Lords Sitting of 13 May 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Increase of the Episcopate (51); Inclosure* (65); Local Government Supplemental* (89); Land Drainage Supplemental* (90).
Report—Inclosure* (65); Local Government Supplemental* (89); Land Drainage Supplemental* (90).

GLOSSOP CONVENT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: As I see the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in his place, I will take the liberty of calling his attention to a paragraph which appeared in The Times of Saturday last, in which it was alleged that six young Roman Catholic ladies who had escaped from a convent at Glossop, in which they had been very ill treated, arrived after a very long walk of upwards of twenty miles at the police office at Sheffield, and that the police authorities, after hearing their statement, directed that they should be taken back to the place from which they had escaped. I merely wish to ask the noble Earl whether
378
his attention has been directed to that paragraph; whether any instructions have been issued in consequence of it; and whether convents are places of detention recognised by the law of the land, in which persons can be received and lodged against their will?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My attention has been called to this paragraph, which I saw in The Times of Saturday last. On that day the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been down to Osborne, and on his return I had the opportunity of seeing him only for a moment, when I requested him to direct his attention to this matter. I think, however, that the noble Earl opposite has somewhat mistaken the statement which appeared in The Times, which is, in fact, the only source from which I have derived information upon the subject. The noble Earl seems to suppose that the young ladies had escaped from a convent in Sheffield, and that they were sent back to the place from whence they had escaped against their will; whereas the paragraph stated that they had escaped from a convent at Glossop, which is twenty-five miles from Sheffield. Arriving in Sheffield about midnight, they went to the police-office, and asked where they could obtain lodging for the night. The police authorities thereupon went to the Superior of a convent at Sheffield to ascertain whether the young ladies could receive shelter and protection in that establishment for the night. On the Superior expressing her willingness to receive them, the young ladies were taken there, but not at all against their will. I must confess that I do not see what other course the police could have taken for the protection of these young ladies than to procure their reception into that institution. I have, however, requested the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make inquiries into the subject.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I merely wished to ascertain that the attention of the Government had been called to the matter.

DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG—THE CONFERENCE.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Knowing the great interest that your Lordships take in the preservation of the peace of Europe, I have much satisfaction in stating, for the information of this House, that on Saturday last the proceedings of the Conference

379
on the affairs of Luxemburg were brought to a satisfactory termination. The Papers relating to this subject will be laid before your Lordships in a few days; but I may state that in consideration of the altered position of the Duchy of Luxemburg since its separation from the Germanic Confederation it has been settled that for all future time that territory shall be neutralized; that it shall continue to form a part of the possessions of the King of Holland; that all the Powers shall agree to acknowledge that neutrality; that the Duchy shall be placed under the collective guarantee of all the Powers; that the Prussian garrison shall be withdrawn, with all its artillery and stores of war; that the fortress shall be dismantled—so that it shall no longer be a fortress—to the satisfaction of the King of Holland, and that the works shall not be repaired. It is further agreed that the relation which has hitherto existed between Luxemburg and Limburg shall be terminated, and that, henceforth, the latter shall form an integral part of the Kingdom of Holland. I am sure that your Lordships will hear with pleasure that an arrangement has been come to upon this subject which is calculated to preserve the peace of Europe.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to know in what respect the present guarantee differed from that which previously existed?
THE EARL OF DERBY: The former guarantee, which was under the collective guarantee of all the Powers of Europe, declared that Luxemburg should continue to form a part of the possessions of the King of Holland; whereas the present guarantee, which is also under the guarantee of the collective Powers, declares that that territory shall be neutralized.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the effect of the guarantee was that this country might be called upon to enforce the new Treaty of Luxemburg by force of arms in case of any breach of the neutrality of that territory committed by a third Power.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The guarantee is not a joint and separate guarantee, but is a collective guarantee, and does not impose upon this country any special and separate duty of enforcing its provisions. It is a collective guarantee of all the Powers of Europe. It would, he thought, be better to defer any discussion upon the terms of the treaty until it was laid upon the table of the House.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.
(The Lord Lyttelton.)
INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.

  (NO. 51.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 (Schemes may be prepared by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Three new Sees).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobjected to the mode proposed of giving effect to the scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by Order of the Council, and proposed a Proviso by which the scheme should be subject to the approval of Parliament and be carried into effect only by a Bill.
  Moved, to add the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, that no scheme for dividing any existing Diocese or erecting a new Bishopric, or creating a new Capitular Body, shall take effect without the same being embodied in a Bill to be submitted to Parliament."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD LYTTELTONopposed the Amendment as destructive of the principle of the Bill.
  LORD LYVEDENthought this the most important part of the Bill. It proposed a very serious inroad on the Episcopal Establishment. He considered it inexpedient to establish a new order of Bishops having no seats in that House, and without provision for residence or adequate endowment. He believed the existence of the two sets of Bishops in the country would lead to the disregard of both. The Bill was said to be permissive; but he could not grant such permissive powers to the Ecclesiastical Commission, which was not the most popular body in the country.
  LORD CRANWORTHsuggested that some middle course should be adopted by which it might be ensured that when any scheme was matured it might be brought before Parliament for its sanction.
  The Earl of CHICHESTER and Lord LYTTELTON having given an explanation of the clause,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the only question was whether the scheme should in the first instance be laid before Parliament or not.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Bill was intended to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1847. He thought that there was some force in the objection that Parliament would have no power to modify the schemes. That objection, however,

  381
  could be obviated by providing that Parliament might address the Crown against any part of the schemes. He thought that the preparation of the details of the schemes had better be left with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners than transferred to Parliament.
  EARL GREYexpressed great doubt as to whether the Bill should be allowed to pass at all. At any rate, if it were passed, the Amendment of his noble Friend would render the Bill nugatory.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he did not object to the Bill as a whole, but he did object to the mode in which it was proposed to carry it into operation. He thought that a measure of that kind should not be left in the hands of any body of Commissioners, but should be directly under the control of Parliament.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 14; Not-Contents 72: Majority 58.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Normanby, M.

  Carrington, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Airlie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Portman, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Manvers, E.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Morley, E.

  Morton, E.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Romney, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Lifford, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Chester, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Cardigan, E.

  Ely, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Devon, E.

  London, Bp.

  Eldon, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Berners, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  382

  Cairns, L.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Overstone, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Rollo, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Feversham, L.

  Foley, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Stratheden, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Clause agreed to.
  The following Proviso added:—
  "Provided that no Scheme for erecting a new Bishopric or creating a new Capitular Body shall take effect till it has been laid for Six Weeks before both Houses of Parliament, nor if within that Time either House of Parliament shall have addressed the Crown in opposition to it."
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTER moved an Amendment to insert words providing that the incomes of the new Bishops should not be less than £3,000 a year.
  LORD LYTTELTONhoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, as he thought the matter should be left to the Commissioners and Her Majesty's Government to do the best in reference thereto.
  EARL GREYsaid, that one of the great objects of their previous legislation had been to increase the independence of the Episcopal Bench, which was supposed to have been seriously interfered with by the manner in which Bishops used to be translated. Unless, therefore, it were now provided that the minimum salary or endowment of the new sees should be equal to that of the existing sees, all the evils of the old system of translation, so injurious to the independence and character of the Episcopal Bench, would be restored.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought it would be better to leave the question what should be the Bishops' income open to be settled at the time and under the existing circumstances of the proposed new see, instead of determining it absolutely now.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONbelieved that if any scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the creation of a new see were to receive the consideration of the Government before being submitted to Parliament, it would be viewed with greater confidence.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas of opinion that such a scheme as that submitted in the Bill ought not to be submitted to the sanction of the Privy Council as a matter

  383
  of course, but should be brought under the consideration of Parliament.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Then it was moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause:—
  "The Income to be secured to any See erected under this Act shall not be less than the minimum Amount of Income assigned to any existing Bishopric in England."—(The Earl Grey.)
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 44; Not-Contents 43: Majority 1.

  CONTENTS.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Chester, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bandon, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Chichester, E. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Foley, L.

  Granville, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Grey, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Manvers, E.

  Morley, E.

  Portman, L.

  Morton, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Taunton, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Sydney, V. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Bagot, L.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Berners, L.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Clinton, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Delamere, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E. [Teller.]

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Romney, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Rollo, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Lifford, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he regretted the absence of the Archbishop of York. He had been charged with disregard to the Northern Province by his Bill. Certainly no such intention had been in the mind of the framer. He had been told that if the new diocese of Southwell were added to the Province of York it would soothe the feeling of that Province. He believed that Nottingham had formerly belonged to the Province of York, and that the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) would offer no objection to the change, and he presumed that it would be agreeable to the Archbishop of York. He therefore moved to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—
  "In the event of such aforesaid See of Southwell being erected in the Manner herein provided, such See shall belong to and be part of the Province of York."
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that in the year 1836 the county of Nottingham was taken from York and added to Canterbury. He should not offer the slightest opposition to the proposal.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (No Part of the Common Fund in the Hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be applied to any Purposes of this Act).
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONremarked that a time would eventually arrive when a large surplus would accrue from the estates of the present sees; and, though the augmentation of poor livings was admittedly the most urgent, he thought that when such claims had been satisfied, the residue of the surplus might fairly be applied to supplement the sum subscribed by private benevolence for the foundation of the new bishoprics. He suggested the insertion of a proviso to this effect, which he thought desirable, since a long time would probably elapse before any additional sees were created.
  Moved, "To omit Clause 10."—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNthought that the clause should be omitted, and that the question of providing funds for the increase of the Episcopate might safely be left to the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whose decision would be

  385
  subject to the approval of the Privy Council and of Parliament.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he was not prepared to move the omission of the clause. He had inserted it in the Bill in order to meet a possible objection; but he thought the clause a bad one, and he could not help thinking that, if it were struck out, the measure would be more likely to meet with the approval of the other House of Parliament.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONthought that the clause should be allowed to remain, as it would prevent the funds which were now applied in augmenting the incomes of the poor and hard-working clergy from being exhausted in providing for the proposed increase in the Episcopate.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDbelieved that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would never propose to take away one shilling which was now applied to the augmentation of the incomes of the poorer clergy, for the purpose of providing for the proposed increase in the Episcopate. He disapproved clauses being inserted in Bills merely for the purpose of guarding against some possible and indefinite objection which might or might not be raised to the Bill. He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would not pass the clause which the noble Mover of the Bill admitted to be a bad one.
  On Question, That the said Clause stand Part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 28: Majority 19.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Halifax, V.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Lifford, V.

  Sydney, V.

  Cleveland, D.

  Templetown, V.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Chester, Bp.

  Normanby, M.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bandon, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Devon, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Delamere, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Morley, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.

  Morton, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Ponsonby L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Portman, L.

  386

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Taunton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor).

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Richmond, D. [Teller.]

  London, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Winchester Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Derby, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Manvers, E.

  Romney, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Ely, Bp.

  Clause 11 (Provision of Assistants for Bishops disabled by old Age or other Infirmity).
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had placed some Amendments upon the Paper; but, on the whole, he preferred to move the clause as it stood in the Bill. At any rate it could do no harm, for it would still be open to the Government to deal with the whole matter of Suffragan Bishops. He had suggested that instead of Suffragan Bishops those appointed under the clause should be termed "Coadjutor Bishops."
  THE BISHOP OF ELYobjected to the Bishops appointed under the clause being called "Suffragan," because they really would be additional Bishops.
  EARL STANHOPEthought it highly inexpedient that the appointment of Suffragan Bishops should be mixed up with this Bill. The two subjects were essentially distinct. His noble Friend should not insist on retaining this clause.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwas strongly opposed to the substitution of the term "Coadjutor Bishop," which was a term well known to the ecclesiastical law, and meant an Assistant Bishop who was to succeed. He knew of no Coadjutor sine successione.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYpointed out that no additional power would be given, as had been alleged, to the Archbishops, because the nomination of the additional Bishops would always have to come through the Crown.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexpressed a hope that the noble Lord would not withdraw

  387
  the clause, which appeared to him to be the only point of the Bill which was of a really practical nature.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXthought the point at issue was one which had better be dealt with in a separate measure.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that if it were left to be dealt with in a separate Bill he was afraid the matter would be altogether shelved.
  After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON and Earl GREY, further consideration of the Clause postponed.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.