the part of the Committee, as it seems to me, grounds upon which we are warranted in taking the step which I now mean to propose. He has explained that this is not in any sense the opening of ecclesiastical communication with the Establishment. This is precisely an analogous case to that of the debts that were outstanding when the Disruption took place. We had no hesitation for a moment about conferring with the representatives of the Establishment on the subject of the adjustment of these debts. Now, this question about the property of the quoad sacra churches is precisely analogous. And as to the grounds upon which we now move that the Assembly should adopt this measure, I think that, apart altogether from the risk which this Church runs of suffering more and more injustice,-injustice, I mean, as estimated in the court of conscience; apart from this, I think that we are sufficiently warranted, nay, called upon, to make this proposal, by a regard to general decorum, and the propriety of Churches of Christ, bearing that name and that profession, ceasing to appear before the world in the aspect of contending parties before a court of law; because, put any gloss on the matter you may,-let it be explained over and over again that Churches, as such, are not committed, there is no question whatever that this whole series of litigations has arisen out of the Disruption. There is no question that the contending parties in the courts of law are substantially representing the claims of two Churches. That is quite plain; and you cannot persuade common people that these law-suits are mere law-suits of a private nature between private individuals. They bear the aspect unquestionably before the world, and, I think, rightly bear the aspect, of law-suits carried on virtually, if not formally, between two branches of the visible Church of Christ; and, on this ground alone, I think we are sufficiently warranted in approaching the Established Assembly, and submitting to them a proposal for an equitable adjustment of this matter. (Hear, hear.) It has been already stated by Mr Begg, that the Committee of which he is the Convener, and the most efficient Convener, recommend that at all events there should be an application to Parliament. I believe that a delay has occurred during the past year in an application being made to Parliament, very much because those with whom we advised upon the subject had some doubt and difficulty whether Parliament would even look at such an application, if the other party who might be supposed to be concerned had not been previously asked to concur, and had not an opportunity been given to them to do so. It accordingly seems to be of importance that an opportunity should be afforded of opening up a communication with the Assembly of the Esta blished Church. It will obviously appear, I think, from the very nature of this proposal, that if we are to carry it out, it is on the whole desirable that the farther consideration of this subject should be in the mean time suspended. I trust that, if we adopt the proposal,—I am sure we will all do so,--we will do it in honesty and in good faith. We can have no possible desire but to put an end to the obnoxious and offensive spectacle presented to the country, of law-suits of this kind carried on between the members of different Churches. We can establish a sufficient ground, I think, if the other party will listen to reason, for asking the interference of Parliament. There would, as I have already said, be the utmost difficulty in getting Parliament to look at the case, if we are not able, in some way or other, to state before Parliament, either the concurrence of the other party, or their unreasonable refusal to concur. I will only further remark, that in the present state of the litigation this is probably the best stage for our making the proposal. Some may be disposed to say that it will be far better to let the law take its course,-to let the law-suits which have been now raised come to an end, and then to apply for an act of Parliament. On the very contrary, it seems to me, and I think it is plain to common sense,that if we ask Parliament to interfere, for the purpose either of arresting litigation or of settling an important public question, involving large interests, upon principles of equity, irrespective of the strict letter of the law, the time to do so is, before the courts of law shall have finally settled the whole matter. Already the courts of law have thrown sufficient doubt upon the question to warrant us at least to approach the other party, and to say, that as it is by no means clear on which side the decision will ultimately be given, it is desirable that litigations, which may be protracted, should be ended at once, to put a stop to a constant source of irritation; and it is desirable that the question should be settled, not merely according to the strict letter of the law, but according to the principles of equity. We are now in a condition to make

case.

this proposal, when the courts of law themselves acknowledge the difficulty of the We have the notorious fact, that in the case of the quoad sacra church of St Leonard's in this city, the courts of law are arrested by a difficulty or doubt, which they have at once avowed. Another important case is on its way from the Court of Session to the House of Lords; consequently all parties must confess that the issue of this litigation is uncertain; and therefore the propriety of a conference rather than the prolongation of these harassing law-suits. The resolutions which I have to propose distinctly show how easily this matter may be practically adjusted. It is not like a case which arose some time ago in England and Ireland in reference to property bequeathed many years ago, and in regard to which there was difficulty in ascertaining the views of the donors. In the present case the donors are living, and ready to answer for themselves; and any jury or sheriff of a county, or other official person, can easily ascertain how much was subscribed by those belonging to the Establishment, and those who have seceded from it; and having ascertained what proportions belong to the respective parties, that the sheriff, or other officials, shall then take measures, by the sale of the property, or otherwise, for giving effect to the adjudication which he might pronounce. Dr Candlish then proposed the following resolutions:

"1. That the places of worship in question were erected by the joint resources of the parties who now constitute the two bodies of the Establishment and the Free Church in the land; and, moreover, were erected, not merely in connection with the Establishment, but under conditions relative to the status of their ministers, the erecting of kirk-sessions, and the assigning of parishes quoad sacra, which, as it now appears, the Established Church cannot implement.

"2. That, since the Disruption in 1843, not only have several of these places of worship been claimed by the Establishment, and surrendered to them under protest, but harassing and painful litigations have been, and are still going on, the issue of which is still uncertain, as the termination of them may be distant.

"3. That although these litigations have in many instances been conducted in the name of private parties, who have appeared in Court as pursuers and defenders, it must be obvious that, as they originated in the separation between the two bodies to which the litigants respectively belong, so it materially concerns the two bodies themselves to have the matter in dispute, if it be at all practicable, equitably and amicably adjusted.

"4. That the present state of the processes in the courts of law, while the judgment of the Court of Session in one case is suspended by the doubts and difficulties confessedly felt by the Judges, and in another, by an appeal to the Court of Review, seems to afford a favourable conjuncture and opportunity for attempting such an adjustment.

"5. That a just principle of adjustment might, without much difficulty, be found, were a reference made in the case of each place of worship, to one or more officia! persons in the county or city in which it may be situated, to have it ascertained, by some proper method of inquiry, what share the respective parties now separated from one another, and attached to the Establishment and the Free Church respectively, may be fairly regarded as having had in furnishing the expenses of its erection. It might be reasonable to consider as contributed by members of the Establishment, what cannot be shown to the satisfaction of the official person or persons above mentioned to have been raised by those who have since separated from that communion, or cannot be otherwise equitably adjusted between the parties, by the official person or persons aforesaid. Thereafter, it having been thus decided what shares the two bodies respectively have in the erection, it might be determined by the same official person or persons how effect is to be given to the decision, whether by sale or otherwise, providing, of course, always for the liquidation of whatever debt may be connected with the fabric.

"6. That for carrying out any such plan of equitable adjustment, it may be necessary to apply for an Act of Parliament; that Parliament, it is to be hoped, might be found not unwilling to interfere for the purpose of putting a stop to what necessarily bears the aspect of litigation between two professing Christian Churches, and must at all events be attended with the painful effect of perpetuating irritation and offence; but that with a view to the success of any application for such a legislative measure,

it would appear to be most desirable that it should be made in the name of both the parties who have an interest in the matter.

"7. That in order to effect so desirable an object as that contemplated in the preceding resolutions, it is expedient that it should be brought under the notice of the General Assembly of the Establishment now convened; and that this Assembly accordingly authorise and request their Moderator to communicate said resolutions, together with the Memorial to her Majesty's Government now laid on the table, to the Moderator of the Established Assembly, and appoint James Crawford jun. Esq. W.S., their Depute Clerk, to deliver the Moderator's communication.

"8. That the farther consideration of this subject by this Assembly, be in the mean time postponed till Thursday the 27th inst."

Mr SHANKS of Buckie, in seconding the resolutions, detailed what had taken place in connection with the litigation, in reference to his own church. He mentioned that a proposal, somewhat similar to that embodied in the resolutions, had been made to the Presbytery, who took time to deliberate on the matter, but he presumed that they felt themselves unable, as an inferior court, to sist procedure. An application was also made to all the heritors, and they all declined to enter into litigation on the opposite side; and one of them, the Duke of Richmond, expressed his satisfaction at the equitable nature of the proposal made for settling the matter.

Mr SINCLAIR of Kirkwall suggested that some alteration should be made on that resolution which proposed that the money should be divided according to the sums subscribed by the members of the Free and Established Churches. He made this suggestion, because the plan proposed would not meet the case of the church of Kirkwall, £2000 of the money for building which had been raised in different parts of Scotland and England, through the zeal of his predecessor, Mr Petrie, now in Govan. Now, if, in the division of the money, they were to confine it to what was contributed by parties living in Orkney belonging to the Free Church, it would not amount to more than £300; whereas, if they were to say, subscribed by friends of the Free Church in England and Scotland, he believed that they would be able to claim ninetenths of the entire sum.

Mr M. M. CRICHTON said, that it appeared to him that they should not go into matters of detail at that time. The case of Kirkwall separated itself from most of the other cases, and to meet which another principle of division must be brought into operation. He thought the resolutions were admirably adapted to form the basis of a communication with the General Assembly of the Established Church, and to lead to a final and equitable adjustment of the question.

Mr ROBERT PAUL said, that in all cases where the sums subscribed by each party could not be properly ascertained, he would by all means allow the Establishment to have the advantage of them, so as to throw no barrier in the way of the adjustment of the general question. He cordially approved of the resolutions which had been submitted to them, and of the proposal to go to Parliament, and he was of opinion that the principle was so equitable that it would not be rejected by Parliament.

Mr SINCLAIR of Kirkwall said, he had no wish to discuss individual cases; but he thought that these resolutions should be so framed as not to preclude the claims of cases such as that of Kirkwall.

Dr D. MACFARLAN said, if these resolutions were to lie on the table for future. discussion, and no judgment given on them at present, he had no objections to waive discussion on them; but he thought it would be a wrong thing to attempt to carry them into effect after having heard them read only once.

Mr SINCLAIR said his remarks seemed to have been misunderstood. All he wished was, that they would not discuss individual cases, and that the words in the resolution should not be founded on to preclude their future claim in a case where they could prove each individual subscription, and the ground upon which it was given. Dr CANDLISHI said he thought it was quite right that the resolutions should be read again. They could not adopt such a series of resolutions on a single hearing. It would even be well to put them seriatim to the Assembly; but he hoped that no obstacle would be allowed to interfere with their adoption, and that they would be transmitted without delay,--to-morrow, if possible,- -to the General Assembly of the Established Church. The full discussion of them it was proposed to postpone to

Thursday next, in order to afford time to the other body to seriously consider them and return an answer.

Dr MACFARLAN said, that being the understanding, he could not concur in the proposal now made, that the resolutions should be adopted to the extent of being sent to the Assembly of the Established Church. He would state his reasons for saying so, although, not knowing anything of the resolutions but what he had learned from hearing them read once, he would not be able to state his views so fully as he would have wished, and as he would have done if the resolutions had come under his consideration. First of all, he was not so satisfied as some of his esteemed friends as to this not being an acknowledgment of their submission to the Established Church. Their protest was lying on the table of that court, not as regarded particular Presbyteries, but as regarded the constitution of the court itself. It was said they had a precedent for what had been proposed in the arrangement adopted with regard to the law expenses in the Auchterarder case; but he did not understand that to be any precedent for the case before them. That matter had been under litigation, and the agents of the different parties were allowed to hold intercourse in regard to the arrangement for paying the expenses incurred; but in the present case the matter was very different; and, moreover, it was not fully brought out in the resolutions. It was alleged in the resolutions that, although the lawsuits in regard to the quoad sacra churches had taken place between private parties, that these two parties were in reality acting for the two separate churches. This was not the case. He was not

the

aware that the Free Church were parties at all in any of the cases which had come before the courts, while it was notorious that the Presbyteries of the Established Church were enjoined to take legal measures to get possession of these churches. The question of litigation being between private parties attached to the Free Church, and the Established Church with certain private parties on the other side, it was now proposed to go forward to the Established Church, and to say, the Free Church had certain proposals to make to them in regard to a matter which had already in a great measure been disposed of. No arrangement they could adopt, nor any act of Parliament could give them back the property decided in the courts of law to belong to the Establishment. But what was their proposal? So far as he could understand the resolutions, it was neither more nor less than what those private parties had all along sought for. Those private parties simply asked that an adjustment between the several claimants ought to be made, and that they ought to sell the property for purpose of refunding for the loss on either side. But the Established Church said, as an Established Church they had a right to claim that property in virtue of their constitution, and now it was proposed to go to that very body and ask them to come to a compromise. Was not this the very ground on which the litigation had proceeded all along? And what could the Free Church expect to gain by a compromise? Only a very small part of the property which belonged to them at the very utmost; and the effect would be, that the strong moral argument which was working in their localities would be destroyed, inasmuch as parties might now come forward and say, that they would be very glad to do anything reasonable, and make a merit of agreeing to a compromise, after two-fifths of these churches were in the firm possession of the Establishment; while they would be regarded as having made a compromise with parties who had trampled upon the honour they were bound to maintain, and trampled upon the rights they were bound to hold sacred. If it had not been proposed to send the resolutions to the other Assembly, he would have been glad to have avoided any discussion on the subject in the mean time; but he felt it to be a duty to oppose the proposal, and he, therefore, begged to move that the resolutions should not be transmitted to the Assembly of the Establishment.

Dr CUNNINGHAM said, I cannot concur in the grounds stated by Dr Macfarlan, for opposing this motion. I think it a right, proper, and becoming thing in this General Assembly, in the circumstances in which it is placed, to take the steps which it is proposed, and to approve of the resolutions which have been laid before us for adoption. I am sure every one must feel this, that unless there be some clear and stringent barrier in the way of positive principle which we should not transgress, it is a desirable object,-an object which we are all desirous of, all the friends of peace and good order, the welfare of the community and the interests of religion,that the existing litigation in regard to the quoad sacra churches should be as speedily as possible brought to an end. Every one feels deeply interested in that object; and every

one, I think, will lean to this side, unless there be some barrier in the way of adopting the legitimate means to effect that object. No one knowing anything of the way in which these matters are usually managed can fail to see that the concurrence of the General Assembly of the Free Church and of the Establishment, in an application to Parliament for an adjustment of this matter on equitable grounds, would have a direct and powerful tendency to effect the object which we desire. That being the case, the question is limited to this,-Is there really any ground of principle or of strong Christian expediency to prevent us from taking steps manifestly fitted directly to accomplish the object which we desire and are bound to labour for? Now, I cannot see any ground of principle or of strong Christian expediency against adopting the measure suggested. It has been said that it would be in some sense an acknowledgment of the courts of the Establishment. Now, that is too vague a ground, unless it is somewhat more fully brought out and expressed in detail. We cannot, in all respects, refuse to acknowledge the courts of the Establishment. They have a real existence-(loud laughter)-they have important civil rights conferred upon them by law; they can affect the civil interests and general welfare of the community; and under all these circumstances, and in these various capacities, we must recognise them as having an existence. It is said that they come naturally into more direct contact with lawsuits than we do, but in what character, and in what capacity, have they come into these lawsuits? Why in this character alone. Because the Presbyteries of the bounds, who have taken steps, are the recognised official guardians of the civil interests of the church, and in this capacity alone they come into contact with the lawsuits. By dealing with them in that capacity, we recognise the fact that, by the law of the land, they are invested the civil guardians of all the interests of the Church. We recognise them to this extent, and to no other extent. It will be remembered that in one very solemn and important step, we did most fully and formally recognise them in that capacity ---I mean, in the act of demission itself. We did recognise them as the authorised guardians of the civil interests of the Establishment; it was necessary for us, in a legal and competent way, to get quit of our civil rights and our civil obligations, and the way in which that was done was by executing our Deed of Demission, by which we denuded ourselves of civil rights. And after that what did we do? Why we resolved to transmit our Deed of Demission to the General Assembly of the Established Church, then sitting in this city, just because it could not be disputed that they were recognised by law as the guardians of the secularities of the Church. And it did require some proof of an act upon their part by which we could be fully quit of all our civil obligations. We recognised them to that extent, and to that extent only, in this proposal,-namely, that they are constituted by law the guardians of the civil rights of the Establishment; and it is in that capacity alone that they interfere in this litigation. It is said, Why call that a compromise because we are simply asking now what we have hitherto tried to get otherwise at the courts of law? That is a matter of fact; but here is the rationale of it. We have hitherto held a right by law to that as well as a right in equity. Our legal rights required it, and our quoad sacra rights in equity required it, going to the same extent. We claim no more in law than we can vindicate in equity; we think it is better, all things considered, to get by an equitable process what we are entitled to in equity, and which happens also to be the whole of that to which we are entitled in law; not because it is a compromise in its own nature, but simply from that special circumstance, that what we ask now by an equitable adjustment is what we have hitherto asked in the civil courts on legal grounds. On the whole, I cannot see any weight in the difficulties which have been started; and I would fain hope that the Assembly will feel itself warranted to take steps in terms of the resolutions. It is desirable, if this is to be done, that it be done now; and I do not think that our claims or our principles will at all be thereby affected.

The resolutions were approved of,-Dr Macfarlan dissenting.

The Assembly took up the

OVERTURE ANENT THE STANDING ORDERS.

The Clerk read the following overture:

"Edinburgh, 20th May 1847. “Whereas it seems expedient that the standing orders of the General Assembly should be revised, with a view to consider whether any, and what modifications and