:^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^^
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OP 
 
 HIS GRACE THE, DUKE OF AEGYLL 
 
 ON 
 
 THE CHUECH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL 
 
 2d and 10th JU:N"E 1874. 
 
 {Reprinted from the * Times .') 
 
 2d JUNE 1874. 
 
 My Lords, — As I was not able to be present when my noble friend 
 opposite introduced this Bill, and when several noble lords were able 
 to express their opinions on it, I hope the House will aUow me to 
 take this opportunity of stating the point of view from which I have 
 come to regard this question of the Church Patronage. 
 
 It is now several years — twelve or fourteen years, I think — since 
 some leading ministers and other members of the Church of Scotland 
 began to make up their mind that some alterations of the patronage, 
 as regulated by what is called Lord Aberdeen's Act, was necessary for 
 the welfare of the Established Church of Scotland ; and, my lords, as 
 I had the honour to be among the three members of your lordships' 
 House who had the largest number of patronages, possessing, as we 
 did, no fewer than ninety among us, and as I was the only one of 
 the three who was a member of the Church, and also a member of the 
 Government, those gentlemen applied to me for some expression of 
 opinion and advice on the subject. I stated that, as regarded my 
 own patronage, it was entirely at the disposal of the Church ; that it 
 was more of a burden than a privilege to me, and that it could only 
 be exercised in the spirit of the change which they desired ; and that, 
 as for myself, I should offer no opposition to the abolition of patron- 
 age. In consequence of what had passed between myself and those 
 gentlemen, I put myself in communication with the noble duke oppo- 
 site (the Duke of Richmond) and the late Lord Zetland, who, with 
 myself, held the largest number of patronages ; and I found that,
 
 without pledging themselves to any measure for the abolition of 
 patronage, they felt very much as I did as regarded the desirabihty 
 of a satisfactory settlement of the question. 
 
 But, my lords, I also became aware that in respect to a substitute 
 for the existing system of patronage there was a great difference of 
 opinion, and I satisfied myself that the time had not come for the 
 abolition of patronage. My advice to the leaders of the Church was 
 this : — " Avoid coming to Parliament for anything if you can help it. 
 However just in itself may be what you desire, or however useful for 
 the Church, avoid coming to Parliament." 
 
 Why did I give this advice ? Because I had arrived at the con- 
 clusion that all questio!ns relating to the connection between Church 
 and State were in a state of absolute chaos. I think the most Eev. 
 Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is now having some experi- 
 ence as to the confused state of the public mind on all questions re- 
 lating to Church Establishments. Bishops without jurisdiction, clergy 
 without discipline, churches without government, and religion with- 
 out theological opinion — these appear to be the devoutest aspirations 
 of some public writers. I hear of propositions being thrust upon the 
 Established Church of Scotland from without which would be fatal 
 to her. I have read of proposals that her ministers should be elected, 
 not by those who adhere to her, but by those who are her avowed 
 enemies. I was afraid that if the Established Church of Scotland 
 came to Parliament she would not get what she really wanted, but 
 would have thrust upon her some measure, in the name of reform, 
 which would prove fatal to her. I was afraid that, for instance, the 
 proposition now talked of in the country would be made — namely, 
 that her ministers should be elected, not by those who adhere to her, 
 but by those who are her avowed enemies. 
 
 Then, my lords, I thought that the late Parliament was a 
 peculiarly unfavourable one for dealing with this question. It was 
 elected under the impulse that gave rise to the disestablishment of 
 the Irish Church. The Government which proposed the disestab- 
 lishment of that Church did not do so on the ground that there was 
 an objection to all Church Establishments. It is true that some 
 members of the late Ministry entertained feelings against all Church 
 Establishments, which they never disguised; but the late Govern- 
 ment never hesitated to express their opinion that the measure for the 
 disestablishment of the Irish Church was founded on the special 
 conditions of Ireland, and afforded no precedent for a similar measure 
 in respect of England or of Scotland. That declaration on the part 
 of the late Government was made with the most perfect truth ; but 
 the atmosphere of the late Parliament was unfavourable to Established 
 Churches. There were many members elected by large constituencies 
 who were shy of the subject — who would have been shy of assisting 
 to pass measures for amending and improving Established Churches. 
 It is not the existence of a particular Government ; it is the atmos- 
 phere which prevails in Parliament, and in the constituencies through- 
 out the country, which makes these measures possible ; and I think
 
 3 
 
 the time has now come when men ought to make distinct declarations 
 on these subjects. 
 
 And, my lords, for myself I say that I see nothing liberal in 
 the policy of Disestablishment. On the whole, Established Churches 
 are more liberal than disestablished ones. If they have any fault in 
 that way it is an inclination to be liberal and comprehensive almost 
 to indifference. I see nothing connected with Liberal politics in a 
 general policy of disestablishment. I hold that the question of 
 Church Establishment is entirely a question of circumstances. I do 
 not believe in the abstract duty of the State to establish Churches, 
 nor do I believe it is the duty of Churches to in all cases accept 
 establishment. It is entirely a question of the circumstances of the 
 social condition of the country, but I do believe that where the 
 social conditions of the country are compatible with an Established 
 Church, they are higher and happier than those which are incom- 
 patible with it. I wish to approach everything connected with this 
 subject with a desire to do good to the Established Churches of this 
 country. 
 
 These remarks on the abstract question are not irrelevant ; they 
 are infinitely more relevant than the musty Acts of Parliament and 
 old documents quoted by my noble friend. Now, it is avowed by 
 foes and friends that this measure is for the strengthening of the 
 Established Church. It is proposed^ by the Government for that 
 purpose, and it is opposed by others because it tends to strengthen an 
 Established Church. I am in favour of it on that ground alone, 
 provided it is otherwise just and expedient ; others are against it on 
 that ground alone, whether it is just and expedient or not. That is 
 the whole difference between those who support and those who 
 oppose it. 
 
 Coming to the measure itself, I think my noble friend (the Duke of 
 Richmond) is perfectly right in including the principle of compensa- 
 tion to patrons. It is often said that patronage ought not to be 
 deemed a right of property, but a trust ; but there is no essential 
 opposition between the two terms. There may be a right of property 
 which is a trust, and a trust which is a right of property. Patronage 
 in the eye of the law is a right of property, transmitted to heirs and 
 purchasable in the market, yet it is generally recognised as a trust for 
 public purposes. Patronage had probably the same origin in England 
 and in Scotland, but since the Eeformation it has been wholly dif- 
 ferent in the two countries. The only complaint I make is that in 
 assigning one year's stipend of the living as the compensation, my 
 noble friend is giving patrons very much more than they could ever 
 get in the market. 
 
 Patronage in Scotland, ever since the Reformation, has been a right 
 qualified by many and great limitations — at one time, by the distinct 
 declaration on the part of the Church and the Government that 
 nobody was to be intruded on parishioners against their will ; at 
 another, by a very large discretionary power on the part of the Church 
 Courts to consider objections by the public, and to reject a presentee if
 
 unqualified for the particular parish. iN'ever since 1560 has it been 
 the unqualified and absolute right which exists in England, and the 
 qualifications were so serious that patronage practically became un- 
 saleable. Who would give money for a right of presentation which 
 might be checkmated at any moment by the wishes of the people or 
 the decision of the Church Court 1 I hardly ever hear of livings 
 being sold at all. No doubt, when an estate is sold, patronage is 
 constantly transferred with the estate, and may sometimes be con- 
 sidered in the price. There have been cases, too — one in my own 
 experience — of the exchange of patronage, but I have never heard of 
 their being sold for money ; and if they were, they would bring next 
 to nothing. The last time it was tried, by an Act declaring that the 
 l^atronage of the Edinburgh churches might be bought, nobody would 
 bid, and another Act was passed giving the patronage to the bodies 
 desired without any compensation to the patrons. I will read some 
 of the objections to a presentee which have been sustained under 
 Lord Aberdeen's Act. I suppose we may divide ministers into those 
 who are not very able and those who are very able and eloquent, 
 and it is possible under that Act to reject both. Here is a finding 
 fatal to a dull, ordinary preacher : — 
 
 "His sermons are confused and ill-arranged, and do not exhibit such an 
 exposition and illustration of divine truth as are fitted to edify the people of 
 BanflF." 
 
 That was conclusive against the presentee, and on an appeal to the 
 General Assembly it verified and adopted these objections. What 
 value would English patrons put on their patronage if everybody 
 whose sermons were pronounced "confused and ill-arranged" were 
 rejected 1 There are several other cases of the same kind, and I quote 
 from official documents. Here is one : — 
 
 *'The trial discourses preached by the presentee were Hi-deduced and un- 
 edifying." 
 
 Here is another : — 
 
 "That the discourses were not edifying ; that the subjects for the most part 
 were disconnected with the texts, and that the discourses themselves were not 
 connected one part with another." 
 
 What percentage of the clergy might not be rejected if such were the 
 state of the law in England ? This is how the rather dull men are 
 got rid of; but there is another way in which able men — men too 
 clever by half, who do not suit the people — are treated. Here is a 
 finding of the General Assembly : — 
 
 " That the style of the discourses preached by the presentee in terms of the 
 order of Presbytery is confused and bombastic, and that the general character 
 of these dicourses is fitted to produce the impression that the object of them 
 was rather to display the rhetorical powers of the preacher than to present 
 correct views and inculcate sound lessons upon his hearers." 
 
 That is the mode of getting rid of eloquent men. Fifty thousand 
 objections of the same character might be and would be conclusive in
 
 the minds of the Church Courts when they think the presentee un- 
 acceptable to the people. The Church Courts are placed in a very 
 injurious position as regards the presentee, and hard and unfair as re- 
 gards themselves. It is fatal to the presentee, because a man with 
 such a sentence upon him becomes at once a marked man all over 
 Scotland ; he can never hope for another living ; and it is unjust to 
 the Church Courts, because it places them under duress of conscience 
 to find out objections to a man's sermons when the real objection is 
 that he is unacceptable. 
 
 Under these circumstances one year's stipend is infinitely more than 
 the patron can get in the market ; but my noble friend is, neverthe- 
 less, perfectly right in adopting the principle of compensation, and I 
 will not quarrel with the Bill on that account, especially as there is a 
 statutory precedent. I only wish to point out to those connected 
 with English patronage that no precedent can be founded upon this 
 Bill, the past history and present incidents of patronage in the two 
 countries being totally different. 
 
 My noble friend Lord Minto, who is not able to attend our debates, 
 has addressed a letter to a morning paper, in which he objects that the 
 abolition of patronage dissolves the only connection between the 
 Church and the nation. That is a very popular objection with many, 
 especially with persons belonging to my own political party, and it 
 raises the question — In what does the connection between the Church 
 and the nation consist '? My lords, I should have believed that the 
 fact of the Westminster Confession of Faith being embodied in Acts 
 of Parliament as the only confession of faith known to the law in 
 Scotland, that the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Church in all 
 her courts by the Civil Law, that the enforcing of all her decisions 
 within her own legitimate province by the Civil Law, and above all 
 the fact that the nation is represented by a large infusion of the laity 
 in her General Assemblies — to such a large extent that every one of 
 the Royal Burghs of Scotland has as such a right to send a member 
 to the General Assembly — I should have thought that all these facts, 
 irrespective altogether of her ancient history, would have constituted 
 a connection between the Church of Scotland and the State. 
 
 And now may I ask the noble marquis opposite (the Marquis of 
 Salisbury) to lend me for a moment "the enlightened foreigner" 
 whom he first introduced to your lordships' notice 1 Suppose that 
 enlightened foreigner were instructed in the history of the Scottish 
 Church, in the character of an Established Church, and in the laws 
 which constitute an Established Church ; suppose he were told by my- 
 self or any other patron, by my noble friend Lord Minto himself, of 
 these facts — that her confession of faith is adopted by law, that her 
 courts are recognised and their jurisdiction enforced by the law, do 
 you suppose he would think that these are not things which constitute 
 a connection between Church and State, but that such connection de- 
 pends on the fact that two or three hundred gentlemen like me have 
 the right of presenting to patronage 1 What would the enlightened 
 foreigner think of this grave proposition, put before the public by a
 
 Peer of Scotland — that if patronage were abolished, the only connec- 
 tion between Church and State was also abolished 1 
 
 The fact is, my lords, though the law of patronage has been kept 
 up from time to time, it has been essentially an excrescence, an extra- 
 neous element ; and notwithstanding the desire of patrons to act in 
 conformity with the spirit of the people, nevertheless it is an histori- 
 cal fact that it has been a cause of dissension in the Church of Scot- 
 land. 
 
 I now come to another part of the Bill of my noble friend, which is 
 in the minds of many the real difficulty of this measure, and that is 
 the proposed substitute for patronage. My noble friend proposes that 
 the right of patronage, or more properly the right of selection of the 
 ministers, shall be vested in the communicants of the parish. Now, 
 there are two parties who object to this constituent body — parties who 
 come from nearly opposite directions, but who unite in an objection 
 to the word " communicant." There are on the one hand those who 
 are disposed to that particular mode of defining the congregation ; 
 there are on the other those who object to confining the election to 
 the congregation at all. I shall deal with these two objections 
 separately. With the first objection I have, I confess, a very large 
 amount of sympathy. In the old Acts of the Scotch Parliament 
 which express the mind of Parliament upon the rights of the people 
 in this matter, the word used is never " communicant," but always 
 " congregation." Down even to Lord Aberdeen's Act, the word " con- 
 gregation " is always used, never " communicant." But then I beg 
 your lordships to remember that in the old times when those statutes 
 were passed, the assumption of the law was — and it was a true assump- 
 tion — that every man in the parish was a member of the congregation, 
 and that every member of the congregation was a communicant. The 
 word "congregation" meant then more than it does now. 
 
 But here a difficulty arises, and I beg the House to remember it, in 
 justice to my noble friend opposite, and in justice to the Bill. In 
 dealing with an Established Church, with a legal position which is to 
 be acquired in a certain definite manner cognisable by law, you require 
 some legal definition of the constituent body. A non-Established 
 Church, a free Church, escapes the difficulty of legal definition. The 
 Government were in this difficulty. You must either take the defini- 
 tion of a congregation which is usual in the Presbyterian Churches, 
 or you must adopt a new definition of your own, or do without any 
 definition at aU, and leave the matter to the ratepayer — a course to 
 which I have a decided objection. There is a suggestion, however, I 
 would venture to make. I think it is desirable to put in the old 
 word " congregation," the word used in the various old statutes ; but 
 you may evade the difficulty of Parliamentary definition by placing 
 the definition in the hands of the General Assembly. They are dis- 
 posed to include everybody they can include. The ordinary use and 
 wont of the Presbyterian Churches is undoubtedly to appeal to the 
 communicants. But there are many persons from year's end to year's 
 end in communion with the Church, but not actual communicants,
 
 who would in many cases be considered by the Church Courts as 
 members of the congregation. I do not know whether the suggestion 
 I have made can be worked out in an Act of Parliament, but this I 
 will say — it is in strict^ constitutional conformity with the feeling of 
 the Parliament towards the Church of Scotland. It is a curious fact 
 that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which has such 
 large statutory j)owers, has never been defined by Act of Parliament. 
 Old Acts of Parliament speak of it as an existing body, and when 
 they refer to the General Assembly of the Church they always speak 
 of it as " the General Assembly appointed by said Church.^' I would, 
 therefore, suggest to my noble friend to see whether before we go into 
 Committee the word " congregation " could not be substituted. 
 
 I pass now to the other alternative, which has been supported by a 
 number of distinguished men — and that is, that you should give the 
 election of the ministers of the Established Church to the ratepayers, 
 whether Roman Catholics, Dissenters, Jews, or anybody else. I am 
 not one of those who hold any extreme views on the subject of spiri- 
 tual independence. But this I will say — that whatever liberty is left 
 to an Established Church must be a liberty exercised by its own 
 members, and not by the members of hostile communions. To do 
 otherwise would be to introduce absolute confusion into an organised 
 and constituted society, to deprive it of all terms of membership, and 
 to allow the highest functions of the body to be exercised by those 
 who not only do not belong to it, but who say they will never 
 belong to it, and that they desire its destruction. And is it conceiv- 
 able, is it possible, that members of the Liberal Party, in the name 
 of liberality, after objecting to the intrusion of ministers upon congre- 
 gations by lay patrons — who, after all, are men in high position, and 
 who act in a spirit of responsibility — is it possible, I say, that they 
 would allow the consciences of congregations to be violated by ma- 
 jorities of ratepayers who may not possibly be members of a Christian 
 Church 1 If the time should ever come when the individual branches 
 of the Church of Christ are unable to ally themselves with the State 
 without having this element of confusion forced upon them in the 
 name of liberality, I for one shall then be in favour of disestablish- 
 ment, and shall desire to see all Churches in the position of free and 
 independent Churches. 
 
 I wish now to say a few words in regard to another theory which 
 is made a ground of opposition to the Bill of my noble friend. It is 
 said, — " The minister is now the minister of the parish, but you would 
 make him the minister of a sect," and this phrase is repeated from 
 mouth to mouth without men perceiving what it really means. In 
 what sense is the minister the minister of the parish 1 I remember 
 that many years ago my right' rev. friend Dr Wilberforce, then Bishop 
 of Oxford, opposed the " Papal Aggression," as it was then termed, 
 on this ground, among others — namely, that the Bishop of every 
 diocese had an inalienable right to the allegiance of all persons dwell- 
 ing within a certain geographical area. At the time I ventured very 
 humbly to enter my protest against that ground of opposition to the
 
 8 
 
 " Papal Aggression," and I still maintain that whether this claim be 
 advanced by bishops, by priests, or by ministers, it involves a gross 
 confusion of thought. A. bishop or a minister is not the bishop or 
 minister of every man in a diocese or parish, but only of those who 
 choose to come to him and who require his ministrations. Any 
 other definition of territorial jurisdiction makes religious belief what 
 has been called a "geographical expression." 
 
 And now I come to the practical working on which my noble friend 
 who has just sat down dwelt to a considerable extent. My noble 
 friend says, " You will have all the evils of a popular election in every 
 parish." In England I am aware that the popular election of ministers 
 does often produce considerable confusion ; but in England it is the 
 old constitutional system that the people shall in one form or another 
 have a decided voice in the selection of their ministers. They are 
 accustomed to the exercise of that power, and after twenty-five years 
 of experience in regard to patronage, 1 say, in answer to my noble 
 friend, that the ministers whom I have allowed the congregation to 
 select have been uniformly satisfactory. I can say more. At first I 
 used not to consult the congregations so generally as I do now j but I 
 must admit that the ministers selected by them have on the whole 
 been better men and more satisfactory ministers than those whom I 
 presented myself. I assert that the habits of the people of Scotland 
 enable them to exercise this privilege with success. It is exercised 
 in the unestablished churches, and why should it not be also exer- 
 cised in the Established Church ? At this moment there is a vacancy 
 in a parish of which I am patron, and w^hich is in the Vale of Leven, 
 at the foot of Loch Lomond. Well, I could no more present any 
 man I liked to that congregation than I could fly to the moon. The 
 course I have taken when vacancies occurred was to consult my friend 
 Mr Stoddart on the subject, and I found that the congregation had 
 better facilities than I had for finding out who were the best candi- 
 dates. I have been astonished at a paper signed by Dr Cook, the 
 leader of a small minority who are opposed to this Bill. It states 
 that the people have not the same opportunity as a patron of finding 
 out the qualifications of presentees. My opinion is that the people are 
 much better qualified than the patrons. There is nothing worse than 
 forming a judgment from testimonials, and your lordships must remem- 
 ber that the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland do not oc- 
 cupy so high a social position as the clergy of the Established Church of 
 England. Many of your lordships have personal friendships formed 
 at Oxford or Cambridge with clergymen whom they know to be men 
 of the highest Christian character ; but we have not, generally speak- 
 ing, the same personal knowledge of the presentees in the Church of 
 Scotland. Consequently we must rely to a great extent on the testi- 
 mony of others, and I have usually found that such testimony is en- 
 tirely unsatisfactory. 
 
 I now wish to say a few words on the conduct of the General As- 
 semblies of the other Presbyterian Churches, and in the first place, I 
 beg your Lordships to observe that none of them have petitioned
 
 against this Bill. They have violently abused the Govern- 
 ment for venturing to introduce it, but they have not themselves 
 ventured to oppose it. The finding of the Free Church is the most 
 comical document I ever read. I will not trouble your Lordships 
 with the words, but it aihounts to this : — " We have nothing to say 
 to the merits of this Bill. We do not feel that we have any business 
 with it. As regards the interests of the Established Church, and how 
 far it will promote those interests, we do not consider ourselves en- 
 titled to express an oj^inion." And then they proceed to remark, 
 " As regards the general welfare of Scotland, however, we have a right 
 to say something ; " and then they remark that it is extremely unbe- 
 coming of the House of Lords to consider a Bill for advancing the 
 interests of the Established Church without first consulting them — 
 although they have nothing to do with it. 
 
 Neither the Free Church nor the United Presbyterian Church 
 have ventured to oppose this Bill, because they know it is in general 
 unison with the whole feelings of the people of Scotland, and that it 
 is precisely the solution of the difficulty as regards the election of 
 the ministers which they have themselves adopted. There is no hope 
 whatever of the reunion of the Free and Established Churches, except 
 on the ground of disestablishment, for, independently of principle, 
 there are insurmountable physical difficulties in the way. Nine 
 hundred ministers are supported by voluntary contributions, and what 
 would become of them in the event of reunion 1 Why, my Lords, 
 they would starve. This Bill, if carried, will make it much more easy 
 for families and individuals to pass from one church to another ; but 
 that, I venture to say, is not an argument which will weigh with your 
 Lordships or with the House of Commons. 
 
 In conclusion, I have only to say that, although I have suggested 
 to my noble friend certain amendments which I should be very glad 
 to see the Government adopt if they are consistent with the principle 
 of this Bill, I will not endanger the passing of it by endeavouring to 
 force upon them any amendments which they cannot conscientiously 
 adopt. It is a Bill which has been conscientiously framed on the 
 ancient principles of the Church of Scotland. It has been accepted 
 by an overwhelming majority of the great representative body of 
 the Church, and it is a Bill which, if carried, is calculated 
 to do great good in Scotland. But I venture to say if my 
 noble friend should unfortunately accept any amendments which 
 tend to give a vote to the general body of ratepayers without any 
 distinction of religious sect — if no religious qualifications are to 
 be required of those who wish to vote for ministers of the Church of 
 Scotland, — I for one will not accept this Bill, and I shall vote against 
 it at every stage. I will be no party to giving Church patronage into 
 hands less worthy than those that now hold it. I will be no party, 
 above all, to any measure which brings a principle of confusion into 
 constituted societies, and invades, as I think, one of the cardinal 
 princii^les of the Church.
 
 10 
 
 10th JUNE 1874. 
 
 The Duke op Argyll, on the second reading of this Bill, had the 
 honour of stating to the House several arguments which appeared to 
 him conclusive against allowing the ratepayers, as such, to elect 
 ministers of the Gospel ; he would not require to detain them long by 
 raising some further objections to it. 
 
 He could not allow the two speakers who had just sat down — one a 
 noble lord, who was connected with the late Government, and the other 
 the noble earl (Grey), on the cross bench — to misrepresent in the most 
 grievous manner many facts which ought to be understood by every 
 one conversant with the history of the Church of Scotland, and ad- 
 vance arguments which it was almost impossible to beheve that any 
 sane man could advance in favour of this proposal. 
 
 He could not allow the speeches that had been made to pass with- 
 out directing attention to the real consequences that were involved in 
 giving the election of ministers to ratepayers, as such. In the first 
 place it was absolutely a revolutionary change. There was nothing 
 like it in the whole history of Churches, either of England or of Scot- 
 land ; and when we undertook to deal with an ancient institution, 
 avowedly for the purpose of reforming and strengthening them, we 
 were bound to act in the spirit of that ancient institution, and adapt 
 it to the new circumstances and new conditions of society, and not to 
 adopt revolutionary proposals which were absolutely inconsistent with 
 the cardinal principles on which Parliament had proceeded. 
 
 He did not consider himself in any sense a High Churchman, 
 though there were Presbyterian High Churchmen as well as Episco- 
 palian High Churchmen ; and he contended that the attitude in w^hich 
 all Churches should address Parliament was that of ordinary societies, 
 whatever might be their opinion as to the sacredness of the source 
 from which their privileges were derived. It was fatal, not merely to 
 a Church, but to any society, to introduce into it and confer powers 
 of government upon those who did not belong to it, and who did not 
 desire to do so. Were we prepared to introduce the principle of the 
 amendment into any other Church 1 We could not adopt it in this 
 case without admitting a general principle applicable to all other 
 societies. The professed object of the amendent was to widen the 
 Church of Scotland ; but he had no hesitation in saying, in the present 
 condition of opinion in Scotland — a condition which had always ex- 
 isted — it would make comprehensiveness as regarded the Dissenting 
 Churches absolutely impossible. There was not a Presbyterian 
 Church which would not regret the proposed terms of membership, 
 and which would not be repelled from joining the Established Church 
 by the very fact that such a clause had been entertained. The Dis- 
 senting Churches would say, with truth, " We have got our freedom 
 by seceding from all connection with the State ; we always thought
 
 11 
 
 that connection was fatal to the freedom of Christian Churches. You 
 of the Established Church denied that, and applied to Parliament to 
 reform and strengthen you, and what have you got ? You have got 
 an Act of Parliament which forces upon you vast numbers of men, 
 who belong to no Church whatever." 
 
 As to the danger of Erastianism, there could be no Act of Parlia- 
 ment which must not ultimately come before the Civil Courts for de- 
 cision and interpretation. The certainty that a ratepaying constitu- 
 ency for the election of ministers would be fatal to the possibility of 
 comprehension was so important that he wished to dwell upon it. 
 The mere fact that the Established Church had submitted to such a 
 claim would be of all others final and conclusive against their ever 
 joining it. Any one who knew the opinions of Scotsmen must know 
 that. Look at the indications of this which were now being given. 
 Look at the alarm this Bill and the proposed amendments of it had 
 caused. There were some parishes in Scotland as in England in which 
 the patronage was in the hands of the ratepayers. In England it was 
 notorious that these were the most unfortunate parishes in the country, 
 and the same might be said of the corresponding parishes of Scotland. 
 He had a petition from one of them, the parish of North Leith ; and 
 Dr Smith, the minister, and the whole Kirk-Session, avowed that the 
 operation of popular patronage was most disastrous. Within the last 
 half century no vacancy had been filled up in a shorter period than 
 two years on account of the electioneering tactics that were resorted 
 to. This was the condition of things which the amendment would 
 make universal in Scotland. The conduct of bodies of men depended 
 on the spirit in which they were brought together, and a congregation 
 had a pride in the ministrations of the church, but the ratepayers as 
 such had no esprit de corps ; an election of a minister, therefore, be- 
 came a scramble, which was conducted without principle, and was 
 fatal to the legitimate influence of the church. 
 
 Their lordships had, in passing one clause of the Bill, repealed 
 Lord Aberdeen's Act, to which there were many objections, but which 
 did afford an important protection to the parishes against the intru- 
 sion of improper men, by giving those who habitually attended the 
 church the power of making an objection against a presentee. Now 
 it was proposed to vest the election of the minister in a committee 
 of ratepayers, and to enable them to put a man in over the heads of 
 the members of the congregation, without giving them the protection 
 of Lord Aberdeen's Act. Was ever such an act of tyranny towards 
 a congregation and a church jDroposed before % If it was said the 
 clause was to be amended and protection against the intrusion of im- 
 proper men was to be given, so as to bring about election by the con- 
 gregation, why need this result be attained in a roundabout way 1 At 
 present there was no security against a majority of ratepayers putting 
 in a bad man on purpose to disgust and destroy the Church. He had 
 been taken to task for suggesting that such a Machiavellian policy 
 could be adopted ; but there had been cases in which it was alleged, 
 with apparently too much reason, that this had been done.
 
 12 
 
 He said tlie other night that the United Presbyterian Church did 
 not venture to oppose this Bill on its merits, and he had had some 
 indignant remonstrances addressed to him saying that he did. He 
 saw some United Presbyterian friends of his the other day, and he 
 said to them, "How on earth can you oppose this Bill? It proposes 
 a mode of selecting ministers which you yourselves have adopted; 
 and not only that, but which you declare to be a matter of Divine 
 right. How, then, can you refuse to your fellow Christians in the 
 Established Church that which you yourselves declare to be the 
 divinely appointed right of every Christian Church?" Their answer 
 was, ^'It is a Divine right provided the Church is disestablished; but 
 it is not a Divine right if it is established." JN'ow men who deceived 
 themselves to such an extent were quite as capable of thinking that 
 an individual parish had no right to the services of a good man as that 
 the whole Church had no right to a good system of electing her min- 
 isters. It was very likely, no doubt, that high-minded men who did 
 not belong to the Established Church would refuse to have any part 
 in the election. But then who would take part in it 1 The men of 
 a lower class of mind, the bigots, fanatics, and others who were 
 anxious to destroy the Church. 
 
 There was another argument with regard to the ratepayer to which 
 he wished to call attention. Not many years ago the minister of the 
 Established Church had many civil functions ; he was head of the 
 education of the parish, he was head of the Poor Law Board, and had 
 many other statutory rights and privileges strictly connected with 
 civil matters. At that time there might have been some weight in 
 the argument in favour of an election by the ratepayers. But all that 
 had been changed within the last few years, and the Established 
 Church of Scotland and her ministers had been dissociated from 
 all those civil powers and duties, so that they had purely spiritual 
 functions, and were merely the spiritual guides of their own 
 flocks. 
 
 There was another matter of some delicacy to refer to, but he should 
 be ashamed if he were wholly to avoid it. He had sometimes asked 
 himself the question whether the Christian Pulpit was on the decline 
 or not. He believed it had lost much of its authority in this country, 
 owing perhaps to other competing influences ; but this might be said 
 with perfect truth, that over a large part of Scotland the Pulpit was 
 still what it had ever been, the centre of intellectual and religious life, 
 upon which many depended for the comfort of their lives, and for the 
 consolation which the services of religion could give them at the hour 
 of death. "Was it not, then, a greal responsibility — a responsibility 
 with which he would have nothing to do — to place the election of 
 those ministers in the hands of men who might not be Christians 
 at all, and who made no profession whatever of the Christian life 1 
 Were such men to be the judges of the powers of the ministers of the 
 Gospel to preach the word of truth ; and would the House of Lords 
 import such a precedent into its legislation — a precedent which might 
 cost other Established Churches more 1
 
 13 
 
 The Bill of the Government stood on this strong foundation. It 
 was founded, in the first place, on the universal practice and custom of 
 all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. Secondly, it was founded 
 on the adoption by the Legislature of the very same constituency on 
 the very last occasion on which they had to deal with the subject. 
 Only four years ago. Parliament, when disendowing to a great extent 
 many Established churches in Edinburgh, decided that the constitu- 
 ency should be the congregation, as it expressed its opinion through 
 the communicants. That was the precedent adopted by Parliament, 
 and it was for those who objected to show conclusive reasons for their 
 objection. 
 
 Lord Minto, in a letter to a public journal, and his noble friend 
 near him, had endeavoured to represent the Communion as a test 
 which might be put or not put, and from which a man might or 
 might not be excluded by the minister of the parish. But that was 
 not the constitution, that was not the practice, of the Church of Scot- 
 land. The practice was that the claims to go to Communion were 
 considered, not by the minister alone, but by the minister and the 
 elected representatives of the congregation; and he could say of 
 his own knowledge as a fact that everybody was admitted to the 
 Communion as a matter of course, except those who were leading 
 notoriously scandalous lives. He had known cases in which a refusal 
 was given, but not in the Established Church. He had known a case 
 in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, where a man had .been repelled 
 for having written a book which was certainly not against the interests 
 of religion ; and another in which Church ordinances were refused to 
 parents because they had sent their children to a school connected 
 with the Established Church ; but that was in the Free Church. The 
 truth was that the Communion rule was by far the best foundation 
 for the universal comprehension of all the Presbyterian Churches of 
 Scotland. When a man in this country went over to the Established 
 Church, he took a great step — perhaps he might say a very wide 
 stride. But in Scotland he had to take no step or stride whatever — 
 there was nothing different in the worship, nothing in the forms of 
 Communion, no quarrels about symbolism, or about the things which 
 symbolism represented. 
 
 In that comprehensive and weighty speech which they heard the 
 other night from the noble and learned lord (the Lord Chancellor) on 
 the English Bill, he said : " Do not let us quarrel about the position 
 in which a minister may stand in administering the Holy Communion; 
 let it be to the south, the west, or the north ; do not let us quarrel about 
 it." That might be a wise thing, he believed it was necessary ; but 
 let not their lordships deceive themselves as to what it meant. It 
 meant — " Don't let us mind, don't let us care, don't let us as a Parlia- 
 ment inquire whether the Communion is dispensed as a Protestant 
 Communion or as a Eonian Catholic Mass." And a noble lord on 
 the bench below had declared that the existence of those ritualistic 
 practices in the dispensing of the Communion was an effectual bar 
 to many persons joining the Church of England in a particular parish.
 
 14 
 
 But in Scotland there was none of those quarrels; and therefore 
 the member of one Presbyterian Church might very freely pass to 
 another. 
 
 His noble friend had said that he disapproved of communicants. 
 He had never made such an assertion ; but what he did say was that 
 " communicants " was not the word used in the old statutes, but that 
 " congregation" was the old word, although formerly no doubt " con- 
 gregation " was synonymous with '^ communicants." However, he 
 thought it would be expedient to give power to the Church to include 
 among those who were to elect the minister members of the congrega- 
 tion who were not communicants. 
 
 The other day he mentioned the parish of Bonhill, in the Vale of 
 Leven, which at the present time was vacant. In pursuance of his 
 usual practice, he put the patronage in the hands of the congregation, 
 and since the previous debate he had received from his hon. friend Mr 
 Smollett, for many years M.P. for Dumbartonshire, and one of the 
 chief members of the congregation, a statement of the number of 
 communicants and also of the number of adherents who usually sat in 
 the parish church. From this it appeared that the number of com- 
 municants was 820, but besides these there were other 420 adherents 
 and regular sitters in the church. Surely it was not expedient to pre- 
 clude them from taking part in the election of a minister merely 
 because they did not choose to communicate. 
 
 If her Majesty's Government thought this amendment was opposed 
 to the principle of the Bill he would not press it ; but he was unable 
 to perceive that it was in any way inconsistent with such principle. 
 He felt convinced it would place in the hands of the Church a useful 
 freedom, and a freedom, moreover, which was at the present moment 
 exercised ; for both in the Free Church and the Established Church all 
 the congregation, and not merely the communicants, were consulted on 
 the choice of the minister, although no doubt if it came to a vote the 
 communicants only took part in the election. 
 
 His noble friend on the cross benches had said that by avoiding 
 a definition of a congregation he would impose a very difficult task on 
 the Church. Now he could not agree that such would be the case. 
 There were at the present moment many hundreds of parishes in 
 Scotland which were termed quoad sacra parishes. These were not 
 governed by patronage, but the ministers were presented by the seat- 
 holders of twenty-one years of age and upwards who had been atten- 
 dants in the church for one year. He saw no difficulty whatever in 
 the Church enacting a general rule, that in addition to the communi- 
 cants those who had occupied seats in the parish church for a twelve- 
 month previous to the vacancy should take part in the election of the 
 minister. He could not agree, however, with his noble friend that 
 there was any danger of persons partaking of the Communion with 
 the sole object of becoming electors. His noble friend had apparently 
 never been able to get out of his head the old controversy about the 
 Test Acts. No one could entertain a greater horror than he did of 
 those Acts, for it was a profanation of the Sacraments of religion to
 
 15 
 
 compel men to partake of them for the purpose of acquiring civil 
 rights ; but all Church q^iestions were connected more or less with 
 religious tests. Indeed, he did not know what was meant by a Church 
 unless it were a body of men bound together by some common beliefs. 
 Therefore, to object to Communion being made a test for religious 
 purposes because it was utterly abominable and detestable in civil 
 matters was surely a non sequitur. 
 
 As usual, his noble friend on the cross benches (Earl Grey) agreed 
 with nobody. According to him, every provision in the Bill was 
 bad. Now he would remind his noble friend that there existed in 
 Scotland a body called the General Assembly, which represented the 
 laity as well as the clergy of the Church. Well, that body, by over 
 400 votes against 16, determined to accept this Bill, and sincerely 
 thanked the Government for bringing it forward. Their lordships 
 might, he thought, safely assume that a body of that kind knew its 
 own interests. For his own part he thought a Government having 
 the power of passing it did right to introduce this Bill. He envied 
 them the honour of introducing it, and he envied still more the power 
 of passing it which he believed them to possess. But he should feel 
 ashamed if he were to allow this feeling of envy to interfere with the 
 earnest support he intended to give to the principle of the measure. 
 
 The BiU had no natural connection with party politics, but no 
 question could be brought into Parliament, especially if it were con- 
 nected with an Established Church, without touching in its out- 
 skirts some prepossessions of the great political parties. For example, 
 this Bill did offence to some of the political prepossessions of the 
 party opposite, which prepossessions it was most honourable for them 
 to abandon. There had been a very strong feeling on that side of 
 the House, and also on this side of the House, in favour of lay 
 patronage as a right of property. He maintained, therefore, that a 
 Conservative Government which brought in a measure to do away 
 with lay patronage had sacrificed a good many of the strongest pre- 
 possessions of their Party. With regard to the Liberal Party, he 
 should have thought some elements in this Bill would have recom- 
 mended it to them. In the first place, it was an extension of popular 
 power and popular privileges which the Liberal Party had been ac- 
 customed to regard as expedient. He was well aware that a section 
 of the Liberal Party were opposed to Established Churches ; but 
 even if Free Churches should ultimately be the rule in this country 
 and throughout the world, they ought at least to admit that as long 
 as Established Churches exist we ought to deal honestly by them and 
 to legislate for their good and the spiritual interests of their members. 
 
 There was another thing which he confessed warmed his heart to 
 this Bill as a member of the Liberal Party. The Liberalism of Scot- 
 land had been an historical Liberalism founded upon definite concep- 
 tions of the nature and genius of the Christian Church, and also of 
 the nature and duties of a Christian State. It had not been a slip- 
 shod Liberalism, which was indifferent to all principles of this kind, 
 and which believed in a Church without any faith, and in some reli-
 
 16 
 
 gion which was every man's in general and no man's in particular. 
 The Liberalism of Scotland had been founded on definite conceptions 
 of all these matters, and it was in consequence of its possessing this 
 character that it had achieved such great things in the history of the 
 country. He thought he perceived on the horizon controversies yet 
 to come in which the same principles would play an important part ; 
 and although he agreed with his noble friend, that it would have 
 been better not to touch this question at all rather than to impart 
 any of the alternatives to the Government Bill which had been pro- 
 posed, yet if the Bill passed it would, he believed, strengthen the 
 Established Church and do honour to the Party opposite and to the 
 House of Peers. 
 
 PRINTET BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, EDINBURGH.
 
 I 
 
 iiilli
 
 R2Miii:^:jit^^^t«i^i;ivi. vjviife- 
 
 K*5>*Ayis >»!??;
 
 
 ^imi^ 
 
 ^m 
 
 y^^rif;