Lords Sitting of 26 May 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland)* (No. 96).
Second Reading—Scottish Episcopal Clergy Disabilities Removal (No. 79), and referred to a Select Committee; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment* (No. 75).
Committee — Mortgage Debentures* (No. 55), reported.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE PRUSSIANS IN JUTLAND.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, of which I gave him notice on Monday last. As the Conference, after a somewhat long adjournment, will meet on the 28th, it is important that we should know how far the engagements entered into by the belligerent powers on the 9th have been fulfilled; for if we should find that, in point of fact, these engagements have not been faithfully performed, we shall have but little confidence in any future promises that may be made. If I am not misinformed, the engagements entered into by the belligerent Powers on the 9th were to this effect—that they would not; interfere with the commerce or with the communications of the country which they occupy, not interfere with the existing civil administration—that they would not levy any war contributions, and that they would pay for everything that their troops received. Now, unless I am greatly misinformed, it can hardly be said that any one of these five engagements has been thoroughly performed. The commerce of

607
the country has been interrupted by impounding and placing under lock and seal large quantities of valuable goods intended for commercial purposes. The communications of the country by road are dependent entirely upon the caprice of the officers in command. The communication by telegraph has been broken entirely by the removal of the wires. I do not know for certain that any new war contributions have been imposed, but rations for men and horses have been exacted without payment, and those for the soldiers of the most extravagant kind. It was stipulated that, on the contrary, so far from exacting contributions, everything should be paid for. I understand that on the 12th an order was given for the delivery of rations, and that not one word was said about payment; and the contributions not having been delivered on the 13th, an order was given for their immediate delivery, with a threat that if the delivery did not take place, those who did not comply should be placed upon bread and water. That, I understand, is the state of things at this moment. There may have been some cases of payment, but I am informed the payments have not been made in money. The payment has only been in receipts for goods delivered, acknowledgments of indebtedness on the part of the Prussian Government; documents which, of course, are of no market value whatever. It is possible that subsequent orders may have been issued from Berlin. That may have been in consequence of the representations of the noble Earl or of the other Powers on the Continent, or in consequence of the evidently rising indignation of the people of this country. But certainly the Prussian Government did not commence the armistice by acting according to the stipulations they had agreed upon. Of that I apprehend there can he no doubt whatever. They contracted at the Conference, not with the Danish Government alone, but with all the Powers assisting in the Conference; and, therefore, in departing from their engagements, they have committed an offence, not against Denmark alone, but against every one of the contracting Powers, each of which is justified in resenting that offence by the blockade of the ports of the belligerents, or by any other suitable measure. I hope that a better state of things may now have commenced. But it is impossible for me not to feel that this state of things could not have happened had the
608
influence of this country been what it once was. I cannot conceal from myself that there prevails in Germany an impression that, do what they may, say what we may, we shall not lift our arm for the purpose of arresting the progress of their wrong doing. My Lords, I am very ready to acknowledge the zeal, the earnestness, and the great ability of the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department. I think that the position of the noble Earl has been beset by difficulties of an unusual character, which, under any circumstances, would have been embarrassing; but I cannot abstain from declaring my opinion that these difficulties have been greatly increased by the conduct of the noble Earl himself. My Lords, last year, the premature and inconsiderate declaration, that under no circumstances would this country go to war for the sake of the establishment of a better state of things in Poland, deprived our diplomacy of all its efficacy, of all hope of success in the negotiations that were then being carried on. It is a vain idea indeed—it is a perfect dream—to hope that mere moral opinion can produce any effect whatever in diplomacy. The strength of diplomacy resides altogether in the force by which it is supported, and in the belief that, under the circumstances which may arise, that force may be employed for the purpose of maintaining its rightful demands. If you take away that supposition, the despatches of the Foreign Secretary can have no more weight than that which would attach to the collective opinion of any twelve or fifteen respectable gentlemen meeting in Downing Street to discuss any public matter; authority it can have none. This was the state of things so far as it affected Poland. This year what have we done? This year the noble Earl has most distinctly expressed his opinion upon the policy to be pursued. Substantially and in effect what the noble Earl said was this—
"Hear Mr. Gladstone—'look around, see the vast progress of our prosperity and the enormous amount of our commerce. It would be a sin to risk for the defence of innocence and of weakness, and for the protection of right against might—the might of the wrong doer—any portion of that wealth which Providence has bestowed upon us for our own especial enjoyment.' "
My Lords, I differ altogether from those who can entertain that opinion. I do not hold that power, and strength, and wealth are given to a state, any more than they are given to an individual, for his own personal enjoyment and satisfaction. The

609
State and the individual stand under the same circumstances of responsibility. They are each subject to the obligation of doing good and of preventing evil; and we have done neither. My Lords, I cannot help feeling at the same time that there is another difficulty beyond that which has arisen out of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. There is another difficulty of the greatest magnitude which has materially affected the influence of this country with Foreign Powers. I cannot but think there is a strong impression on the Continent, and especially in Germany — an impression which it would be contrary to constitutional principle to admit to have any real foundation—but which certainly does exist on the Continent, and is gradually pervading society in this country, that in all public questions relating to Germany Her Majesty's Ministers have as much difficulty in carrying out a purely English policy as was experienced in former times, as history teaches us, in the reigns of the two first sovereigns of the House of Hanover, When George III. came to the throne, and first met his Parliament, he declared, in his own words, that born and educated in this country, he gloried in the name of Briton. By that declaration he won the hearts and obtained the confidence of his people. He at once relieved his Government from that unpopularity and weakness which had attached to the Governments of his predecessors, from the persuasion that they were swayed by German partialities. The people believed him to be an Englishman and nothing but an Englishman—to be one of themselves—to feel as they did —to be identified in all respects with the English people. That feeling inspired the loyalty which enabled him to go through without danger the difficulties of the revolution with which he had to contend, I do trust that in this question of Denmark, Her Majesty's Ministers will so act as to show to Germany and the whole world that the policy and feelings of George III.—those truly English feelings which regarded only English objects—still animate the Government of this country, and that they will succeed in overcoming that impression which is now extending itself on the Continent, and overspreading this country, and in restoring to our diplomacy the authority and influence which it has now lost. I will ask the noble Earl whether the proceedings of the Prussians in Jutland, since
610
the armistice has commenced, have been conformable with the engagements entered into in the Conference?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl certainly gave me notice a few days ago that he should make some inquiries as to the manner in which the engagements entered into in the Conference for the suspension of arms had been carried out in Jutland; but the noble Earl did not give me notice that he meant at the same time to make observations upon the conduct of the Government in relation to foreign affairs in matters extending far beyond Jutland— beyond the question, large, difficult, and intricate as it is—the question between Germany and Denmark—extending even to the question of Poland. I think it would have been fair—I think it would have been more in conformity with the course usually practised in Parliament, and certainly practised in that House in which I have spent the greater part of my political life—if the noble Earl, intending to make this attack, had given me notice that he meant to do so. As to the Questions which he has asked of me, I will answer, in the first place, with respect to the manner in which the agreement for the suspension of arms has been carried out in Jutland, The Danish Government have stated that it is their intention to collect in as accurate a form as possible all the facts, and when they are in possession of those facts, and can rely upon them, then only they will lay a statement—containing, at all events, an accurate statement of facts, before the Powers with whom they have agreed to negotiate. I consider that to be a prudent and wise mode of proceeding; and until they have done so it is not for us to assume that mere rumours or statements in newspapers or private letters are perfectly accurate and true. But with regard to the assertions which have been made here and elsewhere, the Prussian Government was applied to and they have made this statement upon that subject. I am about to give your: Lordships, as well as I can, the statement made by the Prussian Government, without at all attempting to defend their conduct or making myself responsible for the statement. The Prussian Government say that they thought fit, I think on the 28th of April, to make an estimate of the value of the ships captured by the Danish cruisers, and finding that estimate to amount to £50,000 for Prussian ships, and £40,000 as the value of other German ships, they

611
directed Marshal Wrangel to levy contributions in Jutland to the amount of £90,000. I believe that proceeding to be in itself a novelty in the history of war; but be that as it may, their answer is, "We are at war, and we believe this to be one of our belligerent rights." A part of this amount was raised; but the Prussian Government say that immediately the King had sanctioned the agreement for a suspension of arms, orders were sent to Marshal Wrangel not to levy any further contributions; and that if contributions had been levied since the 11th, the persons who had paid the contributions should be reimbursed the sums received from them. The account we have received from our Ambassador is that orders were sent from Berlin on the 10th, and he thinks it probable, and it appears to me very likely, that although the orders might have reached Marshal Wrangel on the 12th, yet they were not in the hands of all officers commanding corps or divisions of regiments upon the morning of that day. It appears from some accounts which have reached us, that demands were made on that day. There is a Danish statement that upon the night of the 11th the Prussian seals were placed upon several magazines and stores of private merchants and manufacturers, as security for the payment of contributions. The seals were afterwards taken off from some, but I cannot say whether they were taken off from all. That is the Danish statement, although it does not come from the Danish Government. With respect to provisions, it appears that orders were certainly given that all demands for provisions and rations for the troops should be paid for. It is probable from what we have heard that the payments have not been made in specie, but it is asserted that payments are made in the shape of acknowledgments. I do not know whether care has been taken to avoid making further requisition, or whether, if any further requisitions have been made, they have been paid for in money. The Prussian Government are bound by the terms they have made for a suspension of arms, which the noble Earl has correctly represented; they are bound to see that no further contributions should be levied; and if further demands of provisions should be made, then that they should be fully paid for. We all have in our recollection the terms upon which the suspension of arms took place; but we have thought it
612
bteter, however, to wait for the statement of the Danish Government rather than to rely upon mere rumours. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) went on to say that all this had been done because it was not expected that Her Majesty's Government would have recourse to force to prevent them. But the noble Earl must recollect that in this instance the engagements were made, not with the British Government alone, but with the Governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden, who were all represented in the Conference; and if these things were done—if the suspension of arms was set at defiance—the Prussian Government is liable to be called to account by all the Governments for the violations of their engagements which they have committed. It cannot be said that such conduct is a wanton indignity or insult to the British Government alone; what has taken place is an indignity and an insult to all the Powers who were represented at the Conference. The noble Earl, not satisfied with putting his Question, has spoken of the general course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued in regard to foreign policy. I must say, with reference to this particular Question, as I told a noble Friend of mine who raised the point some time back, that while this country is bound to defend its honour and any paramount interest it may have in any part of the world, it is not alone responsible for maintaining the balance of power in Europe. I think in the engagements which this country has made—whether the engagements of 1852 or those of a more ancient date — whenever the question of this general balance of power in Europe has arisen, the obligation has been one, not of this country alone, but of this country along with several other Powers, bound, whenever the case arose, to consult those Powers as to what the obligations were, and what ought to be done in the circumstances. If I may advert to the conduct of the person whom I consider to have been the great founder of the foreign policy of England in modern times — namely, King William III. — he always sought out for allies on the continent of Europe, and acted with those allies to the great benefit of Europe and to the reputation and glory of England. I certainly stated on a former occasion, that the flourishing condition of our finances and trade is a reason not lightly to imperil such a

613
state of things. I might have stated also this other ground—that no country can really keep up its character for strength, and its power of asserting its position in Europe, unless its finances are in a satisfactory condition. I reminded you how the Peace of Amiens—the most disastrous peace we ever made, by which France was left in possession of the greater part of Europe after an unavailing contest—was brought about by the distressed and disordered state of our finances; and I implored you to take care, lest when your honour or interests may be attacked, it may be impossible to assert that honour and give effect to those interests if your finances are disordered by useless and unnecessary wars. The noble Earl referred also to the case of Poland. When that question arose Her Majesty's Government, following the example set by the Government of Earl Grey, made remonstrances to Russia, founded on the Treaty of Vienna. An answer was given to those remonstrances, addressed to England, France, and Austria. A reply was sent and further representations made; but the general answer was that, when tranquillity was restored, the condition of Poland should receive the consideration of the Russian Government. That, in fact, closed what may be called the negotiations, although there was much subsequent argument. But when I made the statement in this House that I could not advise this country to go to war to re-establish Poland, I considered that negotiation with Russia, so far as it could have influence on Russia, was at an end, and there was nothing to do but to resolve whether, in that state of circumstances, you would go to war for Poland or not. Now, of all the wild, imprudent, and extravagant wars that were ever engaged in, a war to establish Poland would have been the most wild, the most imprudent, and the most extravagant. When you consider that no Government had been established by the insurgents, and that even the insurrection had not raised its head with effect—when you look to the vast extent of the country to be re-established, and consider that it would have amounted to nothing less than the dismemberment of the Russian Empire, which everybody who had the conduct of affairs in that empire was bound to resist to the utmost — to have gone to war then for the re-establishment of the Polish Government, however much the Poles by their bravery, generosity, and conduct had merited the sympathy
614
of Europe, would have been most unjustifiable. Well, but what was I to do? I have always considered that if you do not mean to go to war for a nation in a state of insurrection, nothing can be more immoral, more perfidious, more destructive of confidence, than to hold out hopes to men which must afterwards be disappointed. Therefore I was between these two conditions—either I must speak in favour of the Poles and go to war in their favour, or I must tell them plainly that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go to war. Well, the latter was the course I took. I proclaimed here, and proclaiming here I proclaimed it to the world, that it was not our intention to go to war for Poland; and from that moment no Pole could with authority or reason say that he relied on British support, and was betrayed by the want of it. I cannot but think it is a source of satisfaction to me that, in the first place, I did not advise war for Poland; and, in the next place, not advising it, that I did not hold out to the Poles that we were about to do that for them which we did not intend to do. The noble Earl may think that we ought to have gone to war for Poland; he may have thought—though I hardly believe it—that not intending to go to war for Poland we should have endeavoured to impose on the Government of Russia the belief that we were about to make great sacrifices to rush into a war without any definite object in view, and by so doing to sacrifice the lives of men as brave, as generous, and as patriotic as ever lived. My Lords, my resolution was to do neither the one nor the other. The question of going to war is a serious matter, not to be lightly talked of. The noble Earl has referred to the example of George III.—a most patriotic Sovereign, with every feeling in his heart that prompted him to defend the honour of his Crown, and the welfare of the country over which he reigned. But as to his views of policy and the Ministers by whom he was advised, it is not to he forgotten that in this House a Member of that Cabinet, on entering into a war for the purpose of subduing insurrection in America, declared that the Americans were a parcel of cowards, and that this country would easily get the better of them, and suppress the revolt. In the course of that enterprise you spent £100,000,000 and lost thirteen provinces. On another occasion a great revolution took place in France—France changed her Government; and the Govern-

615
ment of George III. must go to war to change republicanism in France to monarchy, and bring back the Bourbons to the throne. In that enterprise there was £550,000,000 spent, and oceans of blood were shed. I consider these two wars two of the most unwise—two of the most unjustifiable wars in which this nation ever engaged. The noble Earl has referred to other matters which I think he might have spared. He has referred to the advice which Her Majesty's Ministers hare given to their Sovereign. All I can say is this, and I say it with perfect truth—that however much Her Majesty may have, as other Princes have, their private affections—connected as she may have been by marriage with a Prince who derived his birth from Germany—much as she is connected by the alliance of her daughter with German families—Her Majesty's great object has been to maintain intact the honour, to maintain high the reputation, to maintain the interests of this country. And however much Her Majesty may desire that every step, whether relating to Germany, or Denmark, or any other subject, should be carefully weighed by her advisers, there has been no one occasion on which, when those advisers have deliberated and have given the result of that deliberation to Her Majesty, Her Majesty has not wholly followed their counsels, and adopted the Resolutions to which they had come. Therefore, my Lords, having stated this, I need hardly state that which follows, that if the interests of this country have been deserted— if there is any stain on its honour—if there has been any abandonment of those great interests which we are bound to preserve— if there has been any abandonment of the interests of Europe, which we with others are bound to look to—it is upon the heads of Her Majesty's advisers that the responsibility must rest. Let that responsibility be as great and as heavy as it may be, we can transfer it to no other quarter; we must take it all upon ourselves—and, for my part, I am perfectly willing to be held responsible for the course we have adopted.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not wish to prolong that discussion, but his noble Friend near him having referred to the indignation of the people of this country in regard to the acts of plunder committed in Jutland, he must say he never yet knew so unanimous an opinion or so strong a feeling to exist among all classes, all ranks, and all parties in this country on any ques-
616
tion, either of foreign or domestic policy, as now prevailed in favour of Denmark and against Prussia. By saying against Prussia he meant against the Government of Prussia, whose frauds and cruelties and wrongful deeds had not brought them the least glory. They had pillaged and oppressed the weak; they had gained a certain accession of territory and taken a considerable booty; but glory they had gained none. But these were the acts of the Government alone; the people of Prussia were not at all responsible. Their case was very different from that of the people of America, who were responsible as a people for the violence and bloodshed unhappily desolating their country. But, as regarded Prussia, the responsibility was confined to the Government.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot allow what was said by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, as to what took place in 1831 with reference to Russia and Poland, to pass altogether unnoticed. I deny that my noble Friend can draw any justification or defence for his recent policy with regard to Poland from what occurred in 1831. Speaking on the spur of the moment, without having any opportunity of referring to papers relating to transactions that took place so long ago, I cannot, of course, trust my memory as far as details are concerned. But I can say, with the most perfect recollection of the fact, that the whole tone and effect of the correspondence on the part of this country with Russia at that time was totally different from that of the recent despatches of my noble Friend on the subject of Poland, Your Lordships will allow me further to explain, as one of those who objected to my noble Friend's policy with respect to Poland, that I never did object to it because it had not plunged this country into war. I never did object to his openly declaring that he intended to avoid war on that question. I agree with him that as it was clear that this country ought not to enter into such a war, it was but fair and just to the Poles that that determination should have been made known to them. But what I think may be most legitimately found fault with is this—that, being determined not to go to war, and that determination being made publicly known, the noble Earl should have thought fit to engage in an irritating correspondence with Russia on the subject of Poland, which could not but be most impolitic and injurious to the character of this country.

617
Where was the wisdom or advantage of bringing forward impracticable proposals to which he called on Russia to agree, or; of holding aggravating language about the iniquity of her conduct, and then laying before Parliament all those scolding despatches, which might have been very good; as school boys' themes, but which, as they, were to lead to nothing, were unworthy of statesmen sitting in a Cabinet? A great country certainly ought not lightly to engage in war; and it is not for us to be the general redressers of the world's grievances. But, on the other hand, I hope the rule is not to he laid down, that England is to remain an indifferent spectator in all cases of any amount of wrong committed among nations, and that, because other States think fit to shrink from the common duty of defending the weak against the strong, when there is a favourable opportunity, and we have the power to do it, we are to abstain from doing so. I say that there are cases in which the power of this country ought to be exerted to prevent wrong being done. But when you satisfy yourself that a case is not one for your interference, and that you clearly ought not to take up arms in regard to it, I say it is not for the credit, the character, or the dignity of this country that its Government should address to another Government scolding language, like an impotent; old woman. That is the opinion I have always entertained, and the results of the course taken by the noble Lord have only confirmed me more strongly in it than ever I do not, however, mean to enter into this question now. We have already partially discussed it, and perhaps a future opportunity may arise of further discussing it even in the present Session. But considering my relationship to the person who was at the head of the Government in 1831, I could not sit by and hear my noble Friend defend his policy with respect to Poland by comparing it with the policy then adopted.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY DISA BILITIES REMOVAL BILL— [H.L.]

  [No, 79.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, after presenting several petitions in favour of the Bill, proceeded to move its second reading, and in so doing said: My Lords, I will state, as shortly as possible, the necessity
  618
  which exists for a measure of this description. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships are not in the least aware that there are any disabilities affecting the Scotch Episcopal Church. I have heard persons say that they did not know that there was an Episcopal Church in Scotland at all; and from conversations which I have had with some of your Lordships and others, I have found that a deplorable ignorance exists on this subject both out of doors and within the walls of this House. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has existed ever since the Reformation. At that time most, if not all, of the Bishops in Scotland remained of the same religion as before. Bishops, however, were appointed to the vacant Sees, but they were not consecrated though they sat in Parliament in virtue of their Sees. This went on until, I believe, there was only one of the original or genuine Scottish Bishops remaining alive, namely, Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, who died in 1603. When King James came to the English throne, he determined to re-establish the Episcopal Order in Scotland. This was in the year 1610. At that time the Archbishop of Glasgow (Spottiswoode), Bishop Lamb of Brechin, and Bishop Hamilton of Galloway, who were previously titular Bishops of those Sees, came up to London to be consecrated. The Bishop of Ely objected to their ordination, but Archbishop Bancroft of Canterbury moved that they be consecrated on their Scottish Orders as being perfectly good. The Episcopal Church went on in Scotland as the Established Church till 1638. In that year a General Assembly was held at Glasgow, which not only deposed the Bishops, but excommunicated them, and at that time excommunication carried with it grave civil consequences. During the time of the Commonwealth, the Episcopal Church in Scotland almost entirely disappeared, but at the Restoration, King Charles the Second determined again to restore it. For this purpose, Dr. James Sharp, Mr. Fairfowl, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Leighton, all in Presbyterian Orders, came to London, where, after being ordained Deacons and Priests, they were consecrated Bishops by the Bishop of Winchester, with the assistance of two other Prelates. Dr. Sharp was named Archbishop of St. Andrews, Mr. Fairfowl, Archbishop of Glasgow, and two others were appointed Bishops of Galloway and Dunblane, They went down to

  619
  Scotland and consecrated the remaining ten Bishops. At the Revolution in 1688, James the Second was driven from the throne. I should have mentioned that the State had restored the temporalities of Bishops, and the civil status of the clergy. But in 1689–90, the Episcopal Church was again dis-established, and the Presbyterian form was re-established. The State again took away from the Episcopal Church that which alone it had the power of giving it— its civil status and its temporalities, but it did not take away its spiritual status, because it had not the power of doing so. That remained as it was in 1661, and the spiritual status remained unmolested from that time down to the present, the Episcopal Order being continued, so that the present Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland derive their Orders and status from the same source as the right rev. Prelates who sit in this House. I mention this at the present time, because some persons are under the erroneous impression that this is an attempt for the first time to bring the Episcopal Church into close communion with the Church of England. It has never been otherwise. Archbishop Tillotson, when he first held a benefice in England, had Scottish orders, having been ordained in England during the time of the Commonwealth, by Dr. Sydserf, Bishop of Galloway; and the Rev, James Greenshields, who was ordained by the Bishop of Ross in Scotland after 1690, was admitted to a curacy in the diocese of Down, and afterwards to a curacy in the diocese of Armagh, which he held till 1704, when he returned to Scotland. The validity of his Orders, which had been unquestioned in Ireland, was now questioned in the Scottish capital; but the judgment of the Civil Courts, which had called them in question, were on appeal reversed by a judgment in the House of Lords in 1710. Then the well-known Dr. Burnet, who had been minister of Salton in East Lothian, was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury on his Scotch Orders. There were several others I might mention. There was one case in the reign of William III., when Dr. Alexander Cairncross, who had been Archbishop of Glasgow from 1684 to 1687, was appointed Bishop of Raphoe in Ireland. There are several other cases of clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church being appointed to benefices in Ireland, who were ordained after 1600, when the old Episcopal Church ceased to be the Established Church. I only allude to these instances for the pur-
  620
  pose of showing your Lordships the intimate connection there has always been between the two Churches—the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in Scotland. But with regard to the present position of the clergy in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, an Act of Toleration was passed in the reign of Queen Anne, relieving them from some of the disabilities which they then laboured under. The Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church were still recognized by their ecclesiastical titles, Queen Anne, on two separate occasions, in 1704 and 1706, having, by Royal Warrant, directed donations of £100 to each of the Bishops of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Moray, and Dunblane. From the time of the succession of the House of Hanover to the Throne, the persecution of the clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church commenced. They were, in fact, non-jurors and partisans of the House of Stuart, and after the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, most stringent and most cruel enactments were passed against them. They continued subject to these persecutions till 1788, at which time the last male descendant of the Stuarts died. In 1792, a Bill was introduced into this House by the Earl of Kellie for the purpose of removing certain disabilities affecting the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Its second reading was moved by the Earl of Elgin. The Bill was from the first very strongly opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow; and amongst other things, whilst the Act professed to remove all disabilities, he introduced a clause imposing new disabilities upon the Scottish Episcopal clergy which they had not been subject to before, namely—
  "Provided also, and be it further enacted, that no person exercising the function or assuming the office and character of a pastor or minister of any order in the Episcopal Communion in Scotland as aforesaid, shall be capable of taking any benefice, curacy, or other spiritual promotion within the part of Great Britain called England, the dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, or of officiating in any church or chapel within the same where the liturgy of the Church of England as now by law established is used, unless he shall have been lawfully ordained by some Bishop of the Church of England or of Ireland."
  The Bill was warmly supported by Dr. Horsley, Bishop of St. David's, who answered the Lord Chancellor's objections, also by Lord Stormont and the Earl of Kinnoull. The clause thus inserted in the Act of 1792 had the effect of preventing any person who had been ordained in Scotland from holding any benefice, or

  621
  even from officiating in England. These provisions were relaxed to a certain extent by an Act passed in 1840, which enacted that any Bishop in England or Ireland, on the application of any Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, or of any Priest of such Church, might grant written permission to such Bishop or Priest to perform Divine service, and administer the sacraments for any one day or two days, but not more, in any church or chapel within his diocese. So that here are Bishops having the same descent as those of the Church of England, and clergymen holding the same office — subscribing to the same articles of religion—incapable of holding any benefice, or even officiating in England or Ireland. And mark the contrast. Any person, whether a native or a naturalized British subject, ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop in England, Scotland, or Ireland, or abroad, is eligible to hold a living in England or Ireland, and it is nothing but the civil disabilities inflicted upon Scottish Episcopal clergy by the civil law that prevents them from doing so also. It is not an ecclesiastical disqualification, but purely a civil disqualification imposed by Act of Parliament. All that I seek to effect by this Bill, and all that is sought for by those persons who have petitioned so strongly in its favour, is that the Bishops and clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Communion ordained in Scotland, shall no longer be debarred by Act of Parliament from taking any benefice, curacy, or spiritual promotion, or from officiating in England and Ireland. The petitions which I have presented, signed by both clergy and laity in Scotland, have all the same prayer. They are quite willing to recognize the rights of the Bishop in England to satisfy himself in the amplest manner of the doctrine and character of the person he is asked to licence. Now, with regard to the ordination of any person in Scotland, he must have a clear title in the diocese from which he comes; he must also take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and sign the Thirty-nine Articles, and the ordination is exactly the same and exactly in the same words as the ordination of clergymen in the Church of England. The Prayer Book and Liturgy of the Church of England is the authorized Liturgy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. I know that it is objected that there is another Communion Office authorized in Scotland. But that is no longer so. The only authorized canonical version is that
  622
  contained in the Book of Common Prayer. There is no doubt that in some of the older congregations in Scotland they have been in use to celebrate the Holy Communion in a particular form, and these are permitted still to do so, but it is mainly in the northern counties where that obtains, and for myself, who have lived in Scotland all my life, I have never once heard that form used. It is becoming more rare. These congregations have handed the form down from father to son, and it is the feeling amongst them that it should still continue, but at the present moment, in all the new congregations, the form of the Church of England is the only one used, unless there should be a large majority of the congregation who request the Bishop of the diocese to allow the older form to be used. But I know it is the general feeling in Scotland that the English version only shall be used. My Lords, this is a matter in which I feel the greatest possible interest, both as a Scotchman and as regards the Church of England. I have as strong a feeling in favour of the maintenance of the integrity of the Church of England as any one of your Lordships, and if I thought that the Bill would, directly or indirectly, affect the Church of England in. an injurious manner, I should be the last person to offer such a measure to your Lordships' consideration. But the object of the Bill is to remove a reproach and a stigma which, to a certain extent, rests upon the Scottish Episcopal Church. I may state that of the 161 clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church only seventy-nine have Scotch orders. The rest are all in English orders, and one reason of that is, that many of them, although Scotchmen by birth, came to England to be ordained, because they knew that if they were ordained in Scotland they would be under this unjust bane, which would prevent them from holding any benefice in England, or from even officiating in this country. The result is, that with regard to the qualification to be borne, it is found much more difficult to pass the examination for ordination in Scotland than it is in England. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will now move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Duke had made a very interesting statement, but he doubted whether their Lord-

  623
  ships were sufficiently informed on the subject to come to a definite conclusion regarding it. The Church of England was connected with the State; but the Episcopal Church of Scotland was a perfectly independent body, which was free to adopt its own forms, and which differed in regard to some of them from the Church of England. He should like to hear what the right rev. Bench had to say on the matter. It would require, he felt, careful consideration to decide whether these disabilities could be removed, and, if so, what restrictions should be imposed in their stead. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would probably agree with him in thinking that the best course would be to consent to the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should then go to a Select Committee.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he did not mean to offer any opposition to the second reading of the measure. He did not think they possessed sufficient information in regard to it, but there were, certainly, reasons why they should not at once reject it. The number of distinguished members of the Episcopal Bench who had received orders in the North, and the close intercommunion which had existed from 1741 to 1792 between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, ought to secure due consideration for the proposal of the noble Duke. The great difficulty of admitting to the English Church ordained ministers of the Scotch Episcopal Church was that it would create a double allegiance. Pie gladly accepted the suggestion of the noble Earl to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and hoped the noble Duke would agree to it.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAMsaid, there were grave objections even to the second reading of such a Bill. He held that the title of the Bill did not properly describe it. The word "disabilities" and the expressions of the noble Duke were scarcely applicable to a body which was altogether free and independent of the English Church, and which differed from it both in doctrine and government. Nevertheless, by this Bill it was proposed that the clergy ordained by the Scotch Church, differing, as it did, in some particulars in doctrine from the Church of England, should be admitted to the benefices of that church. The Bill would be more truly described as one for diverting the endowments of the Church of England from those within to those
  624
  without her pale. At first sight there might appear some hardship in admitting a Roman Catholic clergyman to the Church of England without re-ordination, and refusing that privilege to a minister of the Episcopal Church of Scotland; but it should be remembered that in the former case the clergyman renounced the Romish Church altogether. There had been some misapprehension as to Lord Chancellor Thurlow's position with regard to the Act of 1792. Whatever might be the Chancellor's theology, he had no doubt that, as an acute lawyer, he regarded the question as affecting the Royal supremacy. Bishop Horsley had also been referred to; but that prelate insisted on the clause for the protection of the Church of England. Bishop Skinner, the Scotch Episcopalian Bishop, who was in London at the time of the passing of that Act, and was in constant communication with the clergy of that period, stated that the words which had been referred to were not inserted by the caprice or humour of any single individual, but were the result of the decided judgment of a body of men who thought it their duty to secure the temporal emoluments of the Church of England to the clergy of that Church, and to them alone; and it was the feeling of the Scotch Bishops and clergy at that period that such a view of the case was not unreasonable. He added that had any Scotch clergyman been so ambitious as to aspire to the cure of souls in England, the Bishop of the diocese might very properly have said to him, "I make no doubt of the authority of the Scotch Bishops in their own Church, but neither the law of England nor of Scotland recognizes any such Bishop here; his orders cannot be put as a legal qualification, nor can they have any civil effect within the Church of England." It certainly appeared to him reasonable that the Church of England should be protected from having clergymen brought into it who had not been ordained, and whose qualifications had not been ascertained, by a Bishop of the Church England. It seemed to him that a most important principle would be asserted by the second reading of the Bill. When the union between the Church in England and the Church in Ireland took place, the condition was, that the doctrine, service, and government of those two Churches should ever afterwards be one and the same. But in none of these respects was the Scotch Episcopalian Church one with the Church of England. The former Church had a service,

  625
  which he believed all the present Bishops of that Church had pledged themselves to defend, and which only last year had been declared to be of final authority, but which was entirely antagonistic to the teaching of the Communion Service of the Church of England. He would not say that the Scotch Episcopalian service was derived from the Church of Rome, because he should be told that it was taken from the Greek Church; but any one observing the language of the Scotch Episcopalian service in reference to the consecration of the elements would come to the conclusion that it was founded on doctrine of the Church of Rome. He would not discuss that language—he would only state to their Lordships that two months ago one of the most learned and devout Bishops of the Scotch Church, speaking in the Synod of that Church, said—
  "If the language of the Scotch Service-book had been the language of the Church of England after the Reformation, Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley need not have been burnt."
  When it was proposed at a meeting of the Synod of the Scotch Episcopalian Church a few months ago, that for the future in respect to old congregations the majority of the members should decide whether they would have the old service, but that with respect to new congregations, the service of the Church of England should be substituted; that proposal was rejected, and it was determined that every congregation should decide whether they would have the service of the Scotch Episcopalian Church or the service of the Church of England. Another difficulty was this, that the Church of Scotland was governed by a Synod, consisting of twenty-one members, and the majority of that body could at any time change the service of the Church. The changes had, in fact, been numerous. This body could also, in times of excitement, ordain any number of deacons and priests to circulate their views. With regard to the endowment of the Scotch Episcopalian clergy, there was a more obvious and fair way of effecting that object, and that was by the members of the Scotch Episcopalian community endowing the Scotch benefices which existed. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested to a deputation who waited on him that they might follow the example of the Free Church of Scotland, and liberally endow the Scotch benefices. There was no want of zeal or liberality on the part of the
  626
  members of the Scotch Episcopalian community; but the reason that they did not take that step was because, unlike the Free Church, the governing body of the Scotch Episcopalian Church had not the confidence of the laity, and therefore it was that the laity did not contribute towards the sufficient endowment of their clergy. There seemed, moreover, to exist in the Episcopal Church of Scotland a considerable degree of intolerance towards other communions. Looking, then, to the past history and to the present state of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland, he had no hope. There seemed to be upon it a blight of internal division and of intolerance towards those without. When he read of Bishops using a little while ago language like this—that to suppose that the sacraments could be administered by Presbyterians descended from Presbyterians so as to be valid was an article not only the most mischievous, but the most rightly excommunicable; and when he found the Primus of the Scotch Episcopal Church, who, if not greatly changed from the time when he knew him, was a conciliatory and generous man, declaring that when there was set before the Presbyterians the light of the Episcopal Church, those who refused to join it were guilty of a sad and grievous sin, he had no hopes of that Church being productive of much good. He heartily felt that Episcopacy was a great blessing to our English Church. The more he read the more he was confirmed in that opinion; and he also felt deeply that he ought to be most careful how he excluded from the ministry of Christ's Church those who, agreeing with him in doctrine, differed from him in discipline. It was a fact, that those who entered the Church in Scotland were of inferior attainments to those of the same class in England. He could not but look upon it as one of the greatest perils threatening the Church of England, that they were compelled to admit into the Church men of inferior learning and attainments compared with the men admitted in times past. If, as the lower classes were increasing in intelligence and information, the clergy of the Church of England were to fall off in knowledge and education, the days of the Church of England would soon be numbered. Therefore, as he was obliged to admit to the ministry in his present diocese a far lower class of persons than he had done in Gloucester, so, as the standard became lower and lower as they went north, the Bishops of the Episcopal

  627
  Church of Scotland were obliged to admit candidates of an inferior class still, and he deprecated being compelled to open his diocese to the invasion of a number of clergymen less educated than those who were already admitted. He was speaking once to a Scotch Bishop, who told him that his examination questions would bear comparison with those of any Bishop of the Church of England. But that was not the point. The difference was not in the questions, but in the number answered, and the fulness of the answers. He deprecated exceedingly the opening of his diocese to a number of men worse educated than his own, and thus deteriorating the position and influence of the Church in his own diocese, and generally in England. Looking at it, therefore, whether as a question of justice to the clergymen of the Church of England, by taking from them the livings to which they were legally entitled, or as a question of doctrine which the Church of England had distinctly condemned, or to the mischief likely to result to his own and other dioceses from the passing of the Bill, he felt bound, however reluctantly, to move that the Bill be read a second time on that clay three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")— (The Bishop of Durham.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, as there was a very strong feeling against the Bill among the Bishops of his province, he thought he should hardly be doing his duty if he did not address a few words to their Lordships expressing his views upon the subject. He could not deny, in the first place, that the Bill appeared intended to remedy a real grievance; for a clergyman ordained in Scotland was in a worse position than even a Nonconformist minister, for the latter upon change of opinions might be ordained in England. But, at the same time, he confessed he did in some degree share the alarm which had been expressed. This question of the Scotch office was a very important one, and the Bill, if passed as it now stood, would undoubtedly be regarded as a theological triumph. He could not go further than this—namely, that if the Bill received any support from him it was to be distinctly understood that he did not regard that support as in any way sanctioning the Scotch office. He believed the Scotch Church would have done well when the
  628
  subject was under consideration if they had excluded the use of the Scotch Communion Service. The Bishops of the Church of England had no guarantee for the permanence of the Scotch canons, because the Church of Scotland could by her representatives alter them at the shortest notice, and might adopt this or that doctrinal error. Here was a Church which might change its whole foundation in a few years; and then, if the Bill passed, the Bishops of the Church of England would be practically bound to receive from the Scotch Church candidates for their livings. Then there was another question which arose concerning the curates of the Church of England. Those gentlemen were entitled to look forward with reasonable hope to a share in the benefices of the Church of England, and the effect of the Bill would be to admit a large and influential class to a share of an absolutely limited number of the rewards in the Church. The body of the Church of England knew nothing of this Bill; the general public knew nothing of it. For these reasons he viewed it with very great distrust; but, at the same time, he should venture to consent to the second reading, provided the noble Duke would be willing, as suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, on this understanding, that that course committed them to nothing more than this—that they admitted that the Scotch Episcopal clergy were subjected to an evil from which they ought to be relieved.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that he was willing to assent to the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that it should be afterwards referred to a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he desired to state in a few words why he thought the present Bill Was worthy of their Lordships' support. He would be the last to advocate intercommunion or near association with the Scottish Episcopal Church as proposed by the noble Duke, if he believed that his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Durham) had correctly represented that body, or if he thought that any danger would ensue to the learning or doctrines of the Church of England. In reference to this proposal, he thought, however, they had also to consider the bearing of the Bill on the northern division of the United Kingdom. He did not believe that there was any

  629
  possibility of satisfying the large number of persons who were attached to the liturgy and doctrines of the Church of England, and who now lived in Scotland, without cementing the union between the two churches. The Scottish Episcopal Church, whatever else might be said of it, was the only distinct representative in Scotland of the doctrines which they, as members of the Church of England, professed; and was the only body which afforded to those persons the opportunity of worshipping God according to the forms of the Church of England; for the congregations which represented the old qualified Episcopalians, and claimed to be independent of the Scottish Bishops, were too few to be of much importance, His right rev. Brother appeared to dread an invasion of illiterate persons from Scotland into the Church of England, as the result of the measure proposed by the noble Duke. On that point it was interesting to know the practice pursued, He held in his hand a letter from a person who had been ordained in Scotland, who laboured under the disability complained of, and who desired, if possible, to officiate in England. This gentleman stated, that no person could be ordained by a Scotch Bishop unless he possessed an University degree, or a theological degree from the College of Glenalmond; and that out of seven persons who presented themselves at Glenalmond for matriculation, at the same time with himself, three were rejected, and that these three afterwards, before he had completed his college course, received ordination in the Church of England within either the dioceses of Durham or Carlisle. He granted that their case was an exceptional one. But it might help to dispel his right rev. Brother's alarm, as to the comparative qualifications of Scottish and English clergy in matters of literature. The most important point was undoubtedly the matter of doctrine, and he did most sincerely regret that the authorities of the Scottish Episcopal Church did not see their way last year entirely to rid themselves of the Scottish office. He was not quite sure, however, that it was the Scottish members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, after all, who maintained this Scottish office. There were a good many eminent and distinguished scholars who held high office in the Scottish Episcopal Church, but it had also been the habit for persons very troublesome in the Church of England
  630
  to take refuge in Scotland where they could obtain more of their own way. It was for the very purpose of breaking up this small clique that he desired there should be more free intercommunion with the Church of England. He believed that if they could see their way to such an arrangement as that proposed by this measure after it had been well ventilated, the result would probably be that the Scottish Episcopal Church would give up its eccentricities of doctrine. At any rate he thought the subject deserved to be thoroughly investigated, and he earnestly trusted that the noble Duke would accede to the request, and that the Bill would be read a second time on the distinct understanding that it would be submitted to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEwas understood to express pleasure at the fact that the majority of the Episcopal bench did not intend to oppose the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that one of the consequences of this measure would be to give the sanction and authority of the Legislature and of the Church of England to an extreme party in the Scottish Episcopal Church. What possible security had they that if this Bill passed things would remain on the comparatively moderate basis which at present existed? He feared that further alterations would be demanded. Since 1811 the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church had undergone five alterations. If they threw the whole weight of the Legislature into the scale in favour of the extreme party in the Scottish Episcopal Church, they would be giving great discouragement to a numerous body of men in Scotland who would gladly put themselves under the control of that Church if they did not consider its doctrines unsound. He was afraid that the passing of the present Bill would inundate the Church of England with a class of men different in many respects from the present clergy of that Church. In his own diocese he had 103 livings worth less than £100 a year each—how would the working clergy of the Church of England be placed if a flood of fresh candidates for these benefices should be admitted. In the name of the working clergy of England he protested against the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he felt that it was impossible to dispose of a measure of this kind by a debate in that House, and he would therefore accept the

  631
  suggestion of his noble Friend the Lord President.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that by assenting upon the present occasion to the second reading of the Bill, they would not be pledging themselves to the adoption of its principle; and there were many considerations connected with the measure which could only be discussed in a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he could not sympathize with the views which had been taken by some of his right rev. Brethren. The tone in which the measure had been opposed by some of them far exceeded what was necessary for guarding the ranks of the clergy of the Church of England from possible injury. He thought this Bill did require such guards, and he trusted that in Committee they would be introduced; but, at the same time, he had not the slightest apprehension of the inundation and flood of unenlightened men from the North which had so frightened his right rev. Brethren. His right rev. Brother who presided over the diocese of London gave an amusing turn to the argument, and the best proof that there was no danger of an invasion of extreme ignorance was that of a man who, failing a Scotch bishopric, obtained an English one. It was important that Bishop Horsley's words should not be misunderstood. That prelate declared that we had no right to interfere with the Scottish people, and therefore we had no right to ordain a Scottish chaplain against the will of a Scottish bishop. He could not sympathize with the narrow objection that had been raised as affecting the endowments of the Church of England. These endowments were certainly the patrimony of the Church, and what they wanted was that they should have the best furnished ministers of Christ to minister to Christ's people. It was not by keeping the endowments of each particular province to the clergy of it, and preventing the circulation of well-prepared men, that the Church of England would be made strong. As to the doctrinal point, he had himself a particular objection to the office spoken of; but he believed that, so far from tending to Rome, it was more remote from Rome than our own. An intimate friend of his, who was particularly learned in such matters, objected to our fraternising with the Scottish Episcopal Church, because her position in that matter was so ultra-Protestant that it would be attended with a danger of our injuring the
  632
  Catholic feeling of the Church of England. The critical point of the doctrine of transubstantiation was that by the use of the prayer of consecration an essential change took place in the elements. But if such a change took place it would be a contradiction in terms to pray afterwards for the descent of the Spirit in order to accomplish that result. He believed that one great danger to the Church of England arose from the narrowing effect of her insular position; and if the sacred deposit of Divine truth could be guided undefiled he should be glad to see her welcoming on every side sister Christian Churches with sisterly affection.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on May 30, the Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Thursday, June 2, at Four o'clock; and to appoint their own Chairman:—
  L. Abp. Canterbury, Ld. Chancellor, L. Abp. York, L. Abp. Armagh, Ld. President, D. Richmond, D. Devonshire, D. Marlborough, E. Derby, E. Doncaster, E. Shaftesbury, E. Airlie, E. Carnarvon, E. Wicklow, E. Powis, E. Nelson, L. Bp. London, L. Bp. Durham, L. Bp. Oxford, L. Lyttelton, L. Redesdale, L. Rossie, L. Overstone, L. Cranworth.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the Union of the Diocesan Courts and Registries in Ireland, for the Regulation of the Mode of Procedure therein and also in the Metropolitan Courts of Armagh and Dublin, and for Appeals therefrom — Was presented by The ARCHBISHOP of ARMAGH; and read 1a. (No. 96).
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.