360 OLD AND NEW EDINBURGH. [North Bridge
they occupied when obtained, that we are tempted to
conclude the genteeler part of the congregations in
Edinburgh deem the essential duties of religion to
be concentrated in holding and paying rent for so
many feet square in the inside of a church."
- Lady Glenorchy, whom Kincaid describes as '' a
young lady eminent for good sense and every
accomplishment that could give dignity to her
rank, and for the superior piety which made her conspicuous
as a Christian," in 1772 feued a piece of
ground from the managers of the Orphan Hospital,
at a yearly duty of d15, on which she built her
chapel, of which (following the example of Lady
Yester in another part of the city) she retained the
patronage, and the entire management with herself,
and certain persons appointed by her.
In the following year she executed a deed,
which declared that the managers of the Orphan
Hospital should have liberty (upon asking it in
proper time) to employ a preacher occasionally in
her chapel, if it was not otherwise employed, and
to apply the collections made on these occasions
in behalf of the hospital. On the edifice being
finished, she'addressed the following letter to the
Moderator of the Presbytery of Edinburgh :-
" Edin., April zgth, 1774.
"REVEREND SIR,-It is a general complaint that the
churches of this city which belong to the Establishment are
not proportioned to the number of its inhabitants, Many
who are willing to pay for seats cannot obtain them ; and no
space is left for the poor, but the remotest areas, where few of
those who find room to stand can get within hearing of any
ordinary voice. I have thought it my duty to employ part
of that substance with which God has been pleased to
entrust me in building a chapel within the Orphan House
Park, in which a considerable number of our communion
who at present are altogether unprovided may enjoy the
benefit of the same ordinances which are dispensed in the
parish churches, and where I hope to have the pleasure of
accommodating some hundreds of poor people who have
long been shut out from one of the best and to some of them
the only means of instruction in the principles of our holy
religion.
" The chapel will soon be ready to receive a congregation,
and it is my intention to have it supplied with a minister 01
approved character and abilities, who will give sufficient
security for his soundness in the faith and loyalty to Govern
ment.
"It will give me pleasure to be informed that the Pres.
bytery approve of my design, and that it will be agreeable tc
them that I should ask occasional supply from such ministen
and probationers as I am acquainted with, till a congregatior
be formed and supplied with a stated minister.-I am, Rev,
Sir, Src '' W. GLENORCKY."
The Presbytery being fully convinced not onlj
of the piety of her intentions, but the utility o
having an additional place of worship in the city
unanimously approved of the design, and in May,
1774, her chapel was opened by the Rev. Robert
Walker of the High Church, and Dr. John Erskine of
the Greyfriars ; but a number of clergy were by no
means friendly to the erection of this chapel in any
way, on the plea that the footing on which it was
admitted into connection with the Church was not
sufficiently explicit, and eventually they brought the
matter before the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale.
Lady Glenorchy acquainted the Presbytery, in 1775,
that she intended to place in the chapel an English
dissenting preacher named Grove. The Presbytery
wrote, that though they approved of her
piety, they could give no countenance whatever to
a minister who was not a member of the Church of
Scotland; and Mr. Grove foreseeing a contest,
declined the charge, and now ensued a curious
controversy.
Lady Glenorchy again applied to the Presbytery,
wishing as incumbent the Rev. Mr. Balfour, then
minister of Lecroft; but he, with due respect for
the Established Church and its authority, declined
to leave his pastoral charge until he was assured
that the Presbytery of the city would instal him in
the chapel. The latter approved of her selection,
but declined the installation, unless there x-as a
regular " call " from the congregation, and security
given that the offerings at the chapel were never to
be under the administration of the managers of the
charity workhouse.
With this decision she declined to comply, and
wrote, " That the chapel was her own private property,
and had never been intended to be put on the
footing of the Establishment, nor connected with it
as a chapel, of ease to the city of Edinburgh ; That
having built it at her own expense, she was entitled
to name the minister : That she wished to convince
the Presbytery of her inclination, that her minister,
though not on the Establishment, should hold communication
with its members : That, with respect
to the offerings, everybody knew that she had a p
pointed trustees for the management of them, and
that those who were not pleased with this mode of
administration might dispose of their alms elsewhere;
adding that she had once and again sent part of
these offerings to the treasurer of the charity workhouse."
A majority of the Presbytery now voted her reply
satisfactory, agreed to instal her minister, and that
he should be in communion with the Established
Church, '' Thus," says h o t , who seems antagonistic
to the founders, " did the Presbytery give every
mark of countenance, and almost every benefit
arising from the Established Church, while this institution
was not subject to their jurisdiction ; while
North Bridge.] LADY GLENORCHY. 361
they dispensed with the ?moderation of the call,?
a form about which they stickle zealously, if by it
they could get a minister presented by the legal
patron to be rejected; while they did not insist
upon the stipend being properly secured ; while
they agreed to permit Lady Glenorchy to dispose
without control, upon those pious offerings which
should have been applied towards the support of
the chanty workhouse; while they, in fact, eluded
that right of patronage over all churches in this city,
the chapel to all the privileges it had enjoyed
by the countenance and protection of the
Presbytery.
In 1776 Lady Glenorchy invited Dr. Thomas
Snell Jones, a Wesleyan Methodist, to accept the
charge of her chapel, and after being ordained to
the office of pastor by the Scottish Presbytery of
London he became settled as incumbent on the
25th of July, 1779, and from that date continued
to labour as such, until about three years before his
holding communion with the Established ministers,
which is vested in the magistrates of Edinburgh ;
and while they had no powver to depose from the
benefice in this chapel the minister installed by
them in case of his errors in life or doctrine !?
To avoid unpleasantness, Mr. Balfour, like Mr.
Grove, declined the charge.
It was now that the matter came before the
Synod, which not only gave judgment in the
matter, but forbade all ministers or probationers
within their bounds to preach in this unlucky
chapel, or to employ the minister of it in any
capacity. From this sentence the Presbytery of
Edinburgh appealed to the next General Assembly
of the Church, which reversed it, and restored
46
death, which occurred on the 3rd of March, 1837,
a period of nearly fiRyeight years.
He preached the funeral sermon on the demise
of Lady Glenorchy on the 17th July, 1786, in
her forty-fourth year. She was buried, by her
own desire, in avault in the centre of the chapel
By a settlement made some time before her death,
she endowed the latter with a school which wac
built near it. Therein, a hundred poor children
were taught to read and write. It was managed
by trustees, with instructions which secure its perpetuity.
Lady Glenorchy?s Free Church schooI is
now at Greenside.
In I 792 Dr. Jones had as a colleague, Dr. Greville
Ewing, afterwards editor of 2?? Missionary
