally and directly interested in him, and who were to have the benefit of his ministrations.

said, it appeared to him that in a national Church, maintained with national funds, every in-habitant of a parish had something to do with the election of a minister, and should accordingly have a voice in the matter. However he did not wish to multiply divisions, and he would there-fore withdraw his Amendment.

, who had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert in line 2, after "vested in," "a committee consisting as to one-third of its number of heritors being Protestants, and as to the remaining two-thirds of," said, he would withdraw it, having been informed that it would place the patronage in the hands of the heritors, with the communicants and the members.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "the communicants," and insert "the seatholders," said that the only point in which his Amendment differed from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh was this—that it created what he thought was a very proper restriction of the operation of the clause to the heads of families.

I regret that I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me; nor, to say the truth, do I see a single Amendment on the Paper which I care to support. It seems, indeed, to me, that the fairest and justest course that can be taken by those who, like myself, disapprove of the Bill from beginning to end, and who made their protest against it by voting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, is to let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pass it, much in the form in which they have brought it in, merely expressing a hope that it will turn out a happier measure for Scotland than I fear it will.

approved of the Amendment, thinking that the seat-holders were the most proper persons in whom the power given by the clause could be vested. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire would come to an agreement upon the question under discussion.

suggested they should select one out of the seven similar Amendments and divide upon it to save time. By adopting that course a door might be opened to bring back the three great religious Bodies, which were one in doctrine and practice, into unity; and then the Bill would be a most useful one. After what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant Duff) had said, he (Mr. Horsman) wondered the hon. Member did not go to bed instead of sitting there. If by the Bill all came back to one Church the measure would be extremely creditable to the Government and very satisfactory to the House to pass.

said, the objection to seatholders was, that it would include heads of families and exclude the female members of those families. He concurred in the suggestion that it would be convenient if hon. Members would agree upon which of these Amendments, which were all alike in intention and very similar in language, they would support, and then the Committee could divide at once.

said, if the suggestion was adopted, he hoped the division would be taken, not on the substitution of seatholders for communicants, but on the addition of seatholders to communicants. It had always been the custom in the Church of Scotland to acknowledge the heritors; and by letting them into the Bill, they would not only restore the language of the old Acts, but make it more difficult to admit the Free Church again within its pale.

objected to the term seatholders, on the general ground that it would include the rich and might exclude the poor. His object in supporting the Bill was, that he thought it would pave the way to a general reconciliation.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 2, the omission of "communicants and other members of the," so as to leave the election vested in the "congregation."

said, he would accept the Amendment, subject to the subsequent definition of congregation.

said, in that case, he should move that the definition include seatholders.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, after "respectively," insert "and in the congregation of any other Protestant church or churches in the parish." He considered that as far as the Free Church were concerned, they went out of the Church in 1843 upon free principles; and the demand made by that Church, it was utterly impossible to assent to. They still remained out, and he (Sir Robert Anstruther) submitted that they should fall back upon the Act of 1690, when the ministers were elected by the congregations. He thought the Amendment would prove of immense benefit to the Establishment and would add greatly to its prosperity. Were the right to elect the ministers confined to members of the Established Church the Church would be open to the reproach of being a mere sect, but this would be removed by allowing all Presbyterian congregations to have a voice in the election of the parish minister.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would form an insurmountable barrier to the union of the Established and Free Churches of Scotland. He believed the General Assembly had a strong objection to it, and if they wanted a union with the Free Church, they must get them to come in in some other way.

said, he was also of opinion that the Amendment was impolitic and objectionable. It would not effect the object for which it was designed—the bringing back of the Nonconformists to the Establishment. He objected to it as an attempt to set up a sort of secondary Established Church in Scotland, over which the State would have no control. He also wished to know how Protestant Churches were to be defined, and where the line was to be drawn.

entered a protest on the part of the other Protestant Churches of Scotland against their having that duty of electing ministers of the Established Church thrust upon them. He was sure that it would be anything but satisfactory to them if the Amendment were carried.

thought that the Amendment would have the effect of rendering the Established Church more national than it was at present. He held that an Established Church kept up for a minority of the people was an established injustice. The people of Scotland were at that moment still Presbyterians.

said that the parish church in Scotland was open to every person in the parish, whereas the Dissenting church was only open to subscribers

said he heartily supported the Amendment as calculated to render the Established Church more national, and so to prevent her disestablishment; but he would suggest that the word "Presbyterian" should be substituted for "Protestant," as he thought his hon. Friend had made a mistake in using the latter term. They were now asked to legislate for a Church which was confessedly the Church of the minority, and they were asked to give that Church by new statutory enactment, fresh recognition and fresh power. That was a thing that was actually unprecedented in the annals of English legislation. They were bound to do all they could to make that Church popular, strong, and useful; but when they were asked to take statutory action, and give further power to it as a national Church, they were placed in a false position. He should support the Amendment, believing that if they passed the Bill in its present form, they would make the majority of the nation enemies to Establishment.

said, the Amendment was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The measure was intended to abolish patronage in the Established Church of Scotland; but that Amendment would set up a system of external patronage in that Church in its worst form. The hon. Member for Fife could hardly be in earnest in proposing that all the Protestant Bodies in Scotland should elect the ministers of the Church of Scotland. The different Presbyterian Bodies were not on such terms of friendship as would make them act together cordially in the election of ministers, although he trusted the time would come when they would do so. But if anything more than another could tend to retard that result, it would be anything like au attempt to force a mode of electing their ministers on the Scotch people. The nearer allied sects were to each other, the greater often was their hostility, just as the quarrels between brothers were the bitterest. By trying to force the Presbyterian Churches to come together by pressure from without, Parliament was likely to do more harm than good.

supported the Amendment, the adoption of which would, he believed, induce many persons to withdraw their opposition to that measure. He did not believe that the proposal of his hon. Friend would compel any one to take part in the election of ministers. By creating discontent among the Dissenting Bodies of Scotland, that Bill, as it stood, would undermine the position of the Established Church, and the day was not far distant when they would combine to attack her. In order to pre-vent that eventuality, the object they had in view was to restore patronage to where it ought to be, so as to smooth over the difficulty and re-unite the ancient Church of Scotland. The bitter feeling which was said to exist between the Free Church and the Church of Scotland was never heard of till the pro-sent Bill was before the House.

, although sympathizing to a considerable extent with the object of the hon. Member for Fife, and being anxious for agreement among the different Presbyterian Churches, yet felt himself unable to accept that Amendment. If he had made such a proposal himself, he might have been accused of offering the other Churches a bribe to bring them over. From communications he had held with them he believed that members of the Free Church did not want the privilege which the Amendment would give them and that they concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay).

wished for a more precise definition of the term "seatholder," so as to limit it to regular attendants. At present, therefore, he could not support the Amendment.

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

thought that if the clause was to be amended, it should be by adding the words "heritors" or "ratepayers," and not in the manner proposed.

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, lines 3 and 4, after "respectively," to insert "and also in the inhabitants generally of the said parishes, being ratepayers and members of any of the congregations of Protestant Churches in Scotland," said his Amendment differed in form, but was identical in principle with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fife just withdrawn. In conjunction with the proposition, he desired to embody the condition that the selection of ministers should be extended to licentiates or ministers of any of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland.

said, that the question had already been disposed of, involving as it did, the extension of the electoral body to "ratepayers" and "other Protestant Communions," each head having been proposed and rejected by the Committee. For that reason, he could not accept it.

moved, as an Amendment in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "and the courts" to "thereof," in line 22, inclusive. The object was to deprive the Church Courts of the power of finally settling all questions connected with and arising out of the appointment of any minister thereof.

opposed the Amendment. The Bill abolished the civil rights of election, and to the Church Courts ought to be given the power of settling disputes which might arise under the new system of election.

thought that all fighting in the Church Courts should be put an end to, and therefore supported the Amendment.

would vote in favour of the Amendment. He thought it dangerous to allow the Church Courts such supreme power as was given by the Bill.

thought the simplest process to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion would be to repeal the Act of Queen Anne.

protested against the exemption of national property from the influence of the Civil Courts.

said, that as under the Bill as it now stood, there would be no appeals if civil right should be interfered with, he must take the sense of the Committee upon his proposal. He considered that the effect of the clause would be to set up a sacerdotal usurpation.

hoped that the hon. Member would allow the clause to pass.

, moved as an Amendment, in page 2, line 5, to omit the words from "London" to the word "Middlesex" in line 8. The hon. Member said his reason for doing so was, that these tramways were generally objected to by the inhabitants of the metropolis.

said, he had visited the locality, and saw no objection to the proposed extension.

said, the tramways had been approved of by the local authorities, and a Committee of Parliament, and on those grounds he should oppose the Amendment.