Lords Sitting of 9 May 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Leeward Islands * (105).
Second Reading—Workshop Regulation Act, 1867, Amendment * (63).
Committee—Presbyterian Church (Ireland) * (87); Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society of Ireland Regulation* (88).

ECCLESIASTICAL PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session a measure dealing with the law of Ecclesiastical Patronage in Scotland? After referring to the numerous Petitions on the subject that had been presented that evening, the noble Earl said he thought it was hardly necessary to go at length into this question of patronage in Scotland. Patronage had

455
been twice abolished in Scotland, and again by a solemn declaration in the Act of Union, although that declaration was afterwards revoked by a Jacobite job. The Church of Scotland had suffered materially in consequence. There had been several secessions; and even within the present century one-fourth of the people of Scotland and one-third of the ministers had seceded from the Established Church on this very point. The Church of Scotland considered lay patronage to be a great grievance, because it was alien to the very spirit of her existence: and it was a great grievance at the present moment, because many patrons were not members of the Established Church. Although the pressure of business might prevent the Government from dealing with the subject this Session, yet he was encouraged to hope that on some future occasion—perhaps next Session — the Government would be able to take it up. The Crown had set a good example in this respect. It was the patron of 319 livings, and he had reason to believe that in all those cases the selection of the ministers was in the hands of the heritors and the communicants. One of the Petitions which had been presented that evening came from Queensferry, and that place would afford to their Lordships a good example of the evils inflicted on the Church of Scotland by the present law of patronage. The patrons of Queensferry were the town council, nine in number, of whom seven were Dissenters. A vacancy taking place last year, the communicants presented two Petitions, praying that they might be allowed to appoint their own minister. The town councillors, however, refused to allow the petitioners a voice in the matter, but presented a Mr. Thomson—a gentleman who contested the Kilmarnock Burghs at the last General Election. He knew nothing else of Mr. Thomson, except that he was at present drawing large audiences to his lectures in the principal towns in Scotland; and that he described himself as a person endowed with remarkable wit, eloquence, and pathos. He did not say that there was sufficient cause for objection against Mr. Thomson; but he believed that had St. Chrysostom been appointed in this manner he would have had an equally unfavourable reception, and this appointment had created great ill-feeling. This matter might be
456
thought an unimportant one, because Queensferry was not a large town, but the question affected the general body of the Scotch nation, and the case exemplified the evils of the law of patronage and of its arbitrary exercise.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he believed the Queensferry case would be settled next week, and that Mr. Thomson would probably leave Queensferry for ever. The question of lay patronage in Scotland lay deeper than might be supposed from the speech of the noble Earl—it was a social question originating in the fact that nearly the whole of the nobility and landed gentry of Scotland had "seceded from" the Church which the majority of the people maintained. There were very few of the landed proprietors who were members of the Presbyterian Church—he (the Marquess of Huntly) was not himself—and the people of Scotland did not like the idea of their ministers being appointed by persons who did not hold the same faith as themselves; and this was natural enough. The question could not be considered in the light of a party question. It was well put by Mr. Gordon, the Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities, in a speech made by him in the General Assembly in 1870. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said—
"I support abolition of patronage because I consider that it is expedient in the interests of the Church and the religion of Scotland that it should be abolished, and that the appointment of ministers should be vested substantially in the people belonging to the several Churches."
Instead of that being the case, at present the patrons, if they did not exercise the right themselves, entrusted it to their factors—a great Scotch bugbear. The passing of the Benefices Act of 1843 did not introduce a very improved state of things. It had produced nothing but disputes and litigation; and it was the opinion of an eminent minister of the Church of Scotland, who wished for the abolition of patronage, that a return to Queen Anne's Act, and patronage pure and simple, would be an improvement on the present state of the law. There was another grievance. By Queen Anne's Act, Roman Catholics were excluded from presenting ministers to livings in the Church of Scotland. But Lord Aberdeen's Benefices Act had repealed that proviso—and now Roman Catholic patrons could present to livings in Scot-

457
land, while they could not do so in England. Why should the Presbyterians of Scotland be compelled to receive into their churches ministers selected by Roman Catholics? Two years ago, a numerous and influential deputation waited on the Prime Minister and presented to him a numerously signed petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the abolition of lay patronage. The Prime Minister said to them—
"Supposing I abolish patronage, what shall I do with the Free Churchmen? By the arrangement of 1842, they are entitled to some consideration. If patronage be abolished, I cannot see how we can refuse to divide the value of the patronage with the Free Church. I should like to know your opinion on this point."
The deputation was staggered—they had no immediate reply to give. But the Prime Minister seemed to have laboured under some misconception with regard to the causes which led to the secession of the Free Churchmen in 1843. They left the Established Church simply because of their love for independence, and their repugnance to having their religious affairs subject to the powers of civil laws. A good deal had been said from time to time about voluntaryism. Now, that leader of the Free Churchmen, Dr. Chalmers, was satisfied that voluntaryism in religion was not a thing that should be encouraged by the friends of the Church. If voluntaryism were allowed to grow unchecked, it was feared that heathenism would extend itself, and that Christianity would be seriously impaired. All the people of Scotland wanted was to get the power of nominating and electing their own clergy, and he could not understand on what grounds of justice or policy the power was withheld from them. He thought there was a general feeling that the affairs of Scotland did not receive from the Imperial Parliament the attention their importance deserved. There were very few Members of their Lordships' House who knew much of Scotland, and its wants, and the complaint held good with regard to the Members of the other House. The consequence was that many questions of great importance to Scotland were allowed to be passed over. He earnestly hoped that an intimation would be given that the Government would introduce a Bill for the abolition of patronage.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he would not now go into the question of the abolition of patronage in Scotland, because no doubt an opportunity of discussing the matter would be afforded. He must, however, protest against the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly), that it was the practice for Scotch proprietors to hand over all the patronage to their factors, and for the latter to appoint to the Church any gentleman they thought fit. There might be one or two instances in which that had been done; but he ventured to state, without fear of contradiction, that such was not the practice of the proprietors of Scotland taken as a body. As to the complaint of the noble Marquess as to Imperial legislation, he (the Duke of Richmond) did not think the interests of Scotland were neglected in Parliament; and in this House there would soon be brought forward that measure of education which the Scotch were regarding so anxiously. He could answer for himself, and those who sat on that side of the House, that they would not shrink from taking their part in that debate, and expressing their views upon the measure which would then be brought forward.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was afraid he must answer the Question of the noble Lord behind him at once in the negative, for reasons which, he thought, he would find fully explained if he read The Times of that morning. The Government had already performed, at an earlier period of the Session than usual, that operation which was called "the Massacre of the Innocents," including in that doom, however, some measures which many noble Lords might think not innocent. With regard to the question of lay patronage in Scotland, his two noble Friends were perfectly aware of his own individual opinion. About this time last year he thought it his duty to intimate that opinion to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He informed the General Assembly that though he was one of the largest holders of patronage in Scotland, he was willing to act in the sense of the resolution to which they had come. He trusted that when this question did come before their Lordships, they would remember that patronage stood in a very different position in Scotland from that which it occupied in England. In Scotland, ever

459
since the Reformation, there had been no absolute patronage. During the whole of this period, by the law of the Church, and during a great portion of it by the law of the State, the communicants and parishioners had an almost coequal right with the patron in the appointment of the ministers. At all times they had been largely consulted, and at no time had it been possible, without serious danger to the interests of the Church, for the patron to exercise an arbitrary choice, as he could have done in England. It was perfectly true that at the Union, when a solemn engagement was entered into by Parliament to undertake that nothing should be done to affect injuriously the interests of the Established Church, lay patronage did not exist, ministers were appointed by the heritors—that was, by the proprietors of the land—and by the parishioners jointly. And that was one of the conditions of the Church Established which the Act of Union was intended most sacredly to defend. It was also perfectly true that the subsequent Act of Queen Anne, passed in 1712, was introduced against the protest of the whole Established Church of Scotland, and against the wishes of all who were interested in the maintenance of that Establishment. He believed there was a deliberate intention on the part of those who introduced it to injure that Establishment, and bring about a change in the Established Church. These were historical facts, and he believed his noble Friend had stated them with perfect fairness. As to existing facts, he did not believe that patronage was arbitrarily exercised. He agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that patrons in Scotland did not generally leave the appointment of ministers to their factors, but considered it as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people. He was bound, however, to say, as a matter of historical fact, that lay patronage had been the one and sole cause of all the subsequent disruptions and secessions in the Established Church of Scotland. It was the cause of the disruptions of last century, and of that later and most melancholy disruption which he regarded as a reproach to Parliament and to the great Government of Sir Robert Peel. It affected the Church of Scotland very injuriously; but until a very late period there had been no clearly expressed opinion with
460
regard to it on the part of the authorities of the Established Church who remained therein after the secession. He was bound to say now, in consequence of the votes which had been taken in two successive meetings of the General Assembly, and the very powerful expression of opinion which had been brought before their Lordships in the numerous Petitions that he had presented during the present Session of Parliament, that he was now thoroughly convinced that it would be necessary to deal with that question whether it was taken up by the Government or not. It was perfectly impossible for the Government to undertake it in the present Session of Parliament. His own opinion was that, although legal patronage in Scotland could never be abolished without some compensation being given to those who held it, it was in that country considered a sacred trust for the benefit of the people and of the Church; and whenever it was proved, as he thought it was, that it was acting injuriously upon the interests of the Church, then he thought it ought to be abandoned; and, for himself, he would be ashamed to accept one single farthing in compensation.

CATHEDRAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK, in moving for Copies of Suggestions, drawn up by the Cathedral Bodies, for the improvement of the Cathedral Bodies, said, that he had to explain that two years ago the question of improving the usefulness of these bodies was discussed in the Convocation of the Northern Province; and he believed it was considered in the Southern Province also. As the result the Archbishop of Canterbury and himself called a private meeting of the representatives of the Chapters to discuss the subject. He need not say that the opinions offered were diverse; and as it appeared to be impossible to arrive at any resolution equally applicable to all Cathedrals, the Chapters were invited to offer suggestions in writing, and these papers were now in his possession. The local circumstances, endowments, &c., of the various bodies were so different that any attempt to deal with them by one measure would certainly fail. There was one point of agreement, however — that Cathedrals

  461
  might be made much more useful than they are. Chapters were originally intended to assist and advise the Bishop,—a state of things which he should like to see in some measure restored; but they subsequently obtained privileges which had resulted in their being isolated from diocesan work—so that they were hard put to it to find any sphere of action. In theory the canons were always resident, and constantly met to consult on ecclesiastical matters; but they were not resident, and never met in consultation on ecclesiastical matters, and if they were to do so they had no power to put their conclusions in force. Adverting to the greater labour thrown on the Church by the Education Act, the most rev. Prelate suggested that members of Cathedral chapters might usefully undertake the inspection of diocesan schools, and that the desired increase of the Episcopate might, as regarded both the men and the money, be carried out by their aid. The Papers for which he moved contained suggestions on these and other points, and would, he believed, assist in maturing public opinion on the subject.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House, Copies of Suggestions drawn by Cathedral Bodies for the improvement of Cathedral Establishments.—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsupported the Motion for the production of the Papers, as he hoped it would lead to some legislative action. He remarked that Cathedral improvements must be judiciously adapted to various local circumstances, as the same measure would not be applicable to Bristol and to one of the smaller cities. He agreed with the most rev. Prelate that the Cathedrals did not stand in sufficiently close relationship to the dioceses. He bore testimony to the sense of responsibility at present displayed by capitular bodies, and to their attempts by special services and otherwise to extend their usefulness, but urged the necessity of making these ancient and wealthy institutions more available for the general needs, not only of the city, but of the diocese. They were doing much, but they were hampered with obsolete statutes, and by their very constitution were unable to meet the requirements of modern times. Referring to the advantage secured by modern
  462
  legislation, from the rule that the Dean must be resident eight months in the year, he suggested that the canons should be required by law to reside nine months, instead of three as at present, and give their time and interests both to the Mother Church and the diocese. He pointed out that one canon might superintend church building and other diocesan societies, another clerical charities, a third education, and a fourth the missionary agencies. Alluding to the suggestions of a Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury that Chapters should have power to revise their statutes, subject to the approval of the Privy Council, he expressed a doubt whether they were united or strong enough to reform themselves, and strongly suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission to confer with the Chapters, and to assist them in revising their statutes. In fact, he trusted that the Government would see their way to issuing an Executive Commission similar to that of the second University Commission, to enable Chapters to make the changes which now are needed. The results and recommendations of the Commission would then be submitted to Parliament and embodied in legislation.
  THE EARL OF POWISwas understood to remark that it was for the Bishops themselves, with the exception of those dioceses where the patronage was vested in the Crown, to require that canons should not hold parochial preferments also.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYentirely agreed with what had been said by his most rev. and right rev. Friends with respect to the energetic work which might be done by Cathedral establishments. He thought it extremely desirable that Cathedrals should be much more intimately connected with the diocesan work than they had been. In future legislation regarding Cathedrals and appointments to them he hoped this would be kept clearly in mind. They ought to be the great models of religious service.
  Motion agreed to.

H.M. SHIP "CAPTAIN"—CASE OF MRS. BURGOYNE.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD BUCKHURSTrose to move
  "An Address to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into con-

  463
  sideration the case of Mrs. Burgoyne, widow of the late Captain Burgoyne, of Her Majesty's ship "Captain," with a view to her relief from the pecuniary liabilities which she had incurred in consequence of the loss of that ship."
  The noble Lord said, that his attention having been called to the circumstances of this case, he felt it due to the memory of the gallant officer who was lost in the ill-fated Captain, and also to Her Majesty's Government, to ask if the statements which had appeared in the public prints were founded on facts within their cognizance. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) admitted the general facts, but justified the course which had been pursued because of the danger of establishing a bad precedent. No doubt it would be a dangerous precedent for the Admiralty to pay the bills of deceased officers; but this was a very exceptional case. The late Captain Burgoyne, on the part of the officers of the ship, had made himself liable for certain payments amounting to upwards of £500, which were customarily defrayed by the officers, for ship's articles, such as stationery and other things required in the officers' mess-room, including also band instruments and uniforms of the band. The Admiralty were not asked to pay this sum as representing bills incurred by the officers; but because, in consequence of the sudden loss of the ship, the expense of all the officers had fallen upon the widow of Captain Burgoyne, who had made himself responsible for his brother officers. The noble Earl had stated that the creditors of the late Captain Burgoyne had not been referred to Mrs. Burgoyne for the payment of any of these bills. But he (Lord Buckhurst) had the best authority for stating that the person who supplied the uniforms for the band did apply to the Admiralty for payment of £46, and that the answer given was that he must apply to Mrs. Burgoyne. The noble Earl had stated that £210 had been paid to Mrs. Burgoyne for furniture, with a view of compensating in some way for her other losses; but that sum was really owing to Captain Burgoyne as part of what was due for the outfit, and even that was not paid till after the question had been noticed in the public Press; at least it had not been paid on the 17th of April. Considering the very painful and exceptional circumstances of the loss of the Captain, he thought the case a very hard
  464
  one. The widow of a young and gallant officer, owing to the temporary responsibility incurred by her husband, was left liable for the bills of the officers of the ship, who lost their lives in the service of their country. He did not believe the country would endorse such a decision—if that was the decision of the Board of Admiralty—nor did he believe their Lordships would give it their sanction.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into Her consideration the case of Mrs. Burgoyne, widow of the late Captain Burgoyne of H.M. Ship "Captain," with a view to her relief from the pecuniary liabilities which she has incurred in consequence of the loss of that ship.—(The Lord Buckhurst.)
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEjoined in the hope that Her Majesty's Government would arrange that some compensation should be given to the widow of Captain Burgoyne. This was a totally exceptional case. It was the case of a ship sent out experimentally by the Government—such experiments necessarily incurred risk and danger, and if an exception to the practice of the Admiralty were not made in a case of that kind, no men would be got to go with a ship so sent out. Officers might be got, for they looked to promotion; but it would be impossible to find men, as they could get employment in other ways. As far as he could make out the Admiralty had done nothing for the widows of the crew of the Captain, beyond granting them a year's pay, which they were entitled to demand as a matter of right according to the rules of the service. But the country at large at once saw the claim which the widows and orphans of those men had upon them, and a large sum of money was collected for their use; but the fact of such a subscription being raised did not excuse the Government of the country from doing their duty to those unfortunate widows and children. The rules of the Navy were rather extraordinary on some points. If there should be a total loss of one of Her Majesty's ships and everybody on board drowned, the Government paid nothing to the relatives, whatever property the men who lost their lives might have carried out with them. If a ship were not a total loss, but if the crew lost all their clothes, the Admiralty made them

  465
  an allowance. If, however, the clothes did not entirely disappear, but happened to remain under water for five or six weeks and became totally useless for wear, the Admiralty then gave the crew hardly anything at all. For the purpose of compensation there must be a certificate that the clothes were totally lost. If he had a gold laced coat under water for six weeks, and it came up as black as a coal, still, as it was not a total loss, nothing would be allowed him. He had heard it said that if sailors were paid too well for their clothes they would not take care of them. That might be all very well as a general rule; but he trusted that in this case the Government would at any rate discharge the debts incurred for band instruments.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped that in replying to the observations of the two noble Lords who had just spoken, no expression of his would be construed as implying that he did not feel the deepest sympathy for Mrs. Burgoyne, and for the widows of the officers and men who were lost in the unfortunate Captain. He was merely about to argue an abstract case on its merits. Some of the remarks he should have to make were in substance made the other night; and he presumed that the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) in now moving an Address to Her Majesty did so rather with a view of affording himself an opportunity of expressing his opinions than of seriously pressing the Motion on the House; for in presenting an Address to Her Majesty praying for a grant of money, their Lordships would be taking a step which could lead to no practical result, as it was not within the competence of that House to originate Motions with regard to grants of money; and if Her Majesty should graciously think fit to pay these debts out of her private funds—which was the only way in which a favourable answer could be given to this Address—Her Majesty would do so proprio motu. The noble Lord who made the present Motion had attributed to him (the Earl of Camperdown) one or two observations, which possibly he might have used, but which he had never intended to use. The noble Lord said he had stated the other evening that the Government had paid to Mrs. Burgoyne £210 to meet these debts. Now, what he really said, or intended to say, was that the Government had paid that sum,
  466
  not to meet those debts, but that the debts might be met by it. There was a wide distinction between the two phrases; because he maintained that these debts were essentially private debts for matters purchased for the use and convenience of the officers of the ship, and of which the Admiralty could take no cognizance. The noble Lord also said that the £210 had not been paid to Mrs. Burgoyne until recently, and that Captain Burgoyne when he went to sea only took part of what the Admiralty were bound to pay him. [Lord BUCKHURST: He might have taken £350.] That money, or the money's worth, was the entire allowance for furniture, &c., of the whole of which, if an officer did not avail himself, the Admiralty did not feel called on to pay him the difference. The debts to which allusion had been made were private debts, and if the Admiralty paid them, it would be establishing a precedent for paying every officer now living the amount of debts incurred for the purchase of similar articles. The claim for these debts was not sent into the Admiralty as made upon Captain Burgoyne, and the Admiralty did not refer the creditors to Mrs. Burgoyne; but he might mention that, since the noble Lord spoke the other night on the subject, certain other creditors had sent in claims upon other officers. The Admiralty certainly did not refer creditors to Mrs. Burgoyne, but only answered the demand by saying that the Admiralty did not take cognizance of private debts. He would here remark that Mrs. Burgoyne, though she had suffered a great loss in the death of her husband, was not the only wife who had lost a husband on the occasion; and, though an appeal was made for her and her alone, it was obvious, if a favourable answer to that appeal was made, the claims of the widows of the other officers and of the men must be considered; and their Lordships must bear in mind that the loss of life at sea was a misfortune of not infrequent occurrence. Supposing this Address agreed to, the Admiralty had no funds available to meet it. Any grant made must be made at the instance of the Government and with the concurrence of Parliament, and must not fall upon the ordinary expenditure of the year. There were three conditions on which this grant could be made. It should be regarded as a donation, and should be made en-

  467
  tirely without reference to these debts; the widows of officers and men should be treated alike, and as all had equally suffered, what was done should be done for all; lastly, the grant, if made, should not fall upon the expenditure of the year—because by this means only could they avoid creating a precedent which would be most awkward in any future case of the kind. Noble Lords who had been in office knew how difficult it was to make an exception without entirely breaking down the rule. When the relatives of any officer drowned in the execution of his duty were treated exceptionally, the case was certain to be appealed to as a precedent, and he thought justly so, by future sufferers. The subject, however, had been brought under the notice of the Government since it had last been mentioned to their Lordships, and as no decision had yet been arrived at, he hoped that, in the meantime, the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion.
  LORD BUCKHURSTsaid, that understanding that the matter was under consideration by the Government, he was willing to withdraw his Motion.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he was quite aware that the Admiralty had no funds out of which they could compensate the sufferers, but they could apply to the Treasury who had funds; and if they were refused there they could go direct to Parliament, and he had no doubt that Parliament would give a reasonable grant for such an exceptional case.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the federation and general government of the Leeward Islands—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 105.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.