and Duke Street, Glasgow, while the present state of the United Presbyterian Church in these places shows how absolutely futile was the attempt.

The persons who formed the congregations now under consideration were consulting their own convenience in the movements made by them. But it was a convenience considered in connection with their ecclesiastical associations and sympathies, and not merely the saving of distance and trouble to themselves. They did not care for the convenience desired, unless it was accompanied with other circumstances to which they attached importance, and which they believed they could obtain in connection with the religious denomination to which they belonged. Nevertheless, many persons, who had an interest in thinking otherwise, persuaded themselves that the Secession and Relief congregations, which they saw rising around them, were not the offspring of principle and the natural growth of a healthy body, but the accretions of an active, but neglected population. Several witnesses examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Church Patronage in Scotland, accordingly ventured the statement, that Dissent had increased in that part of the kingdom, because the parochial system in Scotland had not been carried out as it ought. Here we must turn for a moment to the cry that was raised, that Dissenters were invading the territories of the Established Church, and absorbing her population, in consequence of the State failing to provide sufficient accommodation for the people within her pale. This cry led to the appointment of a Government Commission in 1835, to inquire into the state of religious instruction in Scotland. The parishes personally visited and specially reported on by the commissioners were 552 in number, and the reports respecting them, since published, extend to nine folio volumes. From these we learn, that in 76 parishes in which there were Secession and Relief congregations, originating in the manner we have been describing in this section, 50 parochial churches had been rebuilt or enlarged to the extent required by law, and thus proof was furnished, that in so far as these parishes were concerned, the plea set up for increased accommodation was invalid. Besides the renovation and enlargement of these parochial churches, chapels of ease had been erected during the same period in several places where the population had greatly increased, and which should have hindered the increase of Secession and Relief congregations, if they could be so hindered.

If Dissenters had reasoned after the manner of Churchmen, they would have raised a cry that the Establishment was attempting to absorb their population, and referred to these cases for the proof. If they had been foolish enough to raise such a cry, they would have been told, as a matter of course, that the Established Church had the only right to the population, and they must not complain. Nor did they raise any groundless clamour, being fully aware that the tendency of all modern change is in their favour, and that no extension of the parochial system will avert the so-called evil. Of all the congregations now in connection with the United Presbyterian Church, only four have arisen from want of sufficient accommodation in the churches of the Establishment. These are Head Street, Beith; High Street, Brechin; Sir Michael Street, Greenock; and Allar's Church, Hawick,-all of them belonging to the Relief Church. Even these few might have been prevented, had the ministers in the places named manifested any concern on the subject. But they were indifferent to the extension of their churches, unless it was attended with the increase of their emoluments, or the diminution of their labours. Instead of extending their churches, even in comparatively recent times, they were diminishing them, by suppressing parishes, or uniting them, so as to make one place of worship serve

for two parishes. It was out of such an amalgamation, conjoined with the refusal to afford occasional supply of sermon in the church of the parish which had been suppressed, that Roberton congregation originated. On the other hand, the Courts of the Establishment would not allow the erection of chapels of ease in certain destitute localities, though laymen of the highest respectability were willing to become bound to meet all the expense of their erection and the continued maintenance of ordinances in them. From opposition to church extension in this form, there arose the Relief congregation now represented by that of Bread Street, Edinburgh, and the congregations of Castle-Douglas, and Moss Street, Elgin.

The large internal growth of several Secession and Relief congregations, rendered it necessary for them to colonise, without respect to the local convenience of their members, though this was, at the same time, in many instances, subserved by it. Thus, the overflowing of the church in College Street led to the erection of the church in St James' Place, Edinburgh, and instances of the same kind occurred in Glasgow. So, also, the overflow of the church in Cartsdyke, led to the erection of the church in Nicolson Street, Greenock, as did that of the church in Thread Street to the erection of the church in Canal Street, Paisley.

Under the head of convenience, we may classify other congregations as to their origin, although, in their case, the necessity arose from the increase of Seceders and members of the Relief Church, in localities which had acquired importance by the rise and extension of public works, and kindred causes. In this way, there arose the congregations of South Bridge Street, Airdrie; Alva, Balfron, Barrhead, Birkenhead, Bonhill, Bridge of Allan, Broughtyferry, Busby, Catrine, Coatbridge, Dunoon, Galashiels (West), Gourock; Chapel Street, Hamilton; Helensburgh, Johnston, Lochwinnoch, Muirkirk, Partick, Pitcairn, Portobello, Stonehaven, Sanquhar (North), Thornliebank, and Wishawtown.*

Akin to the cause, with its peculiar modification, just now described, is that of the emigration of members of congregations into England, who carried with them their ecclesiastical predilections, and sought to give them practical effect in the land of their adoption. In this way there arose the congregations of Clayport Street, Alnwick; Blyth, Greenwich, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool; Llyod Street, Manchester; Ramsey, Isle of Man; North and South Shields, Whitehaven, and Workington. When we consider the immense number of Scotsmen who have taken up their residence in England, and the great proportion of that number who previously belonged to the Secession and Relief Churches, we must allow that the congregations formed by them in that country are exceedingly few. But the defection implied in the fact, is not peculiar to these Churches, but is common to all other Churches in Scotland to which the emigrants previously belonged. The congregations in England connected with the Established and Free Churches, are not more numerous in proportion to the strength of the parent denominations, than are those in connection. with the United Presbyterian Church. The explanation of this fact is to be found in the character of the emigrants generally, rather than in the non-adaptation of their ecclesiastical views to those prevailing in England, and other causes of a similar kind, to which they are commonly ascribed. Many who have removed thither are more bent upon their temporal than upon their spiritual advancement, and therefore do not covet the religious privileges they had at home. Many, however, are inclined to associate themselves in Church communion after the

* Were the statistics brought down to the present date-1872-this list of congregations would be largely increased. — EDS.

manner of their fathers, if facilities were afforded them for doing so. In the large cities of England, in which numerous Scotsmen are settling, it is impracticable to attend the few and sparse churches belonging to their own denominations to be found in them. The argument sometimes used, "Fill the existing churches before building new ones," may be of some force in thinly-peopled districts, but not so in vast centres of population. In such teeming localities, churches, like plants in a nursery, with a good soil, protect and cherish one another. The United Presbyterians in the North of England, seem to have come now to this conviction, for in October 1854, the Lancashire Presbytery constituted a Society for Home Missions and Church Extension, with means to provide funds for carrying out their designs; and, as a commencement, have opened a station at Bootle, in Liverpool, to which they look as an experiment encouraging them to proceed with others. *

It is not attempted to be denied or concealed that many persons once connected with the denominations now in question, have changed their ecclesiastical principles with their change of residence, and many have abandoned their religious principles altogether. But these are the exceptions to the rule. The great proportion adhere tenaciously to the religious opinions in which they have been educated, and not a few of them have subjected themselves to great self-denial and sacrifice in maintaining their opinions. Yet it has been frequently averred, with a view to induce Government to extend the parochial system, that most persons are Dissenters from necessity, and not from choice; that Secession and Relief Churches especially have arisen in localities where the population has widely and rapidly extended, merely because the accommodation in the parish churches of these localities has not extended proportionately with it. Now, it can be proved beyond dispute, that in most of the places referred to in this section, there was a large amount of unoccupied spaces in the churches of the Establishment, both at the time the congregations named came into existence, and for a long time afterwards, so that if the persons composing them had been mindful of the Church from which they or their fathers came out, "they might have had an opportunity to have returned," but they sought after a more excellent way, and persuaded themselves that they had obtained it.

6. Congregations Originating in the Opposition of Minorities to calls given by Majorities to Pastors to Preside over them.

The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Church Patronage in Scotland, urged the question upon most of the witnesses examined, Whether popular election, as practised in the Secession and Relief Churches, did not produce divisions, leading to the breaking up of congregations when called to exercise it? Of the nineteen persons interrogated, though with few exceptions favourable to the most arbitrary exercise of patronage, not one admitted that he ever knew a case of a congregation being broken up from such a cause. The Rev. Dr Macfarlane of Greenock ventured, indeed, to repeat what he had before advanced in a pamphlet he had published on the subject under consideration, "That there can be no doubt whatever, that in popular elections there have been many heats and divisions, and that they have issued, in a great many instances, in the people breaking off and building a new church." Not to speak of the evidence here adduced being

* Since the above was written, the movement for the Extension of the United Presbyterian Church in England has been conducted on a large scale, both in the great cities, and in provincial towns.-EDs.

given by a minister of another denomination than that to which his evidence applied, we challenge the accuracy of the evidence itself. So far from the instances to which he referred being numerous, they are surprisingly few and unimportant. Of the ordinations and inductions in the United Presbyterian Church, only twenty have led to disruption of congregations and erection of new churches. The congregations which have arisen from this cause are, St Nicholas Lane, Aberdeen; Bankhill; Berwick; Buckhaven; Ceres (East); Provost Wynd, Cupar; Tay Square, Dundee; Cowgate, Potterow, and Rose Street, Edinburgh; Hutchesontown, and. John Street, Glasgow; Union Street, Greenock; Brandon Street, Hamilton; Kelso (East); Hope Street, Lanark; Lauder (South); Perth (North West); Selkirk (Second); and Strathaven (West).

Now, let it be carefully noted, that with the exception of Buckhaven, Ceres, Lasswade, and Lauder, all the cases mentioned occurred in congregations which were either in themselves large, or were capable of expansion, from their churches being situated in populous districts. The church in Bristo Street, Edinburgh, though one of the largest in the city, was quite filled when the persons originating the congregation of Rose Street withdrew from it. So it was equally well filled, when the Secession congregation of Cowgate was formed from it. The church in Nicolson Street, not much smaller than its neighbour, was in the same state, when the party separated from it by which the congregation of Potterrow was begun. The church in Dovehill, Glasgow, containing 1400 sittings, was in a condition similar to those referred to in Edinburgh, when the congregations of Hutchesontown and John Street, in that city, were formed by persons who had attended it; and that notwithstanding the Relief congregation in Campbell Street had been pressed out of it by overcrowding. When these occurrences took place, both Edinburgh and Glasgow were rapidly increasing their population and extending their boundaries, while there were comparatively few Secession or Relief places of worship in either of them. Those who were friendly to the extension of these denominations, perceived that congregations connected with them might be multiplied without materially affecting those already existing, and made their opposition to a preferred candidate for the pastorate a reason for separation, when their object was more particularly the increase of churches. It is to be remembered that such movements were not then so favourably regarded, and that presbyteries sanctioned them rather from necessity than choice.

We are persuaded that the cases now exhibited would never have existed had the congregations in which they occurred been of ordinary size. Their unwieldy dimensions furnished an argument for division, which received additional force from the alienated feeling which had arisen.

We have satisfactorily accounted, we think, for cases of this kind which have occurred in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Let us turn now to those which have happened elsewhere. Eleven have taken place in towns of considerable size, and most of them then on the increase. These are Aberdeen, Berwick, Cupar, Dundee, Greenock, Hamilton, Kelso, Lanark, Perth, Selkirk, and Strathaven. The congregations which divided in these places were large, and there were no others of the same denomination existing there at the time, except in Aberdeen and Dundee. Such circumstances may help to explain these movements, if not altogether to account for them.

The remaining instances are those of Buckhaven, Ceres, Lasswade, and Lauder, already mentioned as furnishing exceptions to the cases occurring in large towns— each of which has a speciality of its own.

Buckhaven is the largest of seven villages belonging to the parish in which it is situated. It had become evident, from the number of Seceders travelling every Sabbath from these villages to Kennoway, three miles distant, where was the only place of worship belonging to their denomination in the district, that they would form at once a considerable congregation of themselves, without materially injuring that of Kennoway. The election of a minister in that congregation, not unanimously approved of, presented itself as a fitting occasion to make the attempt. The attempt succeeded, and the consequence is that the denomination has now two substantial congregations instead of one.

The case of Ceres was not that of a disputed settlement in the right import of that phrase. A fama clamosa had arisen against the minister-elect, which delayed his trials for ordination till the charge was investigated. At this constitutional course he took offence, and refused to concur in the delay. The majority of the congregation, justly displeased with him on that account, and with the sanction of the Presbytery, withdrew their call to him. The minority, however, adhered to the call, and formed themselves into a congregation, of which the minister in question became the pastor, without any ecclesiastical connection. At his death, which happened shortly afterwards, the congregation obtained a successor to him from a denomination different from that they had left. That denomination has now become one with that from which they seceded, and hence the circumstance of the United Presbyterian Church having two congregations in so small a place as Ceres.

The case of Lasswade is analogous to that of Buckhaven. An attempt to form a congregation there had been previously made and failed. The recent union of the two great branches of the Secession now favoured that attempt; while certain procedure on the part of the promoters of the call to the successful candidate for the vacant charge in Dalkeith, furnished an ostensible reason for action at that particular time. As anticipated, the movement has proved a successful one; and now the denomination has a good congregation in Lasswade, while that of Dalkeith, out of which it sprang, is as large and prosperous as ever.

The case of Lauder is still more peculiar than any of the foregoing. It was the failure of an unnecessary attempt to obtain a footing for another denomination in the place that gave rise to the case. The congregation it threatened to injure is more vigorous than ever.

The cases now explained embrace all of the kind which have ever occurred in the Secession, Relief, or United Presbyterian Churches.* They are few in number compared with analogous cases resulting from patronage, as then exercised in the Church of Scotland. For twenty churches which have originated in the one cause, seventyfour have sprung from the other. The former, too, were gains to the denominations in which the cases occurred; the latter were losses to the Established Church. These, too, represent only a small portion of the losses thus sustained, numerous parties, withdrawing on similar grounds, preferring to swell Dissenting congregations previously existing, to building places of worship for themselves. But what, indeed, are the United Presbyterian and Free Churches but great effects of the patronage system? And, embracing as they now do the majority of the population, is not their continued existence a nation's protest against the law of patronage, even in its modified form? When was it known that a nation protested against what was really for its advantage, or at least adhered to its protest after the advantage had been proved? The explanations given will show that the mischiefs ascribed to the popular election of * The statement applies to the period prior to 1854.- Eds.

*