VISCOUNT ENFIELD (Lord STRAFFORD)wished to put Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon a subject in which the English Protestant residents at Stockholm were much interested. About a century ago British and French Protestants obtained permission from the then King of Sweden, Gustavus III., to meet for Divine worship; but it was not until 1855 that a permanent Consular Chaplain was appointed. The maintenance of the chaplain was defrayed in the usual manner—namely, by an allowance from Her Majesty's Government equal to what British subjects contributed. Until 1866 Divine service was regularly performed in the Moravian Church lent for that purpose. In 1866 the present Episcopal Church of St. Peter and St. Sigfrid was consecrated by authority and opened for Divine worship. What was the cost of building and maintenance? The total amount spent from 1855 to 1875 for the building, maintenance, and administration of the church amounted to £10,859, of which the British Government contributed £5,134, British subjects, £5,498, and non-British subjects, £227. The annual Consular certificates required by and sent to the 1886 Foreign Office would, he believed, prove the accuracy of these figures. Up to May, 1875, there was no doubt as to the proprietary rights of the British Government and of British subjects in the church property; but in May, 1875, Her Majesty's Consul announced that as the Government had discontinued the annual grants in aid of Consular chaplaincies, he would no longer interfere in the management of the church affairs, and the Consul then retired. A Committee of Management was thereupon elected for a year, with power to fill up the then vacant chaplaincy. The Rev. J. Taylor, D.D., was nominated chaplain for the year. This was in July. On the 8th of December Dr. Taylor, in writing, gave notice of his intention to retire from the chaplaincy at the expiration of his term. This was accepted by the Committee. Subsequently, Dr. Taylor wished to withdraw his resignation, and asked for the help of Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm in the matter. The Consul at first used his good offices with the Committee, but subsequently retired from any further interference; and the matter was considered as finally settled, and the Committee began to look out for a successor to Dr. Taylor. But now commenced the difficulties of the case, for Dr. Taylor's friends dissolved the legally appointed Committee, appointed a new one, and on the 14th of February last re-elected him as chaplain. They requested the former Committee to give up the keys of the church, the books, and other church property, which request was refused. The church was closed, various demands and counter demands were made by both of these Committees; and after sundry legal proceedings had been taken, on the 31st of March the Governor of Stockholm demanded from the British Committee the keys of the church; and on these being refused the doors of the church were on the 1st of last April forced, and Dr. Taylor and his friends were now in full possession. The matter had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown in England, and he now wished to know whether the Secretary of State could give any information on the subject. He thought it right to add that the remarks he had made were founded upon a printed statement forwarded to him from Stockholm and signed by five gentlemen, one of whom was a personal acquaintance of 1887 his own. Without wishing to offer any opinion on the points at issue, he still felt that the question was one of much interest and importance to the English Protestant community at Stockholm. The Question he desired to ask of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary was, Whether he could give any information respecting the case of the British Church Committee who are resisting before the Swedish Courts an attempt to deprive the British Government and British subjects of their proprietary rights in the Church property at Stockholm?
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the question which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of their Lordships was one which had attracted a good deal of local interest, and therefore he thought that his noble Friend was right in calling attention to it. At the same time, he did not know whether he could give the noble Viscount much information in addition to that of which he had shown himself to be in possession. To the best of his recollection, the details stated by the noble Viscount were an accurate account of the transaction, and resolved themselves into this:—In consequence of a decision come to by the late Government with respect to Consular grants to such chaplaincies, the grant to the chaplain at Stockholm was withdrawn. The question now at issue was this—the old Church Committee, composed of British residents, claimed the church as the property of British subjects; while the party represented by the rival Committee claimed it as the property of the whole of that community at Stockholm which professed the religion of the Church of England, whatever might be the nationalities of the persons composing that community. Her Majesty's Government had consulted the Law Officers, and the Law Officers had advised against any interference by the Government:—they regarded the case as one which ought to be dealt with by the Swedish Tribunals before which it now was. There was some ambiguity in the wording of the title deeds of the land on which the church was erected, and the construction which should be put upon those deeds was the question which the Swedish Courts would have to determine. The old Committee was willing that the church should be vested in the Bishop of London; but the other Committee, without whose consent that 1888 proposed arrangement could not be carried out, would not accede to such a settlement. Her Majesty's Government had been asked more than once to make a representation on the subject to the Swedish Government, but they had declined to do so, because in its present stage the dispute was of a purely legal character, and he presumed that the Swedish Government neither would desire, nor would have the right, to take it out of the hands of the Swedish Tribunals.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the difficulty that had arisen at Stockholm was only one out of several that had arisen from the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which the British Government had withdrawn our support from the Consular chaplaincies abroad. When the Government determined on that step some arrangements should have been made by which the present difficulties might have been avoided.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,without entering into the question raised by the right rev. Prelate, desired to express his opinion that the decision carried out by the Foreign Office when his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was at the head of that Department was a right one. It was only reasonable that British subjects who lived abroad should maintain the churches in which they worshipped. The only exception to that rule ought to be that of churches attended by British seamen who were only temporarily resident in the places where those churches stood.