INTRUSIVE PATRONAGE IN NORTH WALKS. (Hansard, 9 March 1903)

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

(who had the following Notice on the Paper, viz., "To ask the Earl Stanhope if he can explain why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1835 recommended the union 64 of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph in order to endow Manchester, and alterations of episcopal patronage; and if he can justify the act of the Ecclesiastical Commission, by which in 1861 the patronage of twenty-four benefices situated in the Dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph, and belonging to the Bishops of those Sees, was transferred to the Bishop of Llandaff, notwithstanding the divergence of the languages spoken in North and South Wales, and the fact that the 'magnitude of the See' had been largely increased prior to the transfer, and other circumstances which militate against the transfer: and whether he will take into his consideration the necessity of obtaining powers to rectify this transfer by the. restitution on the occasion of the next vacancy of the See of Llandaff of this patronage to the North Wales Sees, and to present petitions from the Archdeaconries of Bangor and Merioneth") said: My Lords, I am indebted to the courtesy of my noble friend to whom my Question is addressed for the correct date of the alienation from Bangor and St. Asaph of the benefices referred to in the Notice; also for the information that although the Ecclesiastical Commission had the power to transfer these benefices to Llandaff, it had no power to restore them to the Sees to which they belonged. I have petitions to present from twelve rural deaneries in the Bangor Diocese praying for the restoration of their patronage to the Bishops of Bangor and St. Asaph. No movement; in this direction was made by the Bangor clergy in the time of the Bishop, Dr. Campbell, because he discouraged it owing to a feeling of personal obligation to the then Bishop of Llandaff.

It may be as well to give the history of this alienation or transfer of North Wales benefices to the South Wales Sees. It arose from the recommendation of a Royal Commission, which made a first Report on March 17th, 1835. The Report gives hardly any clue to its motives or reasons for its recommendations. Many of its recommendations were never Carried out, others were carried out and were rescinded later. One of these was for the abolition of the See of Bangor 65 and the constituting of one Diocese for North Wales for the purpose of endowing a See for Manchester. That is to say that North Wales, which is poor, was to be plundered for opulent Lancashire. This led to remonstrances from the North Wales clergy, and this scheme was dropped. It is said that its final overthrow was due to Lord Powis, the grandfather of the present Earl, and this good work of his is commemorated on his tomb at Welshpool. The See of Sodor and Man was to be abolished by uniting it to Carlisle. This also was dropped. Bristol and Gloucester were united to form the See of Ripon, but Bristol was later separated again from Gloucester. It is supposed that this abolition of one See in order to form another arose from a superstition that there could only be twenty-six Bishops. It might have been discovered sooner that all the new Bishops need not have seats in this House.

I have asked my noble friend if he can explain this conduct of the Royal Commission of 1835. He may reply that he was not born then, but be may have found some explanation in the archives of the Ecclesiastical Commission, or he might say that this would be only an academical discussion. I submit that it is not so, since the Reports of this Commission are sufficient to justify the contempt expressed by the noble Marquess, the late Prime Minister, for Royal Commissions, and an examination of its composition may show how Royal Commissions might be made more effective than they have been. This Commission was composed of men of the highest position in the land, and with one exception of undoubted intellectual capacity. These Commissioners were all men of too high a position, burdened with too many other occupations, and with too little local knowledge to be able to estimate properly suggestions which must have been made in a doctrinaire spirit, without any regard to local feelings or requirements, and in direct opposition to the principle so often laid down by the late Prime Minister, namely, that the provision for the spiritual needs of a locality must be preserved to that locality. Those who signed this Report were: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Lynd- 66 hurst (Chancellor), the Archbishop of York, Lord Harrowby, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Gloucester, Sir Robert Peel (Prime Minister), Mr. Henry Goulburn, Sir Charles Watkin Wynn, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, and Sir Herbert Jenner. Sir Robert Peel was not impartial in the matter of the Manchester See, for he was born and bred in the cotton atmosphere of Manchester. This greed of Manchester will be understood by those who remember its recent conduct with regard to the import duties in India on cotton goods, and, later, the excise duties on Indian cottons.

Some light is thrown upon the composition of Commissions by a Madras paper, United India, written in English by Indians. That paper states that Lord Curzon has issued more Commissions than any other Viceroy; there were four sitting at once. That on University Education has been a complete failure. The members of these Commissions are the highest officials, who are taken away from their own work, which has to be done by others, who require, and get, more pay. All these Commissions appear to be too numerous, so that responsibility is diminished or frittered away. I am also indebted to the noble Earl to whom my question is addressed for the information that the Commission of which he is the first or principal lay member, does not promote legislation. In the case of these South Wales patronages it will not be needed. I must ask him to excuse me if my Notice has seemed to attribute to him more powers than he thinks he possesses; but his predecessor, Lord Chichester, was always considered to be the first Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and I think it is since the late Lord Chichester's time that the Secretary of the Commission has acquired that predominance or preponderance which has given rise to so much complaint, and which has caused the Church Times of 28th November last to say that for all practical purposes and matters of detail he is the Ecclesiastical Commission. Indeed, preponderance is not the right word so much as the Italian prepotenzu, which means supreme authority, but in the modern acceptation of the word, arrogant and arrogated authority.

The system of patronage by a Bishop in the Diocese of another Bishop is alto- 67 gether wrong in principle. it is absurd to suppose that any amount of patronage would raise a new See, such as Liverpool or Manchester, to the level of Salisbury. A friend of mine wrote to me about the anomalies of Episcopal patronage, and gave as an instance the patronage of a parish close to London by a distant Bishop; but he seemed not to know that these anomalies are entirely modern and are due to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Royal Commission of 1835. The Most Reverend the Primate has no personal experience of the inconveniences of this intrusive patronage, because Winchester has not been plundered and has received no share of the plunder of others. Of the English Sees affected by the intrusive patronage caused by taking away patronage from some Sees to increase the magnitude or importance of other Sees, if the alienated patronage were restored, the greatest gainers would be—Hereford, 18; Durham, 15; Bath and Wells, 11; Lincoln, 10; Southwell, 9; Chichester, 8; Salisbury, 7; Ely, 5; Canterbury, 5; and York, 4. The losers would be—Worcester, 28; London, 19; Manchester, 18; Chester, 16; Oxford, 7; Peterborough, 5; Ripon, 5; Norwich, 2; Gloucester, 1; and Lincoln, 1.

The See of St. David's also possesses the patronage of six benefices within the Diocese of St. Asaph, and the right rev. prelate who presides over St. David's has given me leave to explain why I omitted including his See and patronage in my Notice. It was because I was aware that he was seeking to restore, these to St. Asaph by means of exchanges, also that that right rev. prelate had nothing to defend either in the present nor in the past, that is, in the time of his predecessors; and having been Dean of St. Asaph he is well acquainted with that Diocese.

The clergy who remonstrated against the suppression of the Bangor See and its fusion with St. Asaph pointed out that it would be difficult for a Bishop residing at St. Asaph to know the circumstances of parishes in Anglesey, and that it would be a hardship for the clergy to have to make a journey of fifty miles to see their Bishop. This objection applies with greater force to Sees as distant as the South Wales Sees.

68 These objections have lately been set forth in a letter to me by a Church dignitary in Wales, who writes— Parishes, like individuals, have their peculiarities, and surely it is a part of the Bishop's office to choose a round peg for a round hole. A man who would be an utter failure in one parish may be fairly successful in a parish differently circumstanced; this important part of a Bishop's office cannot be discharged by a Bishop living 200 miles away, amidst different surroundings as regards men and manners. The differences of the Welsh spoken in North and South Wales are by no means the chief reasons why these North Wales benefices ought to be restored to the Northern Sees. They have been put down in the Notice because they are the most self-evident, and admit of being stated in the fewest words. As to the divergence of the dialects of North and South Wales, which some are inclined to minimise, an Anglesey Rector, who is a native of South Wales, an Oxford man, writes to me— Although I have had exceptional advantages in having been an intimate friend at Oxford of an Anglesey man, and frequently, if not almost invariably talked Welsh with him, and although I have been resident in North Wales since I was ordained sixteen years ago, I still find myself using expressions which puzzle my hearers, and sometimes hear words and forms of expression which are strange to me. This applies more to private conversation than to public ministration, though the consciousness of being liable to use unintelligible words or phrases interferes with one's freedom when speaking extempore, or from notes. Written compositions are of course free from colloquial expressions, and are therefore less likely to offend. The difficulty is aggravated in the case of men from Llandaff, as the Glamorganshire dialect is less intelligible and more repugnant to the ears of North Welshmen than that of Mid Wales. Another strong reason for discontinuing the introduction of South Wales clergymen into North Wales parishes is the great ill-feeling, amounting to contempt, exhibited by the people of North Wales towards those of South Wales, which must detract from the efficacy of the ministrations of South Wales clergy. When I first came to live in Wales, I thought it unreasonable that such feelings should be excited by a geographical division. I then thought that these feelings were probably confined to agricultural labourers and farmers. Later I found that these feelings extended to all classes of habitual residents in Wales; and that con- 69 sequently the landowners in North and South Wales had separate associations for their defence, though that of South Wales found it advisable to employ the North Wales barrister.

Further investigation proved to me that these feelings had more reasonable grounds than a fanciful and arbitrary geographical division, and that they werefounded on ancient tribal differences. These tribal distinctions and differences began, or were first recorded, in the time of the Romans. History records, in a fine passage of Tacitus, the stand made by the men and women of the Ordovices or men of North Wales in Anglesey against Suetonius Paulinus. History also relates the ineffective resistance of the Silures or South Walians, under Caractacus or Caradoc. against Ostorius and other Roman Generals, and his betrayal to the Romans by his mother-in-law. Tacitus says this occurred in the ninth year of the struggle, but he does not seem to have thought much either of Caractacus or his opponent Ostorius. Caractacus has obtained more favour on account of his speech when a prisoner before Claudius, attributed to him by Tacitus, than for any warlike prowess or success. But the best point in that speech is his surprise that the Romans, who possessed such opulence at home, should deem it worth their while to fight for the hovels of Britain. This passage, given in Dr. Lingard's history, is not to be found in the speech as recorded by Tacitus, it stands on the authority of the Byzantine historian Zonaras, who wrote about the year 1100. It is, however, more probable that the ill-feeling of the people of North Wales for the South Wales people began, or became more accentuated, in Anglo-Saxon times, when the South Wales people, who had become effeminate by Roman culture and civilisation in a greater degree than those of North Wales, succumbed more readily to the Saxons, and later to the Normans, and so became an object of contempt to the men of North Wales, whoat present always speak of them as Hwntus. This word is not to be found in the dictionaries. From the tone in which it is pronounced, it would seem to be a very opprobrious epithet; but it really only means those who are beyond; as they say in North Wales, beyond the pale of civilisation, or beyond the pale of Wales 70 proper; or, as they say in South Wales, beyond the river Dovey.

The actual result of transferring patronage from the North Wales Sees to those of South Wales has been as bad in practice as could be expected from a transfer made on a false principle, that of increasing the "magnitude" or importance of the South Wales Sees, and in ignorance of, or disregard of the circumstances. The results in the case of St. David's have not been anything like those that have attended the exercise of the Llandaff patronage. This may be owing to two causes; first, that St. David's had only six patronages in North Wales whilst Llandaff had twenty-four; and secondly, that the staff of the Llandaff Diocesan officials appear to have written over their pigeon-holes relating to the Bangor and St. Asaph Dioceses, "Rubbish may be shot here." As I said before, that the right reverend Prelate who presides over the See of St. David's has little or nothing to defend in the present or in the past, whilst the Llandaff patronage shows fourteen or fifteen cases of bad appointments out of twenty-four since the year 1869 up to the present time. Of these, four have been appointed by the present occupant of the See of Llandaff. The complaints against these incumbents vary in character, from deficiency in the knowledge of Welsh where Welsh is required, extreme old age and voicelessness, want of mental ability, quarrelsomeness, or being what is called a "crank."

As to two cases I can give further details. One is that of a Llandaff appointment made in 1869 to Trefriw, in Carnarvonshire. This Rector can have little time for his spiritual duties, as he has become a sort of Whiteley. He is the principal owner of the bridge connecting the town with Llanrwst, and its tolls; he has a bakehouse, and a grocery, a blacksmith's shop, and a farm; a public-house where he keeps a manager, and it is said provides the liquors; he has also a flannel factory, and besides infringing Canon law by trading, he, as I am told, infringes Statute law, which prohibits a clergyman from belonging to a company of less than eight, since he has formed a nominal or bogus company of this own 71 relatives, all sleeping partners. If this incumbent were a layman there would be no fault to find with him.

A worse case is that of the Rector of Llanrug, Carnarvonshire, appointed in 1879. His conduct was such that the Bishop of Bangor had to appoint a commission of inquiry about him, and he has been inhibited from his clerical duties. The Liverpool Courier of 5th December, 1901, published a letter from the diocesan clerk with the report of the Commission. The substance of this was that the population of Llanrug was 3,500; that besides the parish church, there was a mission church; that the net yearly stipend of the incumbent was £142; that besides that he received from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners £60 a year, £50 a year from the Church Pastoral Aid Society, and £10 a year locally subscribed for the stipend of an assistant curate licensed by the Bishop; that this curate had not been able to perform all his clerical duties (it is not stated why); that during the last twelve months, or thereabouts, the Sunday services at the district of Cwmyglo had been conducted by a layman not licensed 'by the Bishop, and a quarryman by occupation; that from the evidence before the Commissioners it appeared that the incumbent had for a money consideration, of which no account was produced, allotted both to parishioners and non-parishioners parts of the churchyard of the parish for use as burial places at some future date; that the baptisms had not been duly entered in the Register book, and there had been more lay baptisms than were necessary; that the ecclesiastical duties of the benefice were inadequately performed, owing to the negligence of the incumbent, and that no medical evidence of his ill-health was put forward.

For my own part I must observe that when the diocesan clerk, in his letter to the Liverpool Courier, says that this anticipated sale of grave spaces in the churchyard to non parishioners is unjust to the parishioners, at whose expense the larger portion of the churchyard had been provided, he understates the nature of this act, which was one of criminal fraud and obtaining money under false pretences, since 72 the incumbent pocketed the money for sales which were not valid, and which were not binding on the successor of this incumbent. I can only suppose that this unduly mild euphemism was adopted to avoid recourse to a criminal prosecution.

I have one further point to urge, one which principally concerns the right rev. Prelate who presides over the See of Llandaff, and which should have more weight with him than with others whom I am addressing. I should mention that since the beginning of the year I have received what I might call an Episcopal New Year's card, or printed leaflet,; commencing with three collects. The first of these prays for the cleansing of the Church, and I submit that the twenty four benefices now alienated from Bangor and St. Asaph may require this treatment, and that unless they are restored to those Sees, humanly speaking the best way for their present patron to cleanse them would be to follow the classical precedent and to turn the river Dovey through them. The third of these collects prays that those for whom the prayer is made may be enabled to follow the examples of departed saints. This is what I hope the right rev. Prelate who presides over Llandaff will do, when I remind him that his first predecessor in his See, St. Dubricius, voluntarily resigned to St. David the See of Caerleon. St. David at; first refused this cession with tears, but was at length overruled by the Synod, and accepted it. I am happy to be able to say that the right rev. Prelate who presides over Llandaff is prepared to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor in the See, St. Dubricius, and to treat the Bishops of Bangor and St. Asaph in the same fraternal spirit as that which was manifested between St. Dubricius and St. David; for he has written to me that he— Desires to assure me that if the object I have in view can be attained without depriving the See of Llandaff of the Patronage of which it is at present possessed, by the transfer to it of that of other Benefices in place of those which it now holds in North Wales, he will be quite ready to give all the help in his power to effect it. 73 There ought to be no difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory solution of this matter, and I hope it will be settled in a Christian spirit, and not that of Shylock. I would explain why I have given all these details, instead of confining myself to stating the terms of the letter of the Bishop of Llandaff. It is because I thought it necessary to attempt to make a practicable breach in the wall of self-satisfaction which surrounds the office which the noble Earl presides over, but does not control; because it was necessary to show the necessity for restitution, and to vindicate the North Wales men for their aversion to natives of South Wales; to discourage haggling on the terms of exchange, and unreasonable expectations on both sides of a whole pound of flesh or more: lastly, for the satisfaction of the Right Rev. Prelate, who printed and circulated the collects which have been so efficacious in obtaining a fortunate result.