HC Deb 24 May 1870 vol 201 cc1274-304

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence and for-bearance of the House, I have now, as shortly as the nature of the subject will admit, to call their attention to the state of the Established Church in the Principality of Wales, and to move, for the consideration of the House, Resolutions to the effect that it is right and just that the Church Establishment in the Principality should, as such, cease to exist; that its union with the State should be put an end to; and that the endowments at present enjoyed by the Establishment should be appropriated to the advancement of secular education in the Principality. Sir, this country has quite recently passed through a storm, and I may even say a tempest, upon the subject of disestablishment in connection with the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland; and we are at present, I think I may say without misrepresentation, in the proverbial state of calm, almost amounting to apathy, which follows a storm; and it has appeared to me, I hope not wrongly, that this is a fitting opportunity to call the attention of the House to the subject of the Established Church in the Principality of Wales, and for this reason—that it can be done—and I hope, so far as I am concerned, that course will be followed—without appealing to angry feelings or passions; and it may be considered in that calm and dispassionate manner which becomes so grave a subject. The Church Establishment in the Principality of Wales is comprised in, although it is not precisely co-extensive with, the four dioceses of St. Asaph, Bangor, St. David's, and Llandaff. It extends over an area of 4,734,000 acres. The population of Wales, according to the Census of 1861, within these dioceses, was 1,111,780; and according to an estimate, which is the best I can form, the population at the present time is 1,220,000. The total revenue of this Church, according to the best estimate I can make of it, is £350,000 per annum. It has four Bishops, four deans, 13 canons residentiary, 10 archdeacons, and numerous minor dignitaries. The parochial clergy, as I calculated from the Clergy List of this year, amount in round numbers to 1,000; although I find that some authorities—I cannot ascertain where the discrepancy arises—put the number down at 733. The Church Establishment in the Principality of Wales is an ancient and venerable institution. It is not like the Church in Ireland, an alien Church forced upon the people by a conqueror and by an oppressor. It is not, I think I am right in saying, regarded by the people with any feelings of hostility. Indeed, in many cases, it is regarded with affection and veneration. If, therefore, as I believe I shall be able to show is the case, the Church established in Wales has not succeeded in gaining the affection and confidence of the people, if it is not trusted as a teacher of religion, the question naturally arises—What is the cause of this failure? It cannot be from want of opportunity—it has not been, in fact, from want of the most favourable opportunity; it has not been because the Church has been regarded with the hostility which was felt towards the Church in Ireland. The question, of course, is a most serious one—What is the cause? And I think I am putting the matter with perfect fairness when I say that the answer to that question— what is the reason why the Church Establishment in the Principality of Wales has not won the confidence of the people?—will naturally give us the solution of the problem which I propose to put before the House. For upon the true answer to that question will it depend whether the remedy for the existing state of things is a separation of the Church from the State, and a removal of its endowments to other purposes, or a remodelling of the Establishment, with an endeavour to constitute it upon a different and more practical basis. Sir, after an anxious and careful study of this subject for some years, I have myself come to the conclusion that the true reason why the Established Church in the Principality of Wales has been a failure, is to be found in the same cause that not only in Great Britain, but, in fact, throughout all Europe is undermining State Establishments of religion everywhere. The feeling is everywhere gaining ground that Establishments of religion by the State are both unscriptural and injurious to the cause of true religion, and that, as De Tocqueville wrote 30 years ago, State religions, if they are sometimes of momentary service to the interests of political power, always become, sooner or later, fatal to the Church. In dealing with this question I am met, before proceeding to consider its merits, with a technical difficulty; and I propose to consider that in the first instance, before I go to what I may call the merits of the question. It is said, even assuming this to be a right course to take, how can you disestablish the Church in Wales, as there is no such thing as "the Welsh Church"; no such corporation as "the Welsh Church?" Well, in one sense, that is true enough. There is no such corporation; in fact, there is no such corporation as the Church of England. The Church of England consists only of the Church body and a number of corporations in whom the property is vested. The Church of England has no legal entity as such, and can neither sue nor be sued. It can neither hold nor does it hold property. The Church of England is a general term representing the body of people belonging to the Church and the various corporations in whom the property enjoyed by the Church is vested. In that sense it is true there is no Welsh Church. For myself I see no real practical difficulty in disestablishing the Church in Wales, or in the city of London, or in the county of Lancaster, if it were thought to be desirable. Whether it is proper or desirable, is, of course, entirely a different question. Still I respect and appreciate the difficulty of many whose opinions I look up to, and who consider that this is one single indivisible Church established in England and Wales, and in that respect different from the case of the Church in Ireland, and who say you cannot disestablish the Church in the Principality of Wales apart from the Church of England. But to those I would respectfully say, in point of history the existence of the Church in Wales is separate. And I use that expression advisedly. I entirely fall in with the arguments of those who say it is not a correct expression to speak of the "Church of Wales." I use the expression "Church in Wales." But I say it is not historically correct to speak of the Church as "the Church of England established in Wales." And I hope the House will not think I am I occupying their time improperly if I shortly glance at a few facts, with the I view of enabling the matter to be decided hereafter, rather than with the intention of going into details now. I will give a few historical dates to show that the I Church in Wales is a different and separate Church, having originated at a different time and from a purer source than the Church of England. I believe I am right in saying that the Britons embraced Christianity about the middle of the 2nd century. It may excite a smile in some, and I see it does, that I should go back to such remote periods; and I am bound to confess that, if it rested with myself, I should not think it very material to go into these dates. It is only out of deep respect to those who believe it is important, that I desire to detain the House for a few moments while I do so. In the middle of the 2nd century the Britons embraced Christianity, and it is stated in Bede's history that they received it and retained it for many centuries in all its purity and simplicity—totally different from what it is at present in the Church of England, and of course differing more particularly from the Church of Rome. So it continued for several centuries, and I have the authority of Chaucer, in his Canterbury Tales, for saying that the Christianity of the Britons was driven out of England, and took refuge and was to be exclusively found in Wales. Towards the end of the 6th century the Anglo-Saxons embraced Christianity, and St. Augustine was made the first Bishop of the Church of England, as I find from a letter of Pope Gregory giving him advice what course to pursue. I venture to ask the House to bear with me a little while I go into these details. I have the authority of Bede and of Thiérry, in his history of the Norman Conquest, for this statement, that at the time Augustine started the Church of the English—as it was called in those days, although now called the Church of England—the Church of the Britons, confined as it was to the Principality of Wales, was a Church very different indeed from the Church of the English. That is to say, its Bishops were not great territorial barons, as they subsequently became by the infusion of the feudal system into the Church, but were true overseers of the Church. Their authority was derived from the people, and they acted only in concert with and by assent of the people; and I prove that in this way—When Pope Gregory, in his letter to St. Augustine, advised him how to deal with the Bishops of the British, he recommended him to have an interview with them, and to endeavour to get control over them, and to subject them to his rule. He, accordingly, met many of the Bishops of Wales with, their Archbishop in a Synod. They admitted that he was a messenger of truth; but gave him the significant answer that, although they were willing, so far as they were concerned, to conform to the usages and practices of his Church, they could not do so without first consulting and obtaining the assent of their people. I mention this fact because I have seen the contrary stated. The Bishops and Church of the British claimed to have a commencement totally and entirely irrespective of the Church of Rome. It is not a fact, as has been stated, that they claimed to have received the Pallium, which was the symbol of authority, from Rome: on the contrary, they disclaimed it; and that is proved by the answer which was given by the British Bishops to St. Augustine, at the second interview which they had with him, after having consulted with their people. I ask the attention of the House, for this reason—that in the Resolutions which I bring forward I am taking, as I hope I shall show, no step hostile to the Church—hostile, indeed, to the Establishment, but not to the Church. And I hope I shall be able to support the tradition which we have in Wales, and which we cling to, that the ancient British Church is a Church of pure Christianity, very different from that which is claimed for the Church of England, and that is in many respects curiously analogous to the ideas and opinions of the Nonconformist Churches in Wales at this moment. What was the answer which the Bishops of the British gave to St. Augustine, at the second Synod, when he endeavoured to induce them to succumb to his authority? They say (see Thiérry, vol i., p. 69; Horœ Britannictœ, p. 267):— We will never admit the pretended rights of Roman ambition any more than those of Saxon tyranny. In the bond of love and charity we are all subjects and servants to the Church of God, yea to the Pope of Rome and every good Christian, to help them forward both in deed and in word to be the children of God; but for the submission of obedience we owe that only to God, and after God to our venerable head, the Bishop of Caerleon. That is the answer they gave; and I think I am not asking too much when I ask the House to draw from it the conclusion that they claimed independence of the Pope, as well as of the Church of England, and they asserted it for many generations. But, as the great French historian says, for their attachment to the principles of religious liberty they paid dearly. They became, as he says, for ever after an object of persecution to the fearful despotism of the Romish hierarchy. And in the year 1115, Henry II., by the assistance and connivance of the Pope-and I do not think I shall go too far if I say by a combination of fraud and violence—appointed to the see of St. David's, which was the Archbishopric of Wales, a lawyer and courtier, one Bernard, upon the understanding that he should forego the rights of the Archbishop of Wales, and subject himself to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This Bernard accepted those conditions, and acted upon them for several years; but being disappointed in a matter of preferment he asserted the rights of his see, and actually instituted a suit in the ecclesiastical Courts to support his title; but he died suddenly before it could be decided. A small country like the Principality of Wales was obliged to give way, and from the period of Henry II. down to the reign of Henry VIII., Bishops were appointed by the Kings of England to the Church in Wales who were willing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury. By a combination of fraud and collusion between the Pope and King of England the ancient Church in Wales was subjected to, though not otherwise united with, the Church in England, and in the reign of Henry VIII. this was confirmed by the Act of Parliament which we in Wales regard with different feelings, but which we always look upon as the Act of Union between England and Wales. That Act provided that all the laws of England should be extended to Wales—that, in point of fact, the Principality should become one with England. The forests and marshes of that country were divided into counties; and representatives were, I believe, for the first time sent to this House. Therefore I think I have made good this proposition, that the Church of the Britons, or the Church in Wales as it may be called, was in its origin, its inception, and its spirit, a totally distinct Church—a Christian Church which existed many centuries before the Church of England, and which only by fraud and violence was subjected to the Church of England, a proceeding confirmed by Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII. I use this argument for those who feel difficulties about the ecclesiastical origin of and the relations between the two Churches. Of course what the Legislature has done the Legislature can undo, and there is no practical difficulty in the way. I should myself feel no difficulty if it were thought desirable to disestablish the Church in the City of London, and I introduce this historical argument only as an answer to those who take a different view from myself on this subject.

I will now, with the permission of the House, come to the practical question—namely, the state and condition of the Church in Wales, as established at the present period; and involved in that is an explanation of the circumstances which show the cause of her failure. I shall endeavour to state the facts simply and without colour; and, I trust, without wounding the feelings or religious susceptibilities of any human being. What do we see when we look back to the reign of Henry VIII.—to the period of the Tudor Sovereigns, who owed their position upon the throne of England, chiefly to Welsh arms; for we hold to the tradition that three-fourths of the army that placed Henry VII. on the throne were those of Welshmen. [Laughter.] We say so, and we believe it. One may naturally suppose that when that great Act of Parliament of Henry VIII., which some persons have referred to as the cause of the peaceable, loyal, and quiet condition of Wales, passed, a spirit of conciliation and enlarged toleration would have been adopted towards a people, who although similar to the English, had sympathies, feelings, and traditions, in many respects, different from them? But what was the actual state of things? I will not quote from Welsh historians or poets, because Englishmen will say they are prejudiced; but I will read what the great historian, Thiérry, says on the subject— When the religious supremacy of the Pope had been abolished in England, the Welsh, to whom the Roman Church had never chosen to lend any aid for the maintenance of their independence, adopted without reluctance, the changes decreed by the Government of England. But the Government, whilst it gave every encouragement to the translation of the Bible into English did not cause it to be translated into Welsh. On the contrary, some persons of that country zealous for the new reforms, having undertaken, at their own cost, the translation and publication of the Scriptures, so far from being praised for it, as had been the case in England, orders were given for the seizure and destruction of all copies, which were carried off from the churches and publicly burnt. Anyone who reads the statutes of the reign of Henry VIII., will not for a moment doubt the truth of this passage. When we come to the time of the revival of learning what do we see? The wave of the Reformation spread over Europe by, as I believe, the diffusion of the Scriptures in the native tongues of the people; but in Wales the prohibition of their publication in the language which the people understood continued for the best part of a century. Probably that had no particular effect at the moment, because both England and Wales were in such a state of ignorance and darkness that it would have been of very little consequence whether they were published in English, Welsh, Latin, or any other tongue; but during succeeding years, whilst the reformation of religion was being developed in England, and the Scriptures were being read and understood by the people, what was going on in Wales? To this matter I would ask the attention of the House, for as far as I am aware, and I have studied this subject for several years, this solution of the question has never been put forward before, and I submit it with some confidence as the true solution. Queen Elizabeth, it is true, repealed the Act of Henry VIII., and passed an Act giving liberty to publish the Bible in the Welsh language; but it may be readily understood that, after a period of oppression, that was not a very easy thing to do; but at the end of the 16th century—I think I am right in saying 1588—the Bible, for the first time, was translated into Welsh by a most learned person, Morgan, Bishop of St. Asaph, and in 1620 there was another translation by Bishop Parry. Both, however, were published in folio, and being very expensive, copies were only spread to a very small extent amongst the people. I will not weary the House by going through the history of the different centuries, but will come down at once to the critical point—namely, 1745. At that time no great progress had been made in the circulation of the Scriptures in the Welsh language. Every effort had been made by England to Anglicize the Welsh, and I do not hesitate to state my opinion here, before this great Assembly, that, if English statesmen desired to Anglicize the Welsh, it was a serious error on their part to have taken the steps they did to suppress the Welsh nationality and exterminate the Welsh language. England never committed a greater mistake than in the manner in which she attempted to bring about this result. It was done in a way most hostile and offensive to the feelings of the Welsh people, and consequently very little progress was made in propagating the English language. But at the commencement of the 18th century a more lenient or negligent policy seemed to prevail. In 1730 several persons, who, to the credit of the Established Church, were clergymen of that Church—small humble men, curates and natives of Wales—set themselves about the teaching of the people and planting schools all over the country. Their names may not be interesting to this House, but they are dear to the remembrance of the people of Wales. Those gentlemen started schools, and between 1730 and 1777, 6,000 Welsh schools were established in the Principality by their efforts. These schools, in which Welsh was taught, flourished whilst all attempts to establish English schools proved to be a complete failure. When schools had been established there arose, for the first time in Wales, that wave of the Reformation which had passed over Europe and England a long time before, and the people showed a great eagerness to become acquainted with the Scriptures, some of 60 and 70 years of age positively weeping at their not having had before an opportunity of reading them. This is the circumstance which, after a careful consideration of all the surrounding facts, appears to me to be at the root of what afterwards happened. As I have said, this great work of progress began in 1730, and continued unabated until the close of the century; but unfortunately, in 1745, the gentry of Wales joined the Jacobite Rebellion—and whether there is any connection between the two facts, I leave the House to draw its own conclusion—but for the century preceding 1745, nearly all the Bishops and dignified clergy were natives of Wales, and I will specially mention among them the venerated name of Bishop Lloyd, one of the "Seven Bishops," yet from 1745 down to the present year, not one single Welsh Bishop was appointed. I would here make a digression from my speech for the purpose of paying a tribute of gratitude to the great man who is the Leader of the party to which I have the honour to belong (Mr. Gladstone) for his last appointment of a Bishop for Wales—for his appointment of Dr. Hughes, a man not only acceptable to Church people, but to the Nonconformists of the Principality, a man of whom it is only right to say that whilst he is the first Welshman who has been appointed for 125 years he is one whom the people themselves would have elected by an enormous majority if they had been called upon to elect a Bishop. But recollect that from 1745 down to the date of his appointment, not a single Welshman was appointed to a Welsh bishopric. The language of the British Critic and Theological Review describing the nature of the appointment of Bishops between 1745 and the present time, though referring to the Church in England was equally applicable to the Church in Wales. The Critic said that without exaggeration not one Bishop in five was appointed from proper motives during the large period that elapsed between the Administrations of Walpole and Liverpool; that when a Minister of the Crown created inefficient Prelates and those Prelates preferred their inefficient sons, nephews, and cousins to the fourth and fifth generation, how could a private patron be expected to act differently? and that when a Bishop owed his consecration to a job, he would, in nine cases out of ten, be a jobber himself. The hon. Member, having read this passage, asked if this was bad for England what must it have been for Wales, where, in addition, the Bishops were alien to the native language, foreigners to the people in sympathy and thought, and who looked upon and treated them with indifference and contempt? He then read a Petition presented to the House in 1832 from persons in Wales "attached to the Church of England by principle and conviction," which called attention in very forcible language to the grievances which impaired the efficiency of the Church in Wales—that the Bishops were destitute of all knowledge of the language of the Welsh people, as were many of the clergy; that the celebration of religious rites in a language unknown to the people was repugnant to the usages of the Primitive Church and the spirit of the Scriptures; that the richest livings were held by absentees; the larger portion of the tithes of North Wales were absorbed in the repairs of cathedrals, and in the support of Colleges and bishoprics in England; and that the income received by absentees and persons totally unacquainted with the Welsh language was greater than the whole enjoyed by the working clergy. In proof of this it was stated that in 1830 there was taken from the single see of St. Asaph, by Bishop Luxmoore and his family, £27,000 per annum; Bishop Horsley and family, £2,590; Bishop Cleaver and family, £2,126; by English sinecurists, £2,675; by the Dean and Chapter of Winchester, £2,400; Colleges, £2,500; absentees, £3,185. In all, £47,556 per annum was thus diverted from this single see, while the tota sum paid to the working clergy was only £18,391. Such was the state of things in 1830. Now, what was going on out-side the Church? Because my proposition is this—that owing to this circumstance, I admit an accidental circumstance, the Establishment, as such in Wales, has turned out to be a failure. This is the explanation of it. While this condition of things existed among the Bishops and high dignitaries of the Church in Wales, the people were not inactive in the matter of religion, for the good men I have mentioned had established these schools, and a revival of learning, such as it was, took place in Wales, confined principally to the reading of the Scriptures. A spirit of religion was raised amongst them, and the Bible was circulated in the Welsh language by hundreds of thousands during this critical and eventful period. The consequence was that the native people—those who spoke the Welsh language and were engaged in this revival of religion, being thus alienated from the Bishops and the great dignitaries of the Church, resorted, and resorted exclusively to the Scriptures for their information, and reading them in their plain and simple way, they came to this conclusion, which I solemnly believe to be the right one, from their unaided study of the Scriptures in their native language and without the assistance of Bishops, that State Establishments for religion are unscriptural. They found no authority for them in the Scriptures, but everything to the contrary. It is not for me to say whether they were right or wrong, but at least I may say they came to that conclusion honestly, sincerely, and without the aid of those who, if they were wrong, ought to have taken upon themselves the duty of guiding them. Preachers sprang up amongst them, not ordained clergymen, but persons who preached the Gospel in every town and village in Wales. A state of things happened, that, to a very great extent, tended to the disgrace and scandal of the Church, or to those in authority in the Church in Wales at that time. This happened. Many of the inferior clergy, like Thomas Charles, of Bala, sympathized with the movement; they preached, not perhaps in strict accordance with the rubrics of the Church, and they were denounced and condemned for it, and turned out of the Church. The Welsh people, finding that they could get no sympathy or encouragement from the Church found men amongst themselves in whom they could trust. It was proposed as late as the year 1810, when the great separation took place between the Nonconformists and the Church, that they should ordain their own ministers without having recourse to Episcopal ordination. Mr. Charles, and Mr. Rowland, and others in the Church were most anxious to meet and assist this revival amongst the people, and to go amongst them to teach; and what course was taken by the Bishops? They put a stop to it, and. they said—"No; you must not do it; it is not correct; it is not strictly in accordance with the forms and rubrics of the Church." They denounced these people. Scandalous pamphlets were published against Mr. Charles. What was the effect of that? The effect was that those people who had long felt that they could not look to the Bishops and dignified clergy for spiritual instruction and true religion, withdrew from the Church. They said—"If you do not allow your ministers to come amongst us we will withdraw." And thus in 1810, although a few Nonconformist Churches had been established many years before, the great separation of the new and revived Christian Churches from the Established Church took place. At the time when this revival of learning reached the Principality of Wales, when the people read the Scriptures for themselves, and began to understand them according to their light, unfortunately for the Established Church the great Bishops and dignitaries were opposed to the people, and looked down upon them, and treated them with contempt. The consequence was that this people, who now read the Scriptures for themselves, found nothing there that led them to suppose that State Establishments of religion were at all important; and when they found these great Bishops, their families, their cousins, and their distant relatives swallowing up the funds of the Church, what conclusion could they come to but that conclusion which they arrived at from reading the Scriptures for themselves. This House may perhaps say that the conclusion was an erroneous one, and in discussing whether the proper remedy for the state of things to which I have referred is the disestablishment of the Church, it may say that the true line to be taken is not that of disestablishment, but that of effecting an improved organization of the Establishment in order to bring these people back to her. I assure the House that I express my own sincere opinion when I say that it is too late for that. A revolution in thought is taking place, not only throughout Great Britain and Europe, but throughout the whole world, compared with which the old Reformation is as nothing. Everybody seems to be upsetting everybody else's preconceived notions. I believe further, that amongst the revolutions of thought that are going on is a revolution of thought respecting Church Establishments; and I believe that that proposition which was laid down by De Tocqueville—now how many years ago!—is true—namely, that State Establishments of religion—although they may, from time to time, have served the interests of Governments, Kings, and Potentates—have been uniformly detrimental to the cause of true religion. That is the conclusion that I believe my countrymen, almost to a man, have come to; and the question is, whether this House will give effect to that opinion? It may be said—"If you disestablish the Church in Wales, you must, upon the same grounds, disestablish it also in Cornwall and in Yorkshire;" and, in answer to that, I say, as a Welshman—"Let Cornwall and Yorkshire look after themselves." ["Hear!"] I am not sure that I rightly understand that cheer; but I will add that, whenever those places wish to disestablish their Church, they shall have my hearty support. I have no doubt at all that I speak the honest and sincere ideas—the confirmed convictions and opinions of my countrymen in what I say—and in which opinions I myself most cordially and entirely concur. It may be asked, what authority have I for saying that those religious bodies that have seceded from the Established Church in Wales are a success, and that the Established Church there is a failure. I will not trouble the House very long with statistics in reference to this point, and, indeed, in reference to this particular matter it is said that the statistics, so far as we have them—that is, down to the year 1851—are not satisfactory. I should be sorry to make a single statement that is not borne out by facts—and, even upon this question, by facts that are not accepted by both sides of the House; and, therefore, I am bound to say that the statistics are not accepted as satisfactory down to 1851—and from that time to the present we have no reliable statistics. In the year 1801, which was about the time that this great revival took place in Wales, the proportion of accommodation in the churches and chapels was this—In North Wales the proportion of accommodation was, in the Church, 75.2 per cent; and all the accommodation afforded by all the other denominations was 24.8 per cent. Between the years 1801 and 1851 the population of North Wales increased at the rate of 63 per cent; or, to put it in round numbers, the increase was from 250,000 to 400,000; and, if the same proportion that existed in 1801, in reference to the accommodation furnished by the different religious bodies had continued to exist in 1851, then the Church would have added to its supply of sittings the number of 60,000, speaking roundly—the real fact being that they had supplied an addition of only 16,000 sittings. On the other hand, the Nonconformists, if they had maintained the same proportion, would have furnished 20,000 additional sittings; but, in fact, they supplied 217,000. The result of these figures is, to put the matter into terms of percentage, that the Church has retrograded at the rate of 73 per cent, whilst the various Nonconforming bodies have advanced at the rate of 960 per cent. In the whole of Wales, including Monmouthshire, the total number of places of worship is 4,006. In the year 1851, the number of places of worship supplied by the Church Establishment was 1180, whilst the number of places furnished by the Nonconformists was 2,826. As to sittings, the number supplied by the Church was 301,897, and by the Nonconformists 692,339; this being a per centage of 30 to the Church, and of 70 to the Nonconformists. Assuming that the calculation of Mr. Horace Mann is correct, that there should be accommodation in places of worship for 58 per cent of the population, then the Church has fallen off in the supply of such accommodation to the extent of 387,672, whilst the Nonconformists have exceeded their proportion by 2,770. That is to say, in other words, that the Church has provided sittings for 25 per cent of the population, and the Nonconformists for 59 per cent. These are all the reliable statistics that can be brought forward on this subject. I make the calculation that, in 1870, the population has increased up to 1,220,000 people; and, according to an estimate given in the little work by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, the proportion between Nonconformists and Church people is as eight to one; and I have consulted many people who are considered as authorities, and they give the proportion as ten to one; but I am content to take it upon an estimate that I believe will not be disputed even by Church people themselves—namely, five to one. Of course, I know that a portion of the population cannot be classed as either Churchmen or Nonconformists, because they do not belong to either; but, taking my estimate of five to one, the Church may claim as her share 203,333½, and the Nonconformists l,016,666½. Taking the proportion as one to eight, the Church would claim 135,555, and the Nonconformists 1,084,444. I abstain from drawing any conclusion myself from these facts; but there are inferences of grave importance which I leave the House to draw from them. In drawing to a conclusion, I may be permitted to repeat what I have already said—that we are wanting in reliable figures upon the subject; and, if this be so, I say, let us have a reliable inquiry into the whole of the matter. Let us have next year, when there is to be a Census of the population, a means of testing the accuracy of these statements. That is part of the justification that I have in bringing forward the matter at this time. Many people have said to me that it is premature to bring this thing forward at the present time; but what I say about that is this, that if it be a right and proper thing to be done, it is not premature to make a beginning by calling the attention of this House to the subject. I do not represent to this great assembly that my countrymen are impatient; anxious and earnest they are, but they do not expect at once to accomplish what they desire. This morning I received a letter from one of my most sanguine supporters, and he says—"I wish you God speed; we do not expect immediate success; but we hope you will launch this work." So far as regards myself personally, I venture to say this, that I am not so am- bitious or so absurd as to think that I can, on a Motion of this sort, carry forward legislation upon such a subject; and, indeed, I do not for a moment expect it. To those who say this is a subject too large to be dealt with by a private Member, I say, it is you who have made it too large. I only ask the country to consider it; and I must say, on behalf of my countrymen, that they feel deeply on the subject; that they have an anxious and earnest feeling; and that it is not because they are not impatient that they are the less earnest. What they feel is this—that the time has come, judging from the tone of Government and of recent legislation, when they may make an appeal to the sense of justice and of equity of this great Assembly, and not make it in vain. Even at the moment that I am now speaking they have been successful; they have received one-half of what they are asking in the indulgence and attention with which the House has listened to me on this occasion. I hope and believe that this matter will receive full attention from the Government and from this House. I do not expect now to pass these Resolutions; I do not desire even to press them. My object will be accomplished if they receive the attention of the House; and if, in the future, the statements I have made be confirmed by facts; and if, after further discussion of the subject, some hon. Member more competent than myself should be induced to take the matter in hand, and, in a future Parliament, carry it out to successful legislation, which I conscientiously believe would tend more than anything else to promote the cause of religion and good fellowship in the Principality. I have endeavoured to put the matter before the House and the country plainly and straightforwardly. I have stated in the Resolutions clearly the point at which I am driving, because I thought that it would not be candid to bring forward a vague and general Resolution that might mean anything or nothing. What the Welsh people now wish is, that the matter should be considered and the facts ascertained; and then they believe that, in the spirit of modern legislation, the House will confirm the principles embodied in my Resolutions by extending to Wales that justice and religious equality that they have already extended to Ireland. In conclusion, I beg to move— 1. That, in the opinion of this House, it is right that the Establishment of the Church and its Union with the State should cease to exist in the said dominion and principality: 2. That it is just and expedient that the public endowments enjoyed by the Church Establishment should, after making provision for all vested interests, be applied to the support of a national and undenominational system of education for the said dominion and principality of Wales.


I am sure that even those who may most widely differ from the opinions and the purposes of my hon. and learned Friend will be ready to admit that they have nothing to complain of in regard to the spirit and the language with which he has treated a very difficult and intricate subject. And, indeed, by the candour of his admissions, he has opened and made ready a way for persons who either differ from him in principle, or who think, as he himself said, that the time and circumstances under which he makes his proposal would not justify the House in entertaining it with a practical view. My hon. and learned Friend has entered into an historical discussion of great interest; but I am bound to say that, having been led to give some attention to this aspect of the subject, I am not able to read the history of Wales precisely in the same sense as my hon. and learned Friend; and yet I do not think that, as far as my view varies from his, it is likely to offend him, because I am disposed to attach even much greater consequence to that unwise and un-national policy which was pursued for a great length of time by this country towards Wales, and of which Church appointments were unfortunately made the medium. But now let us look at the main questions which are raised. I cannot be surprised that my hon. and learned Friend is struck—as, indeed, everybody must be struck—with the gravity of the facts which attach to the condition of the Church in Wales. There is, to a certain extent, a resemblance between the case of the Church in Wales and the case of the Church of Ireland; but that resemblance ought not to be exaggerated. Let us consider and endeavour to compare them with respect to numbers. My hon. and learned Friend says the Churchmen of Wales may be reckoned at about one-sixth of the population. I believe, however, that the Churchmen them- selves, and those Who write in the interests of the Church, are accustomed to claim about one-fourth of the population. But, whichever of these figures may be the nearer to the truth, no doubt the disproportion is very remarkable in the case of a Church purporting to be the Church of the nation. It is not, indeed, at all in correspondence with the disproportion which prevailed in Ireland, because there one-ninth or one-tenth, of the population was the utmost at which the members of the Established Church could be reckoned. There is one other point in regard to which the Welsh Church corresponds—I use the expression for the sake of convenience—with that of the Irish Church. It is that so large a proportion of her members belong to the upper classes of the community—the classes who are the most able to provide themselves with the ministrations of religion—and, therefore, in whose special and peculiar interest it is most difficult to make any effectual appeal for public resources and support. But, Sir, with regard to other points of not less consequence, the case of the Welsh Church is certainly widely different from that of the Irish Church. In the first place, it is quite impossible to compare the severance between the Established Church and the Nonconformists of Wales, with the severance between the members of the Irish Establishment and the Roman Catholics in that country. Not merely upon theological grounds, but also on the ground of actual sympathy or hostility of sentiment, the whole history of the case is entirely different. There was a strong and sharp antagonism between the Established Church and the Roman Catholic Church running through Ireland, and that ecclesiastical antagonism was complicated and embittered by intermixture with political questions, even graver than the ecclesiastical controversies of the country, so that the effect of the whole was that the several portions of the population were placed almost in an attitude of standing social hostility to each other. Now, whatever view we take of the anomalies of the position of the Church in Wales, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will admit it would be a most gross exaggeration to profess that anything like a resemblance of the general position exists as between Wales and Ireland, or in the attitude of the members of the Church in Wales on the one hand, or the members of the Nonconforming bodies on the other. I Again, the religious differences of Ireland had their root in the ancient history of the country. The religious differences which prevail in Wales are entirely modern. My hon. and learned Friend, in the statistics which he has quoted from the year 1801, has marked that which is familiarly known to those who have considered the case of Wales—namely, that the growth of Dissent in that country has been not less recent than it has been rapid. Even since 1801, which in questions of national history must be considered no very remote date, the figures quoted by my hon. and learned Friend show that the position of the Church relatively to Nonconformity has greatly altered for the worse. These things show that if, from any cause, the discussion of the question of the Irish Church has led to this early discussion of the case of the Church in Wales, still it would be a most precipitate and erroneous conclusion to assume that there was a substantial identity or similarity between them, even if we confine our views strictly to what is between the limits of Ireland in the one case and within the limits of Wales in the other. With regard to the facts, there is no very great difference, perhaps, between my hon. and learned Friend and myself, because the precise figures and precise proportions are not now at issue, and I own I think it creditable to the discernment and good sense of my hon. and learned Friend that he regretted the want of accurate and trustworthy information to enable us to appreciate the real facts of the case as regards the several religious opinions in Wales. I know, in some former years, there have been sharp differences of opinion in this House in respect to the best mode of getting at these facts. Certainly we must feel that the absence of that information is a misfortune, and if it be possible to devise some methods of obtaining real and accurate information in this matter—methods attended with no practical difficulties, and not repugnant to the feelings of the people—an object of some importance will have been attained. Now, Sir, my hon. and learned Friend says that the cause of Welsh Dissent is the conviction of the people, founded upon the study of the Holy Scriptures, that there is no warrant in the Christian religion for the existence of national religious Establishments. If my hon. and learned Friend will permit me to say so, without intending him any disrespect, I must say that my hon. and learned Friend has, in my opinion, entirely failed to prove that such is the case. Sufficient proof of what I say is to be found in this—that although it is true Welsh Nonconformity had taken root in the country, and had become the popular religion of the country somewhat more than half-a-century ago, my hon. and learned Friend would have found it most difficult, if not absolutely impossible, at that time to discover the slightest traces of controversy with regard to religious Establishments. It has not been a question with regard to national Establishments of religion that has had anything to do with the growth of Welsh Dissent. That is an historical challenge which I hold out to my hon. and learned Friend. 11 am persuaded that he has fallen into; an anachronism in what he has stated. My hon. and learned Friend has indicated other causes as the growth of Welsh Dissent. But, in my opinion, the cause is; to be found in the cruel and irrational policy that was pursued, even for a longer I period than has been stated by my hon. and learned Friend, in regard to the ecclesiastical appointments in that country. As I understand the matter, the state of things before and after the period of the Revolution was this—The accession of the Tudor family to the Throne was the epoch at which the sun of Royal favour began to shine upon Wales. The territory of Wales was defined, the laws of England were extended to Wales, and so far from quoting the case of the translation of the Scriptures into the Welsh tongue as an instance illustrating the unkind treatment which Wales has suffered at the hands of this country, I should rather feel inclined to quote it in support of an opposite argument. Whatever may have been the ease in the time of Henry VIII., we have it on record that, in the reign of Elizabeth—and contrast this treatment with that of Ireland—efforts, and effectual efforts, were made towards accomplishing the translation of the Scriptures into the Welsh language, and in the reign of James I. that work was satisfactorily accomplished. And here I may remark that I honoured the national feeling and courage of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) when, some weeks ago, in the debate on the Education Bill, referring to the high esteem which Englishmen placed upon the English Bible, he stated that he preferred the Welsh Bible, because it was finer, just in proportion as the Welsh tongue was finer than the tongue of this country. It was at this early period that that version, with which I am sorry to say I have no acquaintance, was made, and what was the course that was pursued with regard to appointments in the Welsh Church? There is not a more curious fact in English history than this—there are but four sees in Wales; and yet between the reign of Henry VIII. and the Revolution no less than 44 Welshmen were appointed to fill them. Not only, too, were the real Welsh sees occupied by Welshmen, but Welshmen overflowed into this country, and received preferment in England. That was the policy pursued in the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. And what was the consequence? Puritanism, which was strong in England at that period, did not exist in Wales at all. It is a remarkable fact, as stated by Hallam, that Wales was one of the strongholds of the Church and of the Royal—or, as it afterwards became, the Jacobite—party in the great struggle during the reign of Charles I. So far, then, it appears that so long as the sympathies of the nation were cultivated, the Church of Wales was perfectly acceptable to the people of Wales. And so matters continued till the Revolution. It is at that Revolution I would place the turning point of Dissent. How many Welsh Bishops have been made since the Revolution? Two. [Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Yes.] Not more certainly. But there was a complete change of policy in this respect. William III. looked on Welsh-speaking Welshmen just as he looked on Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, and Irish-speaking Irishmen, as no friends to him and his new political system, and one plan towards all was pursued. It was thought good policy and good statesmanship to place every office of weight and influence in Wales in the hands of those who, he fondly hoped, would Anglicize the country. That was the root of the misery. No doubt the rise of Dissent in Wales was attributable to this cause; and, as my hon. and learned Friend said truly, it was among the clergy of Wales themselves that the first indications of a religious movement opposed to the chief religious authorities of the country appeared. I believe in the picture my hon. and learned Friend has drawn of the gross neglect, corruption, and nepotism—one cannot call it less than plunder—of the Church of Wales through a number of these Anglicizing Prelates. On that point I believe it is impossible to accuse my hon. and learned Friend of any exaggeration; but it is a proposition completely sustained by history, that the people of Wales were the staunchest Churchmen in the country as long as their Church was administered in the spirit of sympathy to their national feelings; whereas there is little room left to doubt that Wales is that portion of the country where Dissent has the deepest root and. firmest organization, and. claims the direct allegiance of the largest portion of the people. Whether that is to change or not I cannot say. My hon. and learned Friend has done me no more than justice in his allusion to the part which I took in filling up a vacant Welsh see; and I can assure the House that it was with no political view that recommendation was made. That recommendation was made with a view to the religious interests of the country, and whether the cause of the Church of Wales is capable of being materially improved or not is a question which I have never asked myself. At any rate, I hope that the policy which has prevailed more or less for 30 years, and which, I trust, has been largely developed in the instances to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred, will be steadily adhered to, and that the Welsh Church will be administered in a spirit consonant with the feelings of the people, and characterized by a feeling of respect and sympathy for their usages and history. My hon. and learned Friend states that the Church of Wales is a completely separate Church; and here he comes to what I would call the difficult part of his ease, because, except for the sake of truth and for conventional purposes, there is really no Church in Wales. The Welsh sees are simply four sees held by the suffragans of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and form a portion of that, province as much as any four English sees in that province. My hon. and learned Friend says, and shows, that; there was a time when the Welsh Church was a separate Church. No doubt that is perfectly true; but, at the same time, it is necessary to go back nearly 1,300 years for the purpose of proving that distinct and separate existence, and 1,300 years form a period in which the waves of time effectually efface any footprints that may have been made on the sands.


Seven hundred years.


I think my hon. and learned Friend does not wish me to enter upon the point of the real nature of the union which occurred at the time of St. Augustine?


There was no union, even in form, until after the death of Griffith, the last Archbishop of Wales, in 1115, who was succeeded by Bernard the lawyer.


I am willing to make my hon. and learned Friend a present of those 600 years for the purpose of the present discussion, and to say that as regards the identity of these Churches, the whole system of known law, usage, and history has made them completely one. My hon. and learned Friend should reflect that it was not by the action of Rome that the whole of England was converted after the Saxon invasion. The history of Christianity has shown that a very large portion of England was converted not by the action of Roman missionaries, but from the North; and my hon. and learned Friend might just as well set up the doctrine of a separate Church for the northern portion of England as for Wales. There, is a complete ecclesiastical, constitutional, legal, and, I may add—for every practical purpose—historical identity between the Church in Wales and the rest of the Church of England. After hearing the latter sentences of my hon. and learned Friend's speech, I can hardly say for what he recommends us to vote; but he entertains the opinion that—"it is right that the Establishment of the Church and its Union with the State should cease to exist in the said dominion and principality of Wales." I will not say what it would be right to do, provided Wales were separated from England in the same way that Ireland is, and provided that the ease of Wales stood in full and complete analogy to that of Ireland in regard to religious differences. But the direct contrary of this is the truth. I think, therefore, it is practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from that of England. That is not my assertion alone, it is evidently the belief of my hon. and learned Friend himself. He has not said that we can disestablish the Church in Wales and leave the Church of England established. Nay, more, he has gone very far indeed towards saying the reverse, because he said— It may be said—'If you disestablish the Church in Wales, you must, upon the same grounds, disstablish it also in Cornwall and Yorkshire;' and, in answer to that, I say, as a Welshman—'Let Cornwall and Yorkshire look after themselves.' … I will add that whenever those places wish to disestablish their Church, they shall have my hearty support. I am not making any unfair assumption, or endeavouring to entrap my hon. and learned Friend into an admission that he does not intend to convey, when I say that the real question which he endeavoured to raise was the disestablishment of the Church of England. The candour of my hon. and learned Friend is not less remarkable than the clearness with which he has treated the subject, and he has stated frankly and fairly that which, even if it had not been stated, would have been sufficiently obvious. We are not prepared to enter upon any crusade for that purpose. We do not think it our duty, in the first place, to endeavour to determine that question by any abstract arguments about national Establishments. If there are those who consider that national Establishments are opposed, under all circumstances, to the principle of the Christian religion, we do not belong to the number of such persons. It is our duty to look at the case of the Church of England as we find it. It is our duty to look at the facts and principles of the case, and to the feelings and convictions of the people with regard to it. In the first place, we are encountered at the threshold of the question by the old statistical controversy, with regard to which we seem to have been thus far rather too much in the condition of men who are determined to keep themselves in the dark; but we look to such communications as we have at our command, such as the Returns of marriages in the country, for I take them to be a not unfair indication of the relative amount of strength of the reli- gious communities in zealous, intelligent, and attached members; and it is their strength in that sort of vague adhesion which is all that in many cases a national Church is likely to command and to retain, which is one of the purposes for which, it exists. I am bound to say that my belief is that the Established Church of England is the religion of a considerable majority of the people of this country. I can only say that, independently of that which appears to establish a good primâ facie ground for remaining where we are, I do not envy my hon. and learned Friend or my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, or any other man who ventures to take in hand the business of disestablishing the Church of England. Even if it were as fit to be done as I think it unfit, there is a difficulty in the case before which the boldest man would recoil. It is all very well so long as we deal with abstract declarations put upon the Notice Paper of this House, of what might be done or ought to be done. But only go up to the walls and gates, and look at the way in which stone is built upon stone, on the way in which the foundations have been dug, and the way they go down into the earth, and consider by what tools, what artillery you can bring that fabric to the ground. I know the difficulties, and I am not prepared, in any shape or form, to encourage—by dealing with my hon. and learned Friend's Motion in any way except the simple mode of negative—the creation of expectations which it would be most guilty, most unworthy, most dishonourable on our part to entertain, lest we should convey a virtual pledge. We cannot go in that direction; we do not intend to do so; we deprecate it, and we should regard it as a national mischief. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will be prepared to meet with a negative the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, and without the slightest reproach to him or to those whom he represents, because we believe it is neither called for by the circumstances, nor agreeable to the desires and convictions of the people of this country.


avowed himself to be one of those who believed that a time was coming, surely, though slowly, when such a measure of disestablishment as had already been applied to the Church in Ireland would have to be extended not only to Wales, but to every part of the kingdom. Leaving, however, the wider field of discussion, he undertook to show that this year, in which the Irish Church ceased to exist as an Establishment, the Church in Wales was the greatest ecclesiastical anomaly to be found in the whole world, Applying a numerical test to the subject, he found that the number of people who attended Divine service on a particular Sunday in 1851 was—in churches 10.10 and in chapels 42.10 of the population. Since then there were no official statistics; but he had been furnished with figures which showed that since then Dissent had gained ground in Wales, and that many more services took place in chapels than in churches. The Prime Minister, in stating that Dissenters in Wales were to Churchmen in the proportion of four to one, had considerably understated the fact; the proportion, he believed, was much more nearly seven to one, and that did not by any means represent the whole of the question. Churchmen in Wales were composed almost exclusively of the richer portions of society. Every landowner, every country gentleman, every large farmer, and almost every professional man and large tradesman went to church, while every small farmer, small tradesman, and the whole of the labouring classes went to chapel; so that they had in Wales what was insisted on for the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland—namely, a Church kept up for the rich man at the expense of the poor majority. Differences of religion, again, were perpetuated by differences of language, and the same boundary lines which divided Churchmen from Dissenters practically divided Englishmen and Welshmen. The case for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales was just as strong as it had been for the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland; and Conservative Members, to do them justice—and notably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), had pointed this out clearly in last year's debates. The advocates or disestablishment would, consequently, be fighting the Opposition this year with weapons forged in their own smithy. The arguments, in fact, were driven so tome last year that it became necessary for Liberal Members to distinguish, if they could, between the cases of England, and Ireland. The President of the Board of Trade made great use of "the badge of conquest" argument; but to him, he confessed, that had always seemed a very weak ground to take up. He could not understand the force of an appeal for legislation in the present day based upon the fact that several hundreds of years ago his ancestors—if he had any—might have gone to Ireland and conquered the ancestors of hon. Gentlemen who sat for Irish constituencies in the present day. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government supposed that there was not the same hostility existing towards the English Church on the part of the Dissenters in Wales which existed on the part of Roman Catholics to the Irish Church. The right hon. Gentleman certainly must have been more pleasantly occupied in 1868 than in canvassing a Welsh constituency or he would have known better—he would have found an amount of bitterness and hostility which was deeply to be regretted, but which hardly existed to the same extent in any other country. But there was, however, this difference between the two countries, that whilst Dissent in Wales was a plant of foreign growth—such a thing as a Dissenter having hardly existed there 150 years ago—in Ireland it had existed from time immemorial. It was a singular fact that those who were now anxious to bring back Dissenters to the Church, when they had the opportunity of doing so did everything they could to scatter them. The original cause of Dissent might be summed up in two words—"English Bishops." For where there was an English Bishop there speedily followed English deans, English archdeacons, English vicars-choral, and English rectors. Nowhere had the English Church been more disgraced by the selfish disposition of the English holders of offices. During the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts several Welshmen had been mitred; but since the accession of the House of Brunswick, not a single office had been so conferred. The consequence was, that the services in the Church had been changed into English; but the churches themselves were deserted. And to such a point had these preferments of Englishmen been carried that until quite recently, in the largest towns, such as Cardiff and Swansea, the most important preferments were held by men who could not understand one word of the language of the people among whom they ministered. The attempt to suppress the Welsh language had failed, as similar attempts had failed in Poland and Hungary, and the result had been not that the Welsh language had been exterminated, but that the English churches had been deserted, and the English churches being deserted, Dissent rushed in—like air into a vacuum—to supply the religious needs of the people. He would not say, as an hon. Member had done, that but for the efforts of the Dissenters the Devil might have had the whole of Wales for his peculiar province; but the religious life which the people now professed was, without doubt, mainly owing to the exertions of the Welsh preachers. His right hon. Friend appeared to think that by removing the causes which led to dissent, Dissenters would be restored to the Church. But it was one thing to scatter the flock, and quite another to bring them back to the fold. These were not the days for conversions to Church principles; and although it might be true, according to Sidney Smith's witty remark, that carriage horses always drove to the Church, and social considerations might continue to exert their influences in favour of Establishments, these influences were very limited and very superficial, especially in Wales; they did not touch the hearts of the people. The Welsh had been made what they were by Nonconformist preachers, and Nonconformists they would remain to the end of the chapter. Of one thing he was quite sure, when the day for the attack on the Church of England came—as come it must, the weakest part of the fortress would be found to be that which was located in Wales. He did not altogether approve abstract Resolutions; they were like shots fired in the air, and did not hit anything. He was strongly in favour of disestablishment; but he did not like the long agony of piecemeal disestablishment. It was like putting a man to death by tearing him limb from limb. A much larger question was involved, and sooner or later they must be prepared to deal with it—the question of no Established Church at all. The fruit was not yet ripe; but there were powerful influences at work, and a feeling was steadily growing up in the minds of the earnest and far-seeing members of the Church of England that the time would soon come when religion must stand on its own ground, and when they would not be regarded as its best friends who, to adopt the simile used the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy), were afraid to take away from the Church the stick on which she leaned, lest she should fall flat on her face; but those who were for teaching her to walk with freer and firmer tread after she had ceased to lean on the crutches of the Establishment.


regretted the hon. and learned Member had moved these Resolutions, for independent of the general abjection that applied to abstract Resolutions, he had not even urged anything in favour of that part of them which referred to the Church. The only practical result would be to lead to a good deal of irritation between the two bodies in Wales—Churchmen and Dissenters. They combined, no doubt, the pugnacious and pacific elements, and the latter had as much right to be considered as the former. A great number of Churchmen were well-disposed towards their Dissenting brethren, and lived on friendly terms with them; but by these kind of attacks on the Established Church they were put into a false position. The precedent of the Irish Church was no precedent for Wales. As Bishop Butler said—"Everything is that which it is, and not something else." Ireland was Ireland, and Wales was Wales. Wales was not an island, which Ireland was. Besides, the relations between Churchmen and Dissenters could not be compared with those existing between Roman Catholics and Churchmen. What national object could the hon. and learned Member accomplish by a Resolution of this kind? He quoted a passage from a Charge by the Bishop of St. David's to show the relations existing between Churchmen and Nonconformists in Wales, that right rev. Prelate having ordained not a few Nonconformists, who sometimes, at a considerable sacrifice of emolument, sought admission into the ministry of the Church—men of earnest religious convictions, who wished not to preach a new Gospel, but to preach the old Gospel in the pulpits of the Establishment. The recent appointment to the Episcopal Bench in connection with Wales had been commended; but the Welsh Bishops had generally been men of great ability and liberality of sentiment. He might instance both the Bishop of St. David's and the late Bishop of Llandaff. He was at a loss to see what practical object could be gained by the adoption of these Resolutions. With reference to that part of the Motion which related to the application of funds, he believed such a proposition was eminently unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was calculated to provoke quite as much bitterness, as might be occasioned by devoting the money to educational purposes, as under the present system. He had always objected to abstract Resolutions of this character. Since he first obtained a seat in that House he had observed that it was used for two purposes—namely, as a machine for carrying on business, and as a chimney for letting off steam. He supposed it was under the latter aspect that the hon. and learned Member regarded it when he introduced his Motion; and he hoped that, having relieved his mind, he would not proceed any further.

Motion made, and Question put, That, in the opinion of this House, it is right that the Establishment of the Church and its Union with the State should cease to exist in the dominion and principality of Wales."—(Mr. Watkin Williams.)

The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 209: Majority 164.

Allen, W. S. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Anderson, G. Leatham, E. A.
Beaumont, W. B. Lewis, J. D.
Brewer, Dr. Loch, G.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Lush, Dr.
Browne, G. E. Lust, A.
Callan, P. M'Clure, T.
Candlish, J. M'Laren, D.
Carter, Mr. Alderman Miller, J.
Cave, T. Morgan, G. O.
Cowen, J. Potter, T. B.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Reed, C.
Davies, R. Richard, H.
Dilke, Sir C. W. Shaw, W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Smith, J. B.
Edwardes, hon. Col. W. Stevenson, J. C.
Ewing, H. E. C. Taylor, P. A.
Fawcett, H. Whalley, G. H.
Fothergill, R. White, J.
Gilpin, C. Williams, W.
Graham, W.
Hadfield, G. TELLERS.
Henley, Lord Lawson, Sir W.
Herbert, hon. A. E. W. Smith, E.
Howard, J.
Acland, T. D. Foljambe, F. J. S.
Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C. B. Forester, rt. hon. Gen.
Amcotts, Colonel W. C. Forster, rt. hon W. E.
Amphlett, R. P. Foster, W. H.
Anson, hon. A. H. A. Fowler, R. N.
Arkwright, R. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Assheton, R. Galway, Viscount
Ayrton, right hon. A. S. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Bagge, Sir W. Gladstone, W. H.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Gore, J. R. O.
Baker, R. B. W. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Ball, J. T. Grant, Col. hon. J.
Bass, A. Graves, S. R.
Bass, M. T. Greaves, E.
Bateson, Sir T. Greville, hon. Captain
Beach, W. W. B. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Beaumont, Captain F. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Beresford, Lt.-Col. M. Grove, T. F.
Birley, H. Guest, M. J.
Blennerhassett, Sir R. Gurney, right hon. R.
Bonham-Carter, J. Hambro, C.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Bowmont, Marquess of Hamilton, Lord G.
Bowring, E. A. Hamilton, I. T.
Brassey, H. A. Hamilton, Marquess of
Brown, A. H. Hardy, right hon. G.
Bruce, Lord C. Hardy, J.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord E. Hardy, J. S.
Bruce, right hon. H. A. Hartington, Marquess of
Bury, Viscount Hay, Sir J. C. D.
Buxton, C. Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.
Cameron, D. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Cardwell, right hon. E. Henry, J. S.
Cave, right hon. S. Herbert, rt. hn. Gen. Sir P
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Hermon, E.
Cavendish, Lord G. Heygate, Sir F. W.
Cawley, C. E. Hibbert, J. T.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. Hodgkinson, G.
Chambers, M. Hodgson, W. N.
Charley, W. T. Holland, S.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E. Holmesdale, Viscount
Clive, Col. hon. G. W. Hornby, E. K.
Coleridge, Sir J. D. Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.
Collier, Sir R. P. Hurst, R. H.
Corbett, Colonel Hutt, rt. hon. Sir W.
Crawford, R. W. Hyde, Lord
Dalrymple, C. Ingram, H. F. M.
Dalrymple, D. James, H.
Davenport, W. B. Johnstone, Sir H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Jones, J.
Dawson, R. P. Kavanagh, A. Mac M.
Denman, hon. G. Kay-Shuttleworth, U. J.
Dent, J. D. Kekewich, S. T.
Dickinson, S. S. Kennaway, J. H.
Dimsdale, R. Kingscote, Colonel
Dodson, J. G. Lancaster, J.
Dowse, R. Langton, W. G.
Duff, M. E. G. Lefevre, G. J. S.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Eastwick, E. B. Lindsay, hon. Col. C.
Elliot, G. Lindsay, Col. R. L.
Erskine, Admiral J. E. Lloyd, Sir T. D.
Ewing, A. O. Locke, J.
Eykyn, R. Lopes, Sir M.
Feilden, H. M. Lorne, Marquess of
Fielden, J. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Finch, G. H. Lowther, Colonel
Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W. Lubbock, Sir J.
Fletcher, I. Lyttelton, hon. C. G.
Floyer, J. Mackintosh, E. W.
M'Lagan, P. Scourfield, J. H.
Mellor, T. W Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Meyrick, T.
Milles, hon. G. W. Smith, A.
Mills, C. H. Smith, F. C.
Monk, C. J. Smith, R.
Morgan, C. O. Stanley, hon. F.
Morgan, hon. Major Stanley, hon. W. O.
Morrison, W. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R. Stone, W. H.
Newdegate, C. N. Talbot, C. R. M.
Noel, hon. G. J. Talbot, J. G.
North, Colonel Talbot, hon. R. A. J.
Paget, R. H. Taylor, rt. hon. Colonel
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. Tipping, W.
Palmer, Sir R. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Parker, C. S. Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-
Parker, Lt.-Col. W.
Patten, rt. hon. Col. W Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Peek, H. W. Turner, C.
Peel, A. W. Turnor, E.
Pelham, Lord Vivian, A. P.
Phipps, C. P. Vivian, Cap. hn. J. C. W.
Playfair, L. Walker, Major G. G.
Plunket, hon. D. R. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Price, W. P. Walsh, hon. A.
Raikes, H. C. Waterhouse, S.
Rebow, J. G. Whatman, J.
Robertson, D. Whitwell, J.
Round, J. Wilmot, H.
Russell, F. W. Woods, H.
Russell, H. Winn, R.
St. Aubyn, J. Wynn, C. W. W.
Salomons, Sir D. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Sandon, Viscount TELLERS.
Sclater-Booth, G. Adam, W. P.
Scott, Lord H. J. M. D. Glyn, hon. G. G.