WYND CHURCH, GLASGOW.

The General Assembly, understanding that there will soon be a vacancy in the Wynd Church, Glasgow, which has the benefit of one of the Chalmers' Endowments, agreed, with concurrence of the Glasgow Church Building Society, of the Sustentation Fund Committee, and of Miss Hunter's Trustees, that, when the vacancy shall have taken place, the said Endowment shall be retained to the Wynd Church, for behoof of its future minister, and that the partial Chalmers' Endowment at present unappropriated, shall be applied for behoof of the minister of Bridgegate Church, conform to the regulation anent said endowment in Act IX., Assembly 1853.

CONGREGATION AT CONNINGSBURGH.

The General Assembly, on a statement made regarding the large increase of contributions to the Sustentation Fund by the Congregation at Conningsburgh, resolved to modify the regulations adopted by last Assembly, relative to ecclesiastical arrangements in the Presbytery of Shetland, so far as to permit said Presbytery to proceed with the settlement of a minister at Conningsburgh, upon such an arrangement as may be come to betwixt the Presbytery and the Sustentation Fund Committee.

SPECIAL SUSTENTATION FUND COMMITTEE,

Sir HENRY MONCREIFF gave in the Report of the Special Committee appointed by the Assembly in 1859 for condensing the opinions and suggestions of Presbyteries regarding the Report of the Select Committee on the Sustentation Fund. (See Appendix.)

Sir HENRY MONCREIFF having laid the Report on the table, addressed the House as follows:-Allow me to remind this Assembly of the circumstances in which this Special Committee on the Sustentation Fund now presents a Report. The last General Assembly appointed a new Committee, consisting of the former Committee and other persons who were named. A certain number of the members of the former Committee resigned during the sittings of the Assembly, and their resignations were accepted of. Not long afterwards, at the first meeting of the Committee, the resignation of Mr Hunter, the Chairman, was announced. In these circumstances, I was asked to act as Chairman, and this is the reason why I now appear before you to present this Report. It is with feelings of some regret that I find myself called upon to introduce any subject of controversy in such an Assembly as the present, in which we might wish in a peculiar degree to preserve harmony to the end. But, at the same time, it is always best to deal truly with a subject like that before us, according to our conscientious convictions. Let me remind the Assembly of the limits that were set to our deliberations. These limits were twofold. In the first place, we were confined to the subject of the distribution of the fund. In the second place, we were limited by the views expressed in the returns of Presbyteries. You must judge, Moderator, of our Report in the light of these limitations. I have only heard of one ground of opposition to this Report,-the ground of its inadequacy. Now, sir, I deny the revelancy of this ground of opposition. I say that it is no good objection to this Report, that "it

does not sufficiently provide remedies for existing abuses, and is not such as will satisfy the reasonable expectations of the contributors to the fund. The Report could not possibly be adequate, so as to give full satisfaction, under the limitations already mentioned. It is very probable, indeed, that good objections may be found to the Committee's procedure, as not coming up to the limits set them by the terms of the remit made to them. But any defect of this kind ought not to prevent the approval of the Report, or of part thereof. If more be wanted to satisfy contributors, still here is something that we propose to you. Why not take it; and then see what more can be accomplished? The Committee have expressly said, at the close of their Report, that they are aware of their having by no means exhausted the field of inquiry assigned to them. There are many valuable improvements that might probably be carried into effect for the better ingathering of the fund. Some of these have been alluded to at the commencement of the Report. The Committee were precluded from including them in their recommendations, by the fact that they did not belong to the subject of distribution. Sir Henry then referred to the position of parties with relation to the subject, and to the particulars of the proposals contained in the Report.

He endeavoured to shew that the Re

port had met the requirements of all the overtures before the Assem bly in 1858, and remitted by that Assembly to another Committee, whose Report was now on the table. He endeavoured to shew that the Report met all these overtures, in so far as the limits assigned to their deliberations allowed. He then alluded to the two overtures, which the Committee had only recommended to the attentive consideration of the Assembly. He stated that he did not sympathise with the strong views of some as to the necessity of giving something out of the Sustentation Fund to Church Extension, with a view to the benefit of the fund itself. Nor did he sympathise with the equally strong view which others held against any such proposal. But he felt himself constrained to agree to the provision in the first of these overtures, because at present he saw no other way for the adequate maintenance of sanctioned charges not upon the platform of the equal dividend. In these days, when the mighty power of the Spirit of God is accomplishing so much with relation to the progress of our territorial charges, he thought that surely the Assembly would feel an obligation laid upon them to adopt some measures for supporting those charges. (Hear, hear.) The evidence before our Home Mission Committee, as brought under our view by the Convener, goes to prove, that in no quarter more than in our territorial must find some way of supporting these charges. He did not think the missions has this mighty power of revival been operating. Surely we proposal would injure the fund. (Hear, hear.) The charges to be supported, and the sum for supporting them, would be definitely fixed at the beginning of the year; and whatever more was raised during the to the Equal Dividend Fund. With respect to the second

year would

go

of these two overtures, viz., that as to the supplements, he said he did not think so much of abuse was due to supplements as some supposed. But there were some abuses, and it was reasonable to provide against them. (Applause.) This Report, however, may be considered inadequate on other grounds altogether. It may be considered inadequate because the limit set by the Presbyteries to the deliberations of the

G

Committee is such as to prevent a sufficient provision of remedies for existing abuses, and has made it impossible for the Committee to satisfy the reasonable expectations of contributors to the fund. But if this ground of opposition be taken, then I ask (said Sir Henry) that this ground be distinctly avowed. I claim, as matter of justice, that the merits of the Committee's Report, as proceeding on the only footing which was open to them, be not mixed up, or the question confused, by any proposal which is really a proposal for unsettling once more the question of an equal dividend, and reversing the judgment of the Presbyteries, while it takes the form of a mere objection to our Report as insufficient and unsatisfactory. I have already shewn that the Report cannot be disposed of merely by saying that it is inadequate. It may be said, however, that no remedy is of use while the equal dividend is so strongly adhered to. If this be the ground taken, let it be distinctly understood. But even if be understood, let me entreat the members of Assembly to consider what it implies. It implies that you will do what you can to draw this Church into a perpetual round of unprofitable controversy. Those opposed to the equal dividend obtained a Special Committee. That Committee made a Report which a majority of Presbyteries considered to involve too great a departure from the equal dividend. You may attempt to reverse that decision. You may carry something in a particular Assembly, but I believe the mind of the Church will be against you again as it was against you before. And therefore I say, the tendency is to a perpetual round of unprofitable controversy. But some one will ask, "Why insist so strongly on our adherence to the system of an equal dividend? Why not depart from it, in order to satisfy the contributors?" Are you quite sure, Moderator, that a majority of the contributors desire a departure from the equal dividend? Do you really believe that the advocacy of the equal dividend is a crotchet of the ministers, and that the wish for a departure from it is to be ascribed to the superior intelligence of sagacious contributors ? Has this opposition between the mind of the ministers and the mind of the contributors, which the language of some would indicate, any foundation in the real state of the case? I do not believe it, Moderator, but, on the contrary, I am persuaded that the views of the ministers and the Presbyteries represent the views of the Church and the views of the contributors. I believe that the ministers and the laity are divided upon this question, as well as upon others, in very much the same proportion. Who are the contributors? Far be it from me to depreciate the value of those intelligent and generoushearted men, who, combining large resources with large liberality, design to turn that liberality to the best account for the cause of Jesus. I can sympathise with their feelings of anxiety for the right disposal of their contributions, and with their disturbance on finding instances of their misapplication. But in a large institution like our Church, there must always be such instances. But while shewing all honour and respect to these benefactors, let us not forget that the contributors to the Sustentation Fund are the whole body of those who heartily adhere to our Church, both in town and country, including the ministers themselves, to no small extent; and including those among our people who sacrifice much of the little they have, as well as those who give largely out of their large treasures. (Applause.) If you speak of satisfying the contribu tors, then I say you have to consider how you will satisfy those who, in

hard and trying circumstances, have struggled to maintain your system and your cause in their own sphere for sixteen years. (Applause.) Both ministers and people have during that period been stirred up to great self-denial, and to most laborious exertion, by what, I trust, has been a powerful influence from Heaven. But they have been cheered and helped in their persevering efforts by what they felt to be the comprehensive beauty, and the consequently encouraging character of your system. (Applause.) The habit of the equal dividend has been formed. It is no light thing, be assured, to disturb a habit which has been generated in the very birth of an institution like that of the Free Church, in its existing organisation. Satisfy the contributors by all means. But in your endeavour to do so, take them all into account. (Applause.) Consider the deep distress you will occasion to many of your honest supporters by an opposite course. Consider how you will thereby revolutionise all their ideas as to the support of our Church. Consider how you will inevitably destroy the power of those impulses to liberality in our poorest congregations which spring from the close connexion in their minds between the maintenance of the Sustentation Fund and the upholding of high and sacred principles. Let me entreat you to beware of interfering with these impulses as they work in the best of your congregations, for the purpose of remedying evils in some of your worst. Beware of secularising that which has its best support, in the strong spiritual motives of your devoted adherents. (Applause.) And if, Moderator, you do adhere to the conclusion that the substance of the equal dividend system ought not to be interfered with, then, upon that supposition, it is surely reasonable to consider whether the recommendations of this Report, or at least one or more of them, may not be safely and advantageously adopted. I cannot see, indeed, why those who are most opposed to the equal dividend system should refuse their concurrence. I cannot suppose that they will agree to no improvement until they can have their own object accomplished. (Applause.) For the reasons already mentioned, I think the question ought surely to be, not whether our proposals be adequate or satisfactory, but whether they involve any advance on a path of legitimate improvement. Before concluding my statement, allow me, Moderator, to take notice of that extremely useful publication which you yourself have alluded to-I mean the Tabular Abstracts with which the Convener of the Finance Committee has favoured the Church. publication is deserving of our grateful acknowledgments. Among other facts clearly brought out in this very distinct exhibition which he has given, I find these two most important and satisfactory ones.

he

says

This

At page 24 "It may be truly said that, as to the general result, the progress of the fund has been always upward; and it is especially important to notice this other fact, that the great efforts to increase the fund lowed by any reaction, but the higher level gained has been always have not, as might have been to some extent expected, been fol

most firmly maintained."

Thus we have

first the fact, that the fund

has always been advancing in a steady and solid manner; and, secondly, the fact, that the great efforts to increase the fund have not been followed by any reaction, but the higher level gained has been always most firmly maintained. Sir, I maintain that these satisfactory conclufeatures of the mode in which the fund has been raised and distributed

for sixteen years. You have here, notwithstanding all our difficulties and all our differences, the demonstration of a great and wonderful success. It may be reasonable, in such circumstances, to improve the system by gradual and cautious alteration. But I say, and I believe I express the mind of this Church, that it is the reverse of reasonable to upset the system from the very foundation. (Applause.) It is not reasonable to adopt all at once any arrangement which would entirely alter the relations in which our congregations, our ministers, and our liberal contributors, have hitherto stood to that great fund, which has been the instrument in God's hand for enabling us to hold up the banner of our principles throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, and which gives so grand a practical testimony to the depth and the strength of our convictions. (Applause.) I find another fact brought out by Mr Meldrum. He says (page 41) that the fund shews symptoms of decline, aud that the declension is most serious among the wealthier congregations. He admits that there is a tendency to an increase of contributions from the less wealthy congregations. But he fears that, without some fresh stimulus, this tendency may be overbalanced by a failure in the contributions of those who have hitherto largely supported the fund. (Applause.) I am disposed, Moderator, to admit that, in present circumstances, there is a strong call for some fresh adjustment of our arrangements, whereby fitting means may be provided to reconcile the strength of our system with some scriptural and well-considered method of both stimulating and regulating that liberality which the claims of our territorial missions, and of church extension generally, may elicit, under the influence of a gracious and wide-spread revival from the Spirit of God. I like the tone and spirit of Mr Meldrum's remarks. I have formed no decided opinion as to his suggestions. But it appears to me, and I think it will appear to the Church, that the safe basis for this Church to proceed upon in all her new movements must be the old basis upon which she has flourished for sixteen years. I think that basis can only be found in the substance of that system of an equal dividend to which the great body of our people are both accustomed and attached. (Loud applause.)

Mr DALZIEL then rose to propose the motion of which he had given notice "That the Report of the Select Committee on the Sustentation Fund does not sufficiently provide remedies for existing abuses, and is not such as will satisfy the reasonable expectations of contributors to the fund." He said In the year 1857, when the matter of the Sustentation Fund came under the consideration of a large meeting of the elders and contributors to that fund held in Edinburgh, I stated that this subject was one which I thought was only second in importance to the imperishable principles of the Disruption. A conflict of opinion had arisen-which, I regret to say, still exists-on the subject of this fund, chiefly between the contributors and distributors. This conflict of opinion ended in the appointment of a Select Committee in the year 1857, to inquire into the whole subject, and it was a preliminary condition of such appointment that the Committee should be composed of six persons holding to the principle of an equal dividend, and of six persons holding a different opinion. Mr Hunter, who was understood to be quite a neutral party, was, in addition, appointed Convener. The Committee so constituted proceeded to investigate the whole subject,