Lords Sitting of 22 March 1887

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sheriffs (Consolidation)* (50); Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment* (51).
Committee—Church Sites (Compulsory Powers Repeal) (22), negatived.
Report—Church Patronage (44–52); Pharmacy Acts Amendment* (28).
Third Reading—Glebe Lands* (45), and passed.

THE COLONIAL CONFERENCE-REPRESENTATION OF MALTA.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Malta will be represented at the approaching Colonial Conference; and, if so, whether by one or more elected Members of the Council of Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (The Earl of ONSLOW), in reply, said, that Malta would not be officially represented at the approaching Colonial Conference, inasmuch as no special Representative, as requested in the terms of the late Secretary of State's (Mr. Stanhope's) despatch, had been sent to this country; but care would be taken that some person acquainted with and interested in Malta should be present when any question affecting

  1127
  that Colony came under consideration. If any elected Member of the Council of Government should express a desire to be invited on the opening day, an application from him would be carefully considered, having regard to the fact that the accommodation in the Conference Room would be very limited. Owing to a misunderstanding of what he said on a previous day, in reply to his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby), he wished to make it clear that if any unofficial Members of any Colonial Legislature were in this country at the time of the Conference, preference would be given to them in respect to admission, in order that they might have the advantage of learning the views of Her Majesty's Government.

CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
CHURCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 44.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2 (Eights of alienation).
  On the Motion of The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 8, leave out ("commencement"), and insert ("passing").
  On the Motion of The Lord HER-SCHELL, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or until"), and insert ("unless"); and in line 12, after ("provided"), add ("without the applicant having been informed of the result thereof").
  LORD GRIMTHORPE LORD GRIMTHORPE moved the omission of the sub-section, which provided that the right of patronage should not be sold until the proposed purchaser was certified to be a fit person to possess that right, or until four months should have elapsed from the date of the application there under provided for. He said, their Lordships must not suppose that the £18,000,000, which the Treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty told the Commission of 1879 was the probable value of all the private patronage, was all in the hands of rich people. Many poor people, the widows and daughters of clergymen, had nothing to live on but the proceeds of advowsons which then-ancestors had bought many years ago. It was not oven pretended that the right
  1128
  of patronage had been exercised badly; and its exercise was now to be safeguarded to a very great extent. Although a Papist, a Jew, or an Atheist was to be allowed to present to any living, yet this sub-section made every person who bought an advowson a suspected or objectionable person. The measure would give the Bishops greater power than they had possessed in any time of which we had record in regard to the sale of livings and to presentations, and the effect would be to seriously diminish the value of patronage; but he did not think it would diminish the sale of advowsons. The only effect would be that a worse class of purchasers would come forward. He begged to move the omission of Sub-section 1 of Clause 2.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection 1.—(The Lord Grimthorpe.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE, in opposing the Amendment, said, he held that it was necessary to provide some security against the free traffic in next presentations. He contended that the abolition of the scandals that now attended the sale of patronage would produce a better class of purchasers.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD, in moving, as an Amendment, to insert the following new sub-section to Clause 2.—
  "The sale of any right of patronage shall not be valid within a period of five years from the date at which the said right of patronage shall previously have been sold, unless on occasion of the death of the patron for the time being."
  said, that, in doing so, he wished to cut at the root of the scandals existing, and to put an end to jobbing in livings; but, at the same time, to protect the rights of bonâ fide purchasers.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 12, after ("provided") insert as a new subsection—
  "2. The sale of any right of patronage shall not be valid within a period of five years from the date at which the said right of patronage shall previously have been sold, unless on occasion of the death of the patron for the time being."—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BEAUCHAMP)said, he was of opinion that the now sub-section went too far, and that the object of the Amendment might be better secured by amending Sub-section 10.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that he fully appreciated the object of the right rev. Prelate; but thought that it would be wiser to leave this matter to the discretion of the Commission.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he was willing to do so, if the question could be dealt with by the Commission; but, as he was advised, that Body, as constituted under the Bill, would not be able to deal with it. He felt that, unless some such limitation as the one he proposed was inserted, they had done but very little to put down the traffic of the jobber in advowsons. He hoped that the object of the Amendment would be secured in some form or another.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the following Amendments made:—In line 16, after ("of") insert ("the chancellor of the diocese"), and after ("archdeacon") leave out (''the chancellor of the diocese") and insert ("of the archdeaconry"); in line 17, after ("rural dean") insert ("of the rural deanery in which the benefice is situated"); and in page 2, line 21, leave out ("commencement") and insert "passing").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Lord Bishop of LONDON, the following now clause agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  "It shall not be lawful for any person who shall purchase any advowson or any right to a presentation to a benefice, afterwards, on any avoidance thereof, to offer himself to the bishop for admission or institution thereto; and the Act of the thirteenth year of Queen Anne, chapter cloven, intituled 'An Act for the better maintenance of curates within the Church of England, and for preventing ecclesiastical persons from buying the next avoidance of any church preferment,' shall, as regards any purchase after the passing of this Act, be read as if the words 'advowson of or any right of presentation 'were substituted for the words' next avoidance of or presentation' in the said Act."
  EARL COWPER, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Clause 11, and insert a new clause in lieu thereof, said, he had fully argued the question when the Bill was in Committee, and he would not detain the House by repeating those arguments.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Clause 14.—(The Earl Cowper.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, the noble Earl proposed to do two different things—to leave out Clause 14 and to insert the new clause. But there was nothing in Clause 14, or in the new clause, which rendered it necessary that Clause 14 should be omitted before the now clause was inserted. The two clauses should be considered separately.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that the clause about to be moved by the noble Earl behind him (Earl Cowper) would cover everything in Clause 14, besides remedying certain defects in that clause. He thought that service by post of the representation was quite sufficient, and that personal service in cases of that kind was unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to; clause left out accordingly.
  On the Motion of the Earl COWPER the following new clause inserted:—
  "On a representation being made to the bishop by any three parishioners, by writing under their hands, that any incumbent ought, on the ground that he has for the three years last preceding been incapacitated by continuing mental or bodily infirmity from the due performance of his duties, to retire from his benefice, it shall be lawful for the bishop, if he see fit, to cause a commission to be issued in manner and form provided in the Incumbents Resignation Act, 1871, and that Act shall apply in all respects as if the said representation had been a representation by the incumbent himself in pursuance of the fifth section of that Act: Provided, that one month at least before issuing any such commission, the bishop shall cause a copy of such representation to be sent by post to such incumbent, addressed to him, either at any place where he may happen to be for the time residing, or at the house of residence of his benefice."
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he would not propose the new clause which stood in his name, but would take another occasion of raising the question embodied in the clause, which was that it should be lawful for any patron to present or collate, and for the Bishop to institute or license, a presentee to any benefice for a limited term of years not being less than five years.
  On the Motion of The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("shall") in line 41, and insert—
  ("The Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter ninety-four, shall be read subject to the following additional proviso: Provided also that no person to be specially

  1131
  named and described in any such engagement shall be a person then under seventeen years of age; but it is hereby provided that this addition.")
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 52.)

CHURCH SITES (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL.—(No. 22.)
(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
CHURCH SITES (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL.—(No. 22.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill, said, that its object was to remove from the Statute Book an enactment which concerned the Church of England alone, and enabled it compulsorily to acquire sites for churches. the Act was passed 70 years ago, when a great deal of church building was going on throughout the country; but from that date to the present time, in only one instance, and that within his own diocese, had it ever been put in operation. He did not believe that there was any chance of the Act being ever again made use of, and on that ground it ought to be removed from the Statute Book. In addition to that there was no doubt that the existence of the Act furnished a serious and continual grievance to Nonconformists; and it was frequently stated in public that it was unjust that the Church of England should possess this power. The Church of England did not seek any special privileges of this kind, nor did it need any such powers to be granted to it, as it had sufficient influence to obtain all the sites it required. The Church only desired the same freedom to build as was enjoyed by other Bodies, and had no wish that this enactment should remain on the Statute Book.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he could not help feeling some doubt as to the expediency of the House going into Committee on the Bill. As far as he could make out, it was not said that any harm had resulted from the Act proposed to be repealed, but only that it had been put in operation
  1132
  on only one occasion. But the second, and he imagined the chief, reason why the Bill was introduced was, that the Act afforded some ground of complaint to Nonconformists. He did not go into the question whether a general Act should be passed, giving compulsory powers for the purchase of sites to all religious Bodies; but still, if the present measure were to become law, while the particular grievance arising out of the exceptional treatment of the Church of England was removed, the complaints of other religious communities would be left untouched. He thought, therefore, that, as the object of the Bill was rather to remove an argument than a grievance, in the interests of the Church of England itself this matter had far better be left alone.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid, he also thought that the Bill was unnecessary. It was founded on an altogether mistaken assumption, which was put forward in "another place," as an excuse for a Bill to enable Dissenters to seize land anywhere to build chapels; that the Church had that power under the Acts named in the Schedule to the Bill, of which the first was in 1818, and the last of the Amending Acts in 1831. The rig-lit rev. Prelate had said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—who alone had the power to take land by this so-called compulsory purchase—had done so once; but he could add, from the information of their secretary, that in that one case they had not acted in invitum; and he was quite sure that they never could or would. The Acts contained none of the old-established machinery or proper words for that purpose, but only enabled the Commissioners to get over all difficulties of absence, bad titles, and the like. Besides that, he could show, if the Bill went into Committee, that it went too far, and destroyed some really useful powers for no object whatever. He was not present when the Bill was road a second time, or he should have given their Lordships that information then.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that this Bill would perpetuate an inequality between the Church of England and other religious denominations.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE ARREST OF FATHER KELLER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in rising to call attention to the circumstances in connection with the committal to prison of Father Keller, and to ask, Whether the prison rules ordinarily applied to persons committed for contempt of Court are to be applied in Father Keller's case; and, if not, for what reason any relaxation was to be permitted? said, that the case had excited considerable attention both in Ireland and on this side of the Channel, and reports had appeared in various newspapers as to the treatment of Father Keller by the Government, and for this reason he thought it desirable to ask the Government their intentions in regard to this matter. He wished, in a very few words, to recall to their Lordships' attention the events which had led to the arrest of Father Keller. In the latter part of last year the tenants on the Ponsonby estate, at Youghal, had adopted the Plan of Campaign, and paid their rents to a certain person. Amongst other persons having a knowledge of the circumstances was Father Keller, who was also parish priest of Youghal. In the Court the ordinary course of proceedings were taken against the tenants, and one named Patrick O'Brien was made a bankrupt. Father Keller was called upon to give evidence in the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin last week, but he refused to attend. A summons was served upon him in the ordinary way, and when he failed to appear a warrant was issued for his apprehension. He was apprehended by a messenger of the Court, and on Saturday last he attended the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin. When he was called he refused to answer the questions put to him, and he did so on the ground that they related to matters which had been communicated to him secretly and in confidence in his capacity of priest. Of course, he (the Earl of Camperdown) did not need to argue before their Lordships that that was a state of things which could not for a moment be allowed, and perhaps the best answer that could be given to the contention was given by the learned Judge. Judge Boyd thereupon told him that if witnesses were allowed to refuse to answer questions put to them upon
  1134
  such a ground the whole object of the Bankruptcy Law might be defeated by the simple expedient of getting a priest to occupy a position of trust with respect to the property of the bankrupt. Notwithstanding this remark of the learned Judge, however, Father Keller refused to answer the questions put to him, and accordingly he was committed to prison for contempt of Court. He (the Earl of Camperdown) thought that, in the first place, this contention of Father Keller could not be allowed. He quite admitted that if a Home Rule Government were to be established in Dublin, judging from the way in which the Nationalists had behaved at every town along the railway from Cork to Dublin, it was very likely such a privilege as that claimed by Father Keller might be allowed; but as long as these countries remained the United Kingdom of Great Britain such a claim would never be submitted to by Parliament or by the country. He now came to the point of his Question, which was, whether the present rules ordinarily applied to persons committed for contempt of Court were to be applied in Father Keller's case; and, if not, for what reason any relaxation of them was to be permitted? He put that Question in consequence of what he had read in the newspapers. He put it to their Lordships that if ever there was a case in which the ordinary prison discipline and rules ought to be enforced it was the present one. In the first place Father Keller had committed a contempt of Court in the ordinary manner; and he had boon committed to prison in the ordinary manner; and therefore, so far as he knew, there was nothing peculiar in the circumstances of his case that called for any relaxation of the ordinary prison discipline. In the next place, Father Keller might purge himself of his contempt at any moment, and might come forth from prison at any time he chose. There were, however, under the circumstances of the case, special reasons that made it, in his opinion, peculiarly undesirable that any extraordinary leniency should be exhibited towards Father Keller. In the first place, all the circumstances connected with Father Keller's imprisonment had been used as means for promoting so many National League demonstrations throughout Ireland. When Father

  1135
  Keller was arrested he was conveyed to Dublin by a glow train. It might, perhaps, be open to question whether it was wise to allow Father Keller to travel, not by the proper train, but by a later and a slower one, so as to give time for demonstrations and meetings to be organized all along the route between Cork and Dublin. Their Lordships would remember that such demonstrations took place everywhere. At one place Father Keller was greeted by the Archbishop of Cashel, and at Dublin he was met by the Lord Mayor and several Members of Parliament, and on this occasion language of a very turgid character was used for the purpose of bringing the law, and the persons appointed to administer the law, into contempt. For his part he thought, if they wore to carry on the Government, they could not allow the law and the Judges to be brought into contempt. He was convinced that, in the peculiar state of things in Ireland, it was most unwise to allow the law to be brought into contempt. The Lord Mayor of Dublin was a member of the Prisons Visiting Committee, and as such he had already visited the prisoner. There was another reason why the prison regulations should not be relaxed in this case. A statement had been made in the newspapers—he did not know whether it was correct or not—to the effect that Father Keller had applied to be attended in prison by a physician not belonging to the gaol, but who was notoriously connected with the National League. The Lord Mayor of Dublin had taken the earliest opportunity he could find of identifying himself with Father Keller—he had met him at the station, and the next day Father Keller, accompanied by the Lord Mayor and by the Archbishop of Dublin, was driven in the Lord Mayor's carriage to the Court, and Father Keller entered the Court in company of the Archbishop of Dublin and the Lord Mayor; but after wards the Lord Mayor took a course which he (the Earl of Camperdown) had observed many Irish patriots take in similar circumstances. He had watched the papers to see whether, when Father Keller was removed to prison, he was accompanied by the Lord Mayor of Dublin; but the Lord Mayor had been much too wise to accompany Father Keller on that journey
  1136
  to prison. The Lord Mayor of Dublin was perfectly ready to encourage Father Keller to resist the law and bring it into contempt; but as soon as there was any danger to himself of incurring any in-convenience by opposing the law he very wisely desisted from doing anything further. The Lord Mayor of Dublin was one of the Prisons Visiting Committee, and is was quite plain what course he would take, and that he would do everything in his power to relax prison discipline, and to make the treatment of Father Keller as little disagreeable as possible. He (the Earl of Camperdown) hoped this would be prevented, as far as it was possible to do so. He was quite convinced that if the Government in this case displayed any want of firmness, or allowed any relaxation of the rules, their motives would be misinterpreted and misrepresented exactly in the same manner as the action of the law had been misrepresented throughout Ireland. It had been stated far and wide in Ireland that Father Keller had been put in prison because he would not betray his duty and trust as a Catholic priest. Of course, there was not a word of truth in that assertion. If there was any want of firmness in the treatment of Father Keller in prison, it would be said that it was from fear of the Nationalist Party. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN), in reply, said, he thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Camper-down) had stated with accuracy the earlier circumstances connected with the case of Father Keller. But he could inform the noble Earl that the Executive Government and the Police Authorities had nothing whatever to do with the journey of Father Keller having been undertaken in a slow instead of a fast train. The arrangements for the journey were under the direction of the Court of Bankruptcy, whose messenger was sent to bring Father Keller to Dublin. With regard to the Question asked by the noble Earl, the rules which were applied to prisoners for contempt were to be applied in this case. These rules empowered the Visiting Justices to make certain relaxations in particular cases, and application was made, on behalf of Father Keller; by the Governor of the

  1137
  prison for some of those relaxations which it was in the power of the Committee to grant. It might interest the noble Earl if he read the requests. Father Keller requested that he might he allowed to say mass daily in his cell. That was granted, subject to the approval of the Board. He requested to be allowed to see more than two visitors for more than a quarter of an hour daily. He was allowed to see three persons for half-an-hour. Father Keller also asked to have Dr. Kenny as his medical attendant. The Committee had not power to grant that request. He asked to have four hours' exercise, and to be furnished with a fire and bed clothes. These requests were granted. He then requested that he might be supplied with two daily and two weekly papers, and with periodicals, the daily papers being The Freeman's Journal and The Pall Mall Gazette, and the weekly The Nation and United Ire-land. He was to be allowed one Dublin daily paper, one weekly paper, one London paper, one local paper, and periodicals. He asked to be allowed to provide himself with food from outside and to wear his own clothes. That was granted. Finally, he asked to be supplied with such stimulants as the doctor might think necessary, and to be allowed to use snuff. This was granted. The signatures appended to these orders were those of the Lord Mayor, Mr. Ion Hamilton, and two other Justices—Mr. Godley and Colonel Hartley. He could assure their Lordships that all these relaxations were such as, according to the prison rules, the Committee were entitled to grant, and that no exceptional facilities and no "extraordinary procedure" would be permitted in this case.

  SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate the law relating to the office of Sheriff in England, and to repeal certain enactments relating to Sheriffs which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a (So. 50.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.