^■^siL j^m^ kf'^:'^. i^ SPEECHES ON THE SECOND READING OF THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, June 2, 1874, AND EARL OF CAMPERDOWN'S AMENDMENT June g, 1874 PLACING THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS IN THE HANDS OF RATEPAYERS BY THE DUKE OF ARGYLL Henry S. King & Co. 65 CoRNHiLL & 12 Paternoster Row, London 1874 {AH rights reserved) SPEECH OF DUKE OF ARGYLL ON SECOND READING OF CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL, In House of Lords, June 2, 1874. My Lords, — As I was not able to be present when my noble friend opposite introduced this Bill, and when several noble Lords expressed their opinions on it, I hope the House will allow me to take thus early an opportunity to-night of stating the point of view from which I have come to regard the question of Church patronage in Scotland. It is now several years — 12 or 14 years I think — since some leading ministers and other members of the Church of Scot- land began to make up their minds that an altera- tion of the law of patronage as regulated by what is called Lord Aberdeen's Act had become necessary for the welfare of that Church., As I had the honour to be one of three members of your Lordships' House who hold an exceptionally large number of patron- ages, possessing as we do somewhere about 90 livings, A 2 4 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 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 naturally applied to me for some expression of opinion and advice, I told them 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, 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 either to a farther modification, or to the abolition of patronage. In consequence of what had thus passed with those gentlemen, I put myself in communication with the noble Duke oppo- site (the Duke of Buccleuch) and the late Lord Zetland, being the two Peers who, with myself, held the largest number of patronages ; and I soon found that, without pledging themselves to any particular measure for the abolition of patronage, they felt very much as I did as regarded the desirability 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 would probably arise great differ- ences of opinion, and I satisfied myself that the time had not then come for the introduction of any measure on the subject. Accordingly, my advice to the leaders of the Church has ever since been this : — ' Avoid coming to Parliament for anything, if you can possibly help it. However just or desirable in itself may be the change which you desire, or however useful for the 1 J "aCTJJJk^ THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 5 Church, avoid as long as you can coming to Parlia- ment at all' Why did I give this advice ? Because, my Lords, I have long been of opinion that on all questions affecting the relations between Church and State the condition of the public mind and of the mind of Parliament is simply chaos. I think the Most Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is now having some experience as to the confused state of the public mind on all questions relating to Church Establishments. It would be very difficult, indeed, to say what is the prevailing sentiment. Bishops without authority — congregations without discipline — Churches without government — religion without theo- logical belief — these appear to be the devoutest aspi- rations of public writers, and of not a few public men. And so now in the same spirit I hear of propositions being thrust upon the Established Church of Scot- land from without which would be fatal to her. I hear of proposals that her ministers should be elected, not by those who adhere to her, but by those who are her avowed enemies. It was not without reason, therefore, that I was afraid that if the Established- Church of Scotland came to Par- liament she would not get what she really wanted, but would have thrust upon her some measure, in the name of reform, involving some gross violation of all principle, and which would be disastrous to her. Then, my Lords, at a later period I knew that the last Parliament was a peculiarly unfavourable one for 6 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. dealing with this question. It was elected under the impulse that arose out of the proposal to disestablish the Irish Church. The Government which proposed the disestablishment of that Church did not do so on the ground that there was any abstract or general objection to all Church Establishments. Quite the contrary. It is true that some individual members of the late Ministry entertained opinions adverse to all Church Establishments — opinions which they never disguised ; but the late Government uniformly de- clared that the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a measure founded exclusively on the special conditions of Ireland, and afforded no precedent whatever for any similar measure in respect of England or of Scotland. My Lords, that declaration on the part of the late Government was made with the most perfect sincerity and truth. But nevertheless 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 desired to avoid if possible having anything to do with it, and especially assisting to pass mea- sures, however reasonable, for amending and im- proving Established Churches. Those who have had experience of the course of public affairs in this country know very well that no declarations or ex- planations of Government can avail to alter what I have called the atmosphere of opinion under which THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 7 a House of Commons has been elected, and it is this — and not verbal definitions — that makes particular measures possible or impossible. My Lords, it ap- pears to me that the time has now fully come when public men ought to make up their minds on these questions, and ought to say what they think in regard to them. For myself, then, I say at once that I see nothing liberal in a general policy of Disestablishment. On the whole. Established Churches are more liberal than disestablished ones. If they have any fault, it is perhaps rather an in- clination to be too liberal and too comprehensive almost to indifference. I see nothing, therefore, connected with Liberal politics in a general policy of disestablish- ment. My Lords, my views on Church Establishment may be very shortly told. I hold that the question of Church Establishments is entirely a question of circum- stances. 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, as it seems to me, entirely a question of the social and religious condition of the country in respect of which the question may be raised. But this I do say — that those conditions of society and of religion which make a near connection between Church and State possible are higher and happier conditions than those which are incompatible with that connection. I certainly am not prepared to say, nor do I believe it to be true, that these last conditions are ours; and, 8 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. this being so, I wish to approach every measure bearing on our Established Churches with a desire to strengthen and uphold them. My Lords, these remarks on the abstract ques- tion are not irrelevant ; they are infinitely more rele- vant than the musty old documents quoted by my noble friend. I should be ashamed of intruding on your Lordships any opinions of my own upon such a subject, if it had no immediate bearing upon the measure before us. It is, however, avowed by foes and friends that this measure, if passed, will strengthen the Established Church. It is proposed by the Government for that purpose, and it is opposed by others upon no other ground than because it does tend 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 now, my Lords, to the measure itself, I think my noble friend (the Duke of Richmond) is perfectly right in recognising the principle of compen- sation 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 pro- THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 9 perty, transmitted to heirs, and purchasable in the market ; yet it is also, and is generally recognised to be, a trust for public purposes. Patronage had pro- bably the same origin in England and in Scotland, but since the Reformation the history of the institu- tion has been wholly different in the two countries. The only complaint I make is, that in assigning one year's stipend of the living as the amount of compensa- tion 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 all times by the standing declaration on the part of the Church that nobody was to be intruded on congregations against their will — sometimes by a very large dis- cretionary power on the part of the Church Courts to consider objections by the people, and to reject a presentee if unqualified for the particular parish ; at other times by the adoption of a system approaching to direct election. Never since 1560 has it been the unqualified and absolute right which exists in England, and the qualifications were so serious that patronage has practically became unsaleable. 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 ? I hardly ever hear of livings being sold at all. No doubt, when an estate is sold, patronage is frequently transferred with the estate, and may sometimes be considered in the 10 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL, price. There have been cases, too — one in my own experience — of the exchange of patronages ; 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 patronage of the Edinburgh Churches might be bought, nobody would bid, and another Act was therefore .soon passed giving the patronage to the new bodies desired, without any compensation to the patrons. And no wonder that patronage has become unsale- able, when we look at the existing law which regu- lates and controls its exercise. In order to illustrate this point, I will now read to the House some of the objections to a presentee which have been actually sustained under Lord Aberdeen's Act, and have resulted in the presentation being rendered void. I suppose we may divide preachers into those who are dull or not very able, and those who are not dull but more or less eloquent, and I will show your Lordships that 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 Banff.' That was conclusive against the presentee, and on an appeal to the General Assembly it verified and adopted these objections. Now, my Lords, we have all had our own experience of sermons — I ask your Lordships THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. II — What value would English patrons put on their patronage if every clergyman whose sermons could be pronounced 'confused and ill-arranged ' were rejected ? 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 ill- deduced and unedifying.' 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.' Again, my Lords, I ask — What percentage of the clergy might not be rejected if such were the state of the law in England .'' Well — but this is how the rather dull men are got rid of; but there is another way in which clever men — men too clever by half, who do not suit the people — may be got rid of also. Here is another 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 discourses 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.' How many eloquent preachers might not be rejected under this decision ! Fifty thousand other objections of the same character might be and would be conclu- sive in the minds of the Church Courts when they think 12 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. the presentee unacceptable to the people. But the Church Courts are thus placed in a very invidious position as regards the presentee, and in a position very hard and unfair as regards themselves. It is fatal to the presentee, because a man with such sentences as these upon him becomes at once a marked man all over Scotland ; he can' never hope for another living : — and the position is unjust to the Church Courts, because it places them under duress of conscience to find out objections to cL man's ser- mons when the real objection may simply be that he is unacceptable to the congregation. Under these circumstances, my Lords, I think I have justified my statement that one year's stipend is far more than patrons can generally get in the market ; but my noble friend is, nevertheless, perfectly right in adopting the principle of compensation, and I will not quarrel with the Bill on the question of amount, especially as there is a statutory precedent. I only wish to point out to those noble Lords who are connected with English patronage that no precedent as regards value can be founded upon this Bill, the past history and present incidents of patronage in the two countries being so totally different. My Lords, I now pass to another aspect of the Bill, in respect to patrons in which it has been presented by a member of this House, who is unfortunately unable to be present at our debates, but who has communicated his opinions in a letter THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 1 3 to the Daily News. My Lords, I much regret having to comment on that letter in the absence of Lord Minto. Everybody who knows that noble Earl must know that no one is more incapable than he of intentionally saying anything in a spirit of assumption, either as regards himself, or as regards the class to which he belongs. And yet I cannot but regard with extreme regret the fact that Lord Minto has represented patronage as the main and almost the only connection between the Church and the nation, and has consequently assumed that the abolition of patronage would be equivalent to a dissolution of that connection. It does seem indeed strange and incredible to me that such an argument as this should be adopted by any Scotch Peer. But, as I see it is more or less repeated by others, it is my duty to point out to your Lordships how weak it is. And for this purpose will my noble friend, the noble Marquis opposite (Salisbury), allow me to borrow for a moment that personage whom he once introduced so effectively to your Lordships, and over whom he has been supposed ever since to have a special guardianship — I mean the ' Intelligent Fo- reigner.' Let us suppose this intelligent foreigner to be well informed on the remarkable history of the Church in Scotland — that he knew how its Con- fession of Faith had been embodied in Acts of Parliament as the only confession of faith known to the law in Scotland — that he knew of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Church in all her Courts by 14 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. the civil law — that he knew how all her decisions within her own legitimate province are enforced by the civil law — and, above all, that he knew how the nation is represented by a large infusion of the laity in her General Assemblies — to such an extent that every one of the royal burghs of Scotland has, as such, a right to send a member to the General As- sembly — suppose him to know all these things, and that I, or Lord Minto, or some other patron were now to say to him, * Oh yes, all that you have heard on those matters is perfectly true ; it is true that her confession of faith is adopted by law, that her Courts are recognised and their jurisdiction enforced by the law, that her Assemblies represent her people by a full and complete association of the laity — but these are not the things which constitute her an Established Church — these are not the things which connect her with the nation. That which really constitutes this connection is that I, and some two hundred other gentlemen like me, have the legal right of presenting to livings — in this resides the whole essence and virtue of the Church Establishment and its con- nection with the nation.' What, my Lords, do you think the intelligent foreigner would think of my in- telligence in this assertion .? Yet this is the proposi- tion, gravely put before the public by a Peer of Scotland — that if patronage were abolished the only connection between Church and State would be abolished with it. As one of the largest patrons in THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 1$ Scotland, I repudiate this claim on behalf of our class. It is not only unfounded, but it is in the teeth of all the facts of history. 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 extraneous element ; and notwithstanding the desire of patrons generally to act in conformity with the spirit of the people, nevertheless it is an historical fact that it has been a perpetual cause of dissension in the Church of Scotland, and the origin of all the secessions from her. 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 — p3r-ties who come from nearly opposite directions, but who unite in objection to the word ' communicant' There are, on the one hand, those who are disposed to object to this particular mode of defining the congregation ; there are, on the other, those who object to confining the election to the congregation at all, and who desire to give the right of election to all — whether they be members of the Church or not. I shall deal with these two objections separately. With the first ob- jection I have, I confess, a considerable amount of 1 6 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. sympathy. In the old Acts of the Scotch ParHament 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 * congregation ' 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 assumption — that substantially every man in the parish was a member of the con- gregation, and that every member of the congregation was a communicant. The word ' congregation ' meant then something more definite 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 Esta- blished 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 consti- tuent body. A non-established Church, a Free Church, escapes the difficulty of legal definition. The Govern- ment were in this difficulty. You must either take the definition of a congregation which is usual in the Presbyterian Churches ; or you must adopt a new definition of your own, which is very difficult ; or you must do without any definition of the congrega- tion at all, and leave the matter to the ratepayer— a course to which, for reasons I hope to make plain to the House, I have insuperable objections. There is THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 1/ a suggestion, however, I would venture to make. I think it is desirable, if possible, to put in the old word ' congregation,' the word used in the various older statutes ; and 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 taking advantage of the other services of the Church, but not actual communicants, who would undoubtedly, in many cases, be considered by the Church Courts as valuable members of the con- gregation. I do not know whether the suggestion I have made can be worked out in a clause of an Act of Parliament, but this I will say — it is in strict con- formity with the constitutional usage of Parliament towards the Church of Scotland. It is a curious fact that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which has such large powers of ecclesiastical disci- pline and4egislation, has never been defined by Act of Parliament. The earliest 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 B 1 8 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. the word 'congregation' could not be added to * communicants ;' leaving it to the Church, by her con- stituted organs, to define and regulate the terms of membership. 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, or anybody else. Now, my Lords, I am not one of those who hold any extreme views on the subject of what is called spiritual independence. If we, are to go to abstract principle, it has always appeared to me that the civil authority in every country must be the supreme authority in deciding what it can afford to tolerate in Churches — and this whether they be established or whether they be free. But this I will say — that what- ever liberty is left to a Church which is established, or may be allowed to a Church which is free, must be a liberty exercised by its own members, and not by^the members of hostile communions. To adopt any other rule, would be to introduce absolute confusion, incom- patible with the very existence of any organised and constituted society — would deprive it of all terms of membership, and would allow the highest functions of the body to be exercised by those who not only do not belong to it, but who tell you they will never be- long to it, and that they desire its destruction. And is it conceivable, is it possible, that members. THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 1 9 of the Liberal Party, in the name of liberality, after objecting to the intrusion of ministers upon congrega- tions 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 con- sciences of congregations to be violated by majorities of ratepayers who may not possibly be members of any Christian Church ? My Lords, these are the pro- positions which justify me in saying that men's minds are wholly adrift on such questions— * wild and wandering cries,' which are nothing but * confusions * of a time, becoming every year more and more incapable of dealing with such problems. All the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland would be equally opposed to so gross an innovation on principles which are equally dear to all. They might, indeed, be tempted to rejoice over such a degradation of the Established Church, which would, indeed, remove all risk of their people being attracted to it. My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that 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 be in favour of disestablishment, and shall desire to see all Churches in the position of complete freedom and independence. I wish now to say a few words in regard to another theory which is made a ground of opposition to the B 2 20 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 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 much thought ap- parently of what it really involves and means. Let us examine this phrase to see how empty it is — let us prick this bladder of words, and it will burst. In what sense, my Lords, is it true to say that the minister is the minister of the parish ? I remember that many years ago my right rev. friend, Bishop Wilberforce^ whose loss we have all so lately mourned and de- plored, 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 dwelling within a certain geographical area. At the time I ventured very humbly to enter my protest against that ground of opposition to the * Papal Aggression,' and I still maintain that whether this claim be advanced hy bishops, by priests, or by ministers, it involves a gross confusion of thought. It is true, indeed, that an Established Clergy are a clergy for all — in this sense, that their services are open to all who desire to take advantage of them by accepting the terms on which they are offered. But a bishop or a minister is not the bishop or minister of those who do not choose to come to him, who do not require his ministrations, and who do not accept or approve the terms on which these ministrations are offered. He has no rights THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 21 over them, and they have no rights over him. Any other definition of territorial jurisdiction makes reli- gious truth and religious belief — what the Italian people were once said to be — * a geographical expres- sion.' And now I come to the practical working, on which my noble friend who has just sat down dwelt to a con- siderable 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, at least by a ratepaying con- stituency, does produce considerable confusion, and I am not here to recommend it anywhere ; but in Scotland it is the old constitutional system that the congregation 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 25 years of experience in regard to patronage, I say, in answer to my noble friend, that the ministers whom I have allowed the congregation to select have been generally well selected. I can say more. At first I used not to consult the congregations so gene- rally as I do now ; 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, therefore, as a matter of fact, that the habits of the people of Scotland enable them to exercise this privilege with success. It is universally exercised in the unestablished Churches, 22 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. and why should it not be also exercised in the Esta- blished Church ? At this moment there is a vacancy in a parish of which I am patron, 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 in that parish has been to consult my friend Mr. Smollett, who was long Member for the county, and who is a resident proprietor and member of the congregation. A committee is formed, who look out for suitable men, and I have always found that the congregation had better facilities than I had for finding out who were the best candidates to be had. And, my Lords, on this subject, I have been astonished at a paper signed by Dr. Cook, the leader of a small minority who opposed this Bill in the General Assembly which has just been held. It states that the people have not the same opportunity as a patron of finding out the qualifications of presentees. My opinion is, on the contrary, that the people are ge- nerally much better qualified than the patrons. There is nothing more unsatisfactory than forming a judgment from testimonials. Your Lordships must remember that the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland do not generally occupy so high a social position as the clergy of the Established Church of England. Many of your Lordships have personal friendships formed at College or elsewhere with clergymen whom they know THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 23 to be men of the highest Christian character ; but we have not, generally speaking, the same personal know- ledge of the presentees in the Church of Scotland. Consequently, we must rely to a great extent on the testimony of others, and I have usually found that such testimony is entirely unsatisfactory. I now wish to say a few words on the conduct of the other Presbyterian Churches, and in the first place I beg your Lordships to observe that none of them liave petitioned against this Bill on its merits. They have violently abused the Government for venturing to introduce it, but they have not themselves ventured to oppose it, except as tending to strengthen an esta- blishment, and therefore to postpone universal volun- taryism. 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 amounts 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 our- selves entitled to express an opinion.' But then they proceed to remark that it is extremely unbecoming of the House of Lords to consider a Bill for advancing the interests of the Established Church without first con- sulting them — although they have nothing to do with it. It is remarkable, however, as I have said, that neither the Free Church nor the United Presbyterian Church have ventured to oppose this Bill upon its merits — 24 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. that is, upon the mode of selecting ministers which it proposes to sanction — 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. This Bill has not been recommended to the House as a means of reunion with other Churches. It has been prepared for the benefit of the people of the Established Church, with which alone it deals, and who, on the very lowest calculation, form a portion of the people of Scotland more than large enough to justify the special action of the Legislature. As regards reunion of the Churches, I have always said there is no hope whatever of the re- union of the Free and Established Churches, except on the ground of disestablishment ; for, independ- ently of principle, there are insurmountable phy- sical difficulties in the way. Nine hundred mini- sters are supported by voluntary contributions, and what would become of them in the event of any admission that the causes of separation have been removed .'* Why, my Lords, they would starve. Such large voluntary contributions can only be maintained by the assertion of distinctive principles, and by the farther assertion that these remain un- satisfied. And, in justice to the Free Church, I must add that this Bill of itself does not satisfy or express the extreme views they hold on spiritual THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 25 independence. This Bill, if carried, will, indeed, make it much more easy for families and individuals to pass from one Church to another. And this is a consequence which may be dreaded by the Voluntary Churches more than any other. But this, I venture to say, is not an argument against the Bill which will weigh with your Lordships, or with the House of Commons. The truth is that there is more than ample room for both. Our business in Parliament is with the Established Church, and with all who either are, or desire to be, its members. In conclusion, I have only to say that, although I have suggested to my noble friend certain amend- ments which I should be very glad to see the Government adopt if they can be made consistently 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 framtd 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, my Lords, I feel bound to add that 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 or irreligious opinion — if no religious qualifications are to be required of those who are to vote in the 26 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. election of ministers of the Gospel in the Church of Scotland — I, for one, will not accept this Bill, but, on the contrary, I shall vote against it at every stage. I will be no party to giving up this great Trust of patronage into hands less worthy — because less re- sponsible — than those that now hold it. I will be no party, above all, to any measure which confounds dis- tinctions essential to the very existence of every organised society, and which assuredly it is not less important to observe in respect to every branch of the Church of Christ. SPEECH IN COMMITTEE QUNE 9) On Earl of Camper down s Amendment placing the Election of Ministers in the hands of Ratepayers. As on Tuesday last, on the second reading of this Bill, I had the honour of stating to the House several arguments which appear to me conclusive against allowing the ratepayers, as such, to elect ministers of the Gospel, I shall not require to detain your Lord- ships long in urging some further objections to it. But I cannot allow to pass without reply the two speeches which have just been delivered — one by a noble Lord who was connected with the late Govern- ment, and the other the noble Earl (Grey) on the cross bench, misrepresenting 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 advancing arguments in favour of a proposal which I really can hardly conceive being deliberately made by any sane man — the proposal, I mean, to. give the election of ministers of the Esta- blished Church to ratepayers indiscriminately. In the 28 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. first place, my Lords, I must observe that it is abso- lutely a revolutionary change. There has been nothing like it in the whole history of Churches either of Eng- land or of Scotland ; and when we undertake to deal with ancient institutions, avowedly for the purpose of reforming and strengthening them, it is our habit to act in the spirit of those ancient institutions, adapting them indeed to the new circumstances and new con- ditions of society, but not to adopt proposals which are absolutely inconsistent with' the fundamental principles on which Parliament has proceeded in former times. My Lords, I do not consider myself in any sense a High Churchman — for there are Presbyterian High Churchmen as well as Episcopalian High Church- men ; I hold that the attitude in which all Churches should address Parliament is that of ordinary societies, whatever may be their opinion as to the peculiar sacredness of the source from which their privileges are derived. But it is fatal, not merely to a Church, but to any society, to introduce into it — and confer powers of government upon — those who do not belong to it, and who do not desire to do so. Are we pre- pared to introduce the principle of this amendment into any other Church ? We cannot adopt it in this case, on the plea that it is essential to the position of an Establishment without admitting sl general principle applicable to the Church of England also. The professed object of the amendment is to widen THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) EILL. 29 the Church of Scotland ; but I have no hesitation in saying, that in the pecuHar condition of opinion in Scotland — a condition which has always existed — it would make comprehensiveness as regarded the Dis- senting Churches absolutely impossible. There is not a Presbyterian Church in Scotland which would not reject 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 Dissenting Churches would say, with truth, ' We have got our freedom by seceding from all connection with the State ; we always told you that connection is fatal to the freedom of Christian Churches. You of the Established Church denied it, and applied to Parliament to reform and strengthen you, and what have you got "i You have got an Act of Parlia- ment which forces upon you vast numbers of men who belong to no Church whatever.' And yet my noble friend (Lord Grey) talks of the danger of 'colli- sion with the Civil Courts because we propose to leave something to the regulation of the Church itself. He refers to this possible collision as likely to increase the prejudice of ' Erastianism ' against the Established Church, whilst he supports the Hyper-Erastian amend- ment of the noble Earl (Camperdown). As to the danger of Erastianism being charged against the Church because the Civil Courts may have to decide on the interpretation of this new law, that cannot be avoided. There can be no Established Churches 30 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. ' without Acts of Parliament, and there can be no Act of Parliament which may not ultimately come before the Civil Courts for decision and interpretation. The certainty that a ratepaying constituency for the election of ministers would be fatal to the possi- bility of comprehension with the other Presbyterian Bodies is so important that I wish to impress it on the House. The mere fact that the Established Church had submitted to such a claim would be to all other Presbyterians final and conclusive against their ever joining it. Any one who knows the opinions of Scotchmen must know that the Bill, in its present form, is beyond all question that which best removes the difficulties in the way of other Presbyterians joining the Established Church. Look at the indications of this which are now being given. Look at the alarm this Bill has caused among the leaders of the Volun- tary Churches. And why this alarm .? Because they know that the proposed constituency — so objected to here — is the very one which places the Established Church on the most popular basis in Scotland. But adopt this amendment, and the whole virtue of the Bill as regards popularity and comprehensiveness is gone. Then, my Lords, I have another objection, as regards the practical working of such a system. There are some parishes in Scotland, as in England, in which the patronage is in the hands of the rate- payers. In England it is notorious that these are the THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 3 1 most unfortunate parishes in the country, and the same may be said of the corresponding parishes of Scotland. I have a petition here from one of them, the parish of North Leith, and Dr. Smith, the mi- nister, and the whole Kirk Session declare that the operation of this indiscriminate popular patronage is most injurious. Within the last half-century no va- cancy has been filled up in a shorter period than two years on account of the squabbling, quarrelling, and electioneering tactics that were resorted to. Yet this is the condition of things which the amendment would make universal in Scotland. My Lords, there is no analogy between election by ratepayers and selection by a congregation. The conduct of bodies of men depends on the spirit in which they are brought together. Congregations have a pride and a real personal interest in the ministrations of the Church. They are an organised body with its own esprit de corps. Its members have a sense of responsibility towards each other and towards the Church. But the ratepayers as such have no esprit de corps ; the election of a minister, therefore, becomes a scramble, which is conducted without principle, without the sense of responsibility, and must end, as it always does, in disorder and confusion. And now, my Lords, I pass to another objection to the amendment of my noble friend, to which I referred also on Tuesday last, but which has acquired new force from the proceedings of this night. For 32 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. what, my Lords, have you already done to-night ? You have passed one clause of the Bill which repeals Lord Aberdeen's Act — an Act, indeed, to which there are many objections, but which has at least this advantage, that it does afford an important protection to parishes against the intrusion of improper men, by giving to congregations the power of making objections against a presentee, and by giving to the Church Courts power to give effect to those objec- tions. Now it is proposed to vest the election of the minister in a committee of ratepayers — men infinitely less responsible than the existing patrons — and to enable them to put a man in over the heads of the members of the congregation, withdrawing at the same time from the congregation even the protection of Lord Aberdeen's Act. Was ever such an act of tyranny towards a congregation and a Church pro- posed before ? If it be said the amendment is to be itself amended, and protection against the intrusion of improper men is to be given by recognising the right of veto on the part of the congregation, and by allow- ing it to be exercised toties quoties so long as un- acceptable men are presented — then you come back to a virtual election by the congregation, but you arrive at this result in a roundabout and most incon- venient way. But as the amendment is now pro- posed to the House there is no security whatever against a majority of ratepayers putting in a bad man on purpose to disgust and destroy the Church. THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 33 My Lords, I see that in the Press, and in letters, I have been taken to task for suggesting that such a Machiavellian policy could be adopted. I confess I have a profound distrust of the temper in which religious parties will act towards each other when the}^ have the power. Moreover, we are not without experience in this matter. There have been cases in which it is alleged, with apparently too much reason, that this has actually been done. There have been cases in which municipal bodieis holding the right of patronage and governed by Dissenters have been strongly suspected, and, I fear, on good grounds, of presenting inferior men on purpose to disgust and disperse the congregation. Some of these cases, and one in particular near Edinburgh, have been among the most scandalous cases of disputed- settlements. But, my Lords, this is not all. Look at what the Voluntary Churches are doing now in resisting this Bill. I said the other night that the United Presby- terian Church did not venture to oppose this Bill on its merits, and I have had some indignant remon- strances addressed to me saying that they do. Well, I saw some United Presbyterian friends of mine the other day, and said to them, ' How on earth can you oppose this Bill ? It proposes a mode of select- ing 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 C 34 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 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.' Now men who deceive themselves to such an extent as to the conduct which real Christian principle requires them to pursue towards others, are quite as capable of thinking that an individual parish has no right to the services of a good man as that the whole Church has no right to a good system of ap- pointing her ministers. Of course, I do not say that all Dissenters would act upon such principles ; I know they would not. .The high-minded men among them would refuse to have any part in the. election. But then who would take part in it ? The men of a lower class of mind — the bigots, the fanatics — and others who may not be scrupulous as to the means of embarrassing the Church. My Lords, there is another argument with regard to the ratepayer to which for a moment I desire to call the attention of the House. 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 at least some plausibility in the argument in favour of ratepayers having some voice in his election, although even then it would have been monstrous THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 35 not to allow the congregation at least a veto. But all this has been changed within the last few years, and the Established Church of Scotland and her ministers have been dissociated from all those civil powers and duties which formerly belonged to them, so that they have now purely spiritual functions to discharge, and are merely the spiritual guides of their own flocks, including of course all who desire to belong to these. And now, my Lords, there is another argument of some delicacy, which, however, I should be ashamed wholly to avoid. It is impossible not sometimes to ,ask the question whether the power of the Christian pulpit is not on the decline. It has, I think, lost much of its authority in this country, owing to other com- peting influences — to other modes and forms of dis- cussion. But this may be said with perfect truth, that over a large part of Scotland the pulpit is still what it has ever been — the centre of intellectual and re- ligious life, upon which many depend for the highest interest and comfort of their lives, and for the con- solation which the services of religion can give them in the hour of death. I do not envy the responsibility of those — a responsibility in which I will take no share — who would place the election of ministers in the hands of men who may not be Christians at all — who may take no interest in the services of religion, and who make no profession whatever of the Christian life. Is it fit that such men should be the judges of c 2 2)6 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. the powers of the ministers of the Gospel rightly to handle the word of truth ? Will the House of Lords import such a precedent into its legislation — a pre- cedent which, once established as an essential feature in Churches connected with the State, will soon be extended to the Church of England also ? My Lords, the Bill of the Government stands on this strong foundation ; it is founded, in the first place, on the universal practice and custom of all the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland ; it is founded, in the * second place, on the adoption by the Legislature of the very same constituency on the very last occasion on which it has had to deal with the subject Only four years ago Parliament, when many Established Churches in Edinburgh were disconnected from the Annuity Tax, decided that the constituency for the election of ministers should be the congregation, expressing its opinion through the communicants. That is the pre- cedent adopted by Parliament, and it is for those who object to show conclusive reasons for their objection. Lord Minto, in a letter to a public journal, and my , noble friend near me, have endeavoured to represent the Communion as a test by means of wdiich a man might be arbitrarily excluded by the minister of the parish. But that is not the constitution, that is not the practice, of the Church of Scotland. The practice is that the desire of persons to go to Communion is considered, not by the minister alone, but by the minister and the Kirk Session, the elected THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BU^L. 37 representatives of the congregation ; and I think I can say of my own knowledge as a fact that everybody is admitted to the Communion as a matter of course, except those who are leading notoriously scandalous lives. My Lords, I have known cases in Scotland in which a refusal has been given, but those cases were not in the Established Church. I have known a case in the Episcopal Church of Scotland where a man has 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 is that the Communion Roll is by far the best foundation, if you desire com- prehensiveness as regards all the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. In England, indeed, when a Dissenter goes over to the Established Church he takes ^ great step — perhaps I may say a very wide stride. But in Scotland he has to take no step or stride whatever — there is nothing different in the worship — nothing in the forms of Communion — no quarrels about symbolism, or about the more important things which that symbolism is intended to represent. In that weighty speech which we 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 38 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 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.' Well, my Lords, that may be a wise thing, I believe it to be a necessary thing as matters stand in England ; but let us not deceive ourselves as to what it means. It means ' Don't let us mind, don't let us care, don't let us as a Parliament inquire, whether this Sacrament is dispensed as a Protestant Communion or as a Roman Catholic Mass.' But did I not hear my noble friend on the bench below (Lord Harrowby) declare the other night that the existence of those ritualistic practices in the dispensing of the Com- munion was an effectual bar to many persons joining the service ? In England, therefore, the Communion may be a test, and the communicants in a particular parish may be confined almost to one religious party. But in Scotland there are none of these differences, and therefore the members of one Presbyterian Church may pass with perfect ease and. freedom to another. My noble friend (Lord Grey) said that the other night I had disapproved of communicants as the consti- tuency for the election of ministers. I never said so ; what I 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 ' congre- gation ' wassynonymous with 'communicants.' Never- theless I think it would be expedient to give power to the Church to include among those who are to THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 39 elect the minister members of the congregation who are not communicants. Practically at the present moment, when the selection of ministers is left to the congregation, the opinion of the whole body, whether communicants or not, is consulted ; although no doubt in the event of agreement not being attained, and a vote being taken, it is the communicants who alone generally vote in all the Presbyterian Churches. My Lords, the other day I mentioned the parish of Bonhill, in the Vale of Leven, which at the present time is vacant. In pursuance of my usual practice, I put the patronage in the hands of the congregation, and since the previous debate I have received from my lion, 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 com- municants and also of the number of adherents who usually sit in the parish church. From this it appears that the number of communicants is 820, but besides these there are other 420 adherents and regular sitters in the church. I think it is not expedient to preclude the Church, by the wording of an Act of Parliament, from assigning to them some part in the election of a minister merely because they did not choose to com- municate, — if the General Assembly can see its way, as I do not doubt it can, to some reasonable rule as to the definition of those who are bond fide members of the congregation. If Her Majesty's Governnlent should think this 40 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. amendment opposed to the principle of the Bill I would not press it, but I am unable to perceive that it is in any way inconsistent with such principle. I think it will place in the hands of the Church a useful freedom, and a freedom, moreover, which is at the present moment exercised ; for both in the Free Church and the Established Church, where this freedom is. allowed by the patron, all the congregation and not merely the communicants are consulted on the choice of the minister, although, no doubt, if it came to a' vote, the communicants only may take part in the election. My noble friend on the cross benches has said that by avoiding the definition of a congre- gation we shall impose a very difficult task on the Church. I cannot agree that such will be the case. There are at the present moment some hundreds of parishes in Scotland w^hich are termed qttoad sacra parishes. These are not in the gift of patrons, but the ministers are often presented by the seatholders of twenty-one years of age and upwards who have been attendants in the church for one year. I see no difficulty whatever in the Church enacting a general rule that,- in addition to the communicants, those who have occupied seats in the parish church for a twelve- month previous to the vacancy should take part in the election of the minister. I do not agree, however, with my noble friend (Earl Grey) that there is any danger of persons partaking of the Communion with the sole object of becoming electors. In the first THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 4 1 place, it is not practically found that such danger exists, although the constituency is the same in all the Voluntary Churches. Indeed, as I am not aware that people can see beforehand the death of a minister, and as the Communion Roll is ordinarily made up once a year, it would not appear that there is much temptation or much facility for the conduct my noble friend refers to. My noble friend has apparently never been able to get out of his head the old con- troversy about the Test Acts. My Lords, no one can entertain a greater horror than I do of those Acts, for it was a profanation of the Sacraments of Religion to compel men to partake of them for the purpose of acquiring civil rights ; but all Churches are connected more or less with creeds, confessions, and articles of belief ; and what are these but religious tests } Indeed, I do not know what is meant by a Church unless it be a body of men bound together by some community of beliefs. These may be so di^wn as to be wide and comprehensive, or they may be narrower and more restricted. But every Church must have some definition of its beliefs — some test of a religious character whereby to define its member- ship. Therefore, to object to Communion being made a test for religious purposes because it is utterly abominable and detestable in civil matters is surely a strange confusion of thought. As usual, my noble friend on the cross benches (Earl Grey) agrees with nobody but himself Accord- 42 THK CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. ing to him, every possible alternative is bad — the provision in the Bill being worst of all. Then he expressed astonishment that the Government should have undertaken to do anything at all, and asked what could be the reason of it. Now I must remind my noble friend that there exists in Scotland a body called the General Assembly, with a full representation of the laity as well as of 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. Your Lordships may, I think, safely assume that a body of that kind knows its own interests. For my own part, my Lords, I envy the noble Lords opposite the honour of having introduced this Bill, and I envy them still more the power of passing it ; but I should feel ashamed if I were to allow any feeling of envy to interfere with the cordial support which in my opinion this measure deserves. My Lords, this Bill has no necessary connection with party politics ; but no question can be brought before Parliament in the present day connected with an Established Church, without touching on its outskirts various prepossessions of the great political parties. For example, this Bill does offence to some of the political prepossessions of the party opposite, which prepossessions it is most honourable in them to abandon. There has always been a very strong feel- ing on that side of the House, and also on this side of the House, in favour of lay patronage as a right of THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 43 property. I hold, therefore, that a Conservative Government which brings in a measure to do away with lay patronage has sacrificed a good many of the strongest prepossessions of their Party. With regard to the Liberal Party, I should have thought that there were some elements in this Bill which would have recommended it to them. It carries with it some extension of popular power and popular privileges which, within due limits, the Liberal Party has been accustomed to regard with favour as expedient and just. I am well aware that a section of the Liberal Party is opposed to all Established Churches ; but, even if Free Churches should ultimately be the rule in this country and throughout the world, at least it ought to be admitted that as long as Established Churches exist we should deal honestly by them, and legislate for their good and the spiritual interests of their members. There is another thing, my Lords, which I confess recommends this Bill to me as a member of the Liberal Party. The Liberalism of Scotland has been an historical Liberalism, founded upon clear, definite, manly conceptions of the nature and duties of the Christian Church, and also of the nature and duties of a Christian State. It has never been the modern slipshod Liberalism, which is indifferent to all prin- ciples of this kind, or which looks for some Church which is to be without any faith, and for some theology which is to be every man's religion in general and no 44 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. man's religion in particular. The Liberalism of Scot- land has been made of very different stuff — founded on definite conceptions on all these matters, and it has been because of its possessing this character that it achieved such great things in the history of the country. I think I perceive on the horizon contro- versies yet to come in which the same principles will yet play an important part. I agree with my noble friend, that it would have been better not to touch this question at all rather than to adopt any of the alternatives to the Government Bill which have been proposed. But if this Bill passes, it will, I believe, strengthen the Established Church, and -will do lasting honour to the House of Peers. APPENDIX. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL AND THE DISSENTING CHURCHES. London: June 5, 1874. Sir, — You will oblige me by inserting the enclosed correspondence, as I have had more than one letter on the subject to which it refers. — I am, &c., Argyll. BuRNSiDE Manse, Dalbeattie : June 4, 1874. My Lord Duke, — In your speech on the Church Patron- age (Scotland) Bill, as reported in the Times of yesterday, the following words occur : ' Neither the Free Church nor the United Presbyterian Church have ventured to oppose this Bill,' &c. I have the honour to inform you that the Synod of the U.P. Church, representing one-fifth of the population of Scotland, earnestly and unanimously con- demned the Church Patronage (Scotland) Bill within ten hours of their becoming acquainted with its provisions, and only eighteen hours from the time of its first introduction. You will find the proof of this in the enclosed extract from the Daily Review of May 20, 1874, particularly in the supplementary report of our Committee on Disestablishment, and the motion thereoa It is as yet only a fortnight since 46 THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. the measure was introduced into Parliament, but already- several Presbyteries of our Church have petitioned against it, and I have no doubt these will be all but universal. — I have the honour to remain, your Lordship's obedient servant, David Kinnear, Minister of the United Presbyterian Church at Dalbeattie. His Grace the Duke of Argyll. Argyll Lodge, Kensington, London : June 5, 1874. Rev. Sir, — What I said in the House of Lords was, that the Voluntary Churches had not ventured to oppose the Patronage Bill ' on its merits ' — that is, on the method which it proposes to sanction for the selection and settlement of ministers. I am quite aware that they condemn the Bill on the ground that in this respect it is only too right and too good for the Church dealt with, and that it is a Bill, therefore, likely to strengthen that Church, of which in other respects you disapprove. I observed lately that a ' minister of your Church spoke of the election of ministers by the congregation as a ' New Testament privilege,' but as one which, nevertheless, he was prepared to deny to his fellow Christians of the Established Church. It appears to me that to resist good is to do evil. To oppose a good thing being done in order that some other good thing may arise, is, therefore, to do evil that good may come. THE CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. 47 I am sure that the matter does not present itself in this aspect to your body. But I deeply regret that any Presby- terian communion should be induced, by the strong tempta- tions besetting especially all ecclesiastical parties, to place itself in a position so invidious towards a very large portion of their fellow countrymen and fellow Christians. There is surely room enough for all the communions in Scotland — room enough and to spare— without any one of them endeavouring to obstruct another in the attainment of privileges which those others are as capable of exercising as themselves, and on which all are disposed to set a high value in the interests of religion. — I am, your obedient servant, (Signed) ^ Argyll. The Rev. D. Kinnear. LONDON : PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE AND PARLIAMENT STREET •^4^, ^'M