Commons Sitting of 17 June 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The INCLOSURE (UPTON ST. LEONARDS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL, and the PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL, were read 3° and passed.
The LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL, and the LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL, were read 2° and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating
1250
to the Counties of Cambridge and Hertford, and to the City of Wakefield presented.
Ordered,—That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(Sir Walter Foster.)
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

HABITUAL OFFENDERS, INEBRIATES, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented,—of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee, with Appendix and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
Copy presented,—of General Report for the year 1894 by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
Copy presented,—of Statute made by the University of Cambridge on the 8th February 1895, altering Statute A, Chapter VI., of the Statutes of the University [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Further Return relative thereto (Parish of Woolwich)[ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 304.]

CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
Copy ordered,—of Treasury Minute, dated 12th June 1895, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of 65.—(Sir John Hibbert.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1894.
Copy ordered,—of Tables showing the Progress of British Merchant Shipping.— (Mr. Burt.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 307.]
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 314.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
On the Order for the Second Reading of the Great Western Railway (No. 1) Bill.
MR. ALPHEUS MORTONwho had given notice of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said he desired to explain why the opposition to it had been withdrawn. The Bill proposed to appropriate a piece of ground used as an open space at Pangbourne, and the Great Western Railway had agreed to strike out that portion of the clause by which the appropriation would be made, so that there was no longer any reason to oppose the Second Reading.
*MR. G. W. PALMER, who had also given a notice of opposition, said, he desired to associate himself with the hon. Member in this matter. The Great Western Company had fairly met those who had interested themselves in preserving one of the most picturesque spots on the Thames.
Bill read 2°.

QUESTIONS.

  BELLEVILLE BOILERS.
  MR. A. B. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when, will the trials of the Belleville boilers fitted on the Sharpshooter commence; what length of time are they to occupy at sea; will instructions be given to maintain an indicated horse-power in proportion to the full-designed power of the machinery, so as to secure a thorough test of the boilers and their consumption of fuel; and what is the average power it is proposed should be developed?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe)said, the boiler trials in the Sharpshooter will commence in a few days' time. I shall be happy to give my right hon. Friend a copy of the programme of the trials so far decided upon. Any further trials considered desirable will be considered on the completion of this programme.
  MR. W. ALLANasked whether it was the fact that on the first trial of the Ohio, which was fitted with the Belleville boilers, one of them burst and injured the firemen?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he could hardly answer for any but Her Majesty's ships, and the Ohio was not one of Her Majesty's ships. He thought his hon. Friend should seek for information from the company to whom the ship belonged.
  MR. FORWOODasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any closer indication as to the time for the boiler trials in the Sharpshooter, and whether it was not the fact that the Ohio was the first English merchant vessel which had adopted similar boilers to those which had been adopted in Her Majesty's Navy?
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked if it was the fact that the Admiralty had practically no information about the Ohio; he thought it was of great importance that the Admiralty

  1253
  should get information as to the practical experience of private companies in regard to such matters?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the Admiralty would be very much more interested in subsequent performances of the Ohio than in the very first performance which she had made, under conditions of which he was not fully aware. It would be very interesting to the Admiralty to obtain information as to the experience in the Merchant Navy of such boilers. With respect to the question of his right hon. Friend, he really thought that "a few days' time" was sufficient indication; he would not like to tie himself to any day this week, but he believed the Sharpshooter would really be ready this week.
  MR. HANBURYasked if it was intended to have a very short trial or a long continuous trial at sea?
  MR. FORWOODasked if the programme would be laid on the Table?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he did not think there would be any advantage in laying the programme on the Table, but he would give a copy to any hon. Member. The trials would occupy a considerable time, and would be very thorough.
  MR. HANBURYasked if the trial would last for days, weeks, or months?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHreferred the hon. Member to the latter part of his original answer.

  PREFERENTIAL TARIFF TREATMENT IN COLONIES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is able to state what fiscal advantages are given in the Colonial possessions of France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands to goods imported from the Mother Country over goods imported from foreign countries; and what fiscal advantages are in return conceded by France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands to goods imported from their own Colonies instead of from other countries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Since the hon. and gallant Member last asked a question on this subject some
  1254
  further information has been received. We will have this brought up to date as far as possible, so as to present a Paper giving the latest information.

  SALE OF ESTATES IN COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. EDWARD BLAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would he explain the cause of the delay in the Land Judge's Court or elsewhere in completing the sale to the Land Commission of Lord Annaly's estate in County Longford, the tenants' undertakings having been signed more than a year ago; are the tenants liable during the interval to pay the unreduced rents; are the tenants at liberty, in view of the delay, to withdraw their undertakings; and when is it expected that the sale will be completed, and can anything be done to expedite it?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY, New castle-upon-Tyne): This estate is, as stated in the question, for sale in the Land Judge's Court. I am informed that the rental has not been settled, and until it has been settled the Land Commission cannot make an offer to purchase. The Commissioners, however, understand that it is probable that the rental will be settled at an early date. In the case of proceedings pending in the Land Judge's Court, until the sale takes place the tenants remain liable for the existing rents. The Commissioners cannot say whether any of the tenants in question are at liberty to withdraw from their undertakings; whether any tenant can do so or not depends upon the agreement he may have entered into. The Commissioners will, as far as it is possible for them to do so, endeavour to expedite the sale in question.
  MR. BLAKEasked, if the Land Judge had not been for a long time absent, and whether there was any prospect of his being able to resume his duties?
  *MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was sorry to say that it was quite true that for a considerable time the Land Judge had been unable to take any part in the proceedings of the Court. He had no information as to whether that inability would disappear or not.

  1255
  In reply to a question by MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.),
  *MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had observed that Lord Justice FitzGibbon, Mr. Justice Madden, and other judges, had for some time taken part in the proceedings.
  MR. E. BLAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when it is expected that the sale to the Land Commission of Colonel Berdin's estate in County Longford, for which tenants' undertakings were signed about a year ago, will be completed; what is the cause of the delay; and can anything be done to expedite matters?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the delay in this case is owing to the following circumstances:—Portions of the holdings on the estate are sub-let; the prices named in some of the cases seemed in excess of the amounts which would be adequately secured on resale; and no adequate provision appeared to have been made for the redemption of the outgoings. I am informed that it rests with the solicitors acting for the parties to meet these difficulties. The Land Commission will so far as possible endeavour to expedite the sale, but they explain that it rests in the first place with the solicitors acting for the parties and with the solicitors having carriage in the Land Judge's Court, to meet the manifest difficulties in the matter.

  EARL OF KENMARE.
  MR. JAMES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of M'Carthy v. Sullivan and Flynn, tried by Mr. Justice Holmes and a common jury on the 7th inst.; whether he is aware that the learned judge said that Mr. Maurice Leonard, agent to the Earl of Kenmare and a Justice of the Peace for the county of Kerry, had been mixed up with collusive proceedings and fraud, and had dragged the name of the Earl of Kenmare through the mire; and whether the observations of Mr. Justice Holmes and facts on which they were founded will be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY; The Lord Chancellor informs me he has been unable to find any report of the observations which, it is alleged, were made by the learned judge in question. If the hon. Gentleman will furnish me with further particulars, the matter will again be inquired into by the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. J. GILHOOLYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire of Mr. Justice Holmes whether he made these observations?
  MR. J. MORLEYthought, it was for the hon. Member to supply him with the primâ facie facts.

  ASHTON'S GREEN COLLIERY, ST. HELENS.
  MR. H. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state the result of a fresh election of a check-weighman at the Ashton's Green Colliery, Parr, St. Helens, Lancashire, which he recently directed to be held under the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, in consequence of certain alleged interference by the colliery manager?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): In answer to a question respecting this case I informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire that a ballot would be held for the appointment of a check weigher. That ballot has been held, and I am informed that Henry Pennington has been elected by a majority of 38 votes out of 56.
  MR. H. SETON-KARRasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that it had been stated that the matter would not be allowed to drop, and whether he was satisfied that the second election was in strict accordance with the Act?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no reason to doubt it.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: Is it not the fact that the nominees can only have one vote?
  MR. ASQUITH: I did not know that the nominees had a vote.

  SIXMILECROSS NATIONAL SCHOOL, IRELAND.
  MR. W. E. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Coates, late master of Sixmilecross National School, had shortly before his death sent in his resignation; and whether the commutation allowance of £170 which has been earned by him has been paid to his representatives; if not, what reason has been assigned?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The provisions of the Act of Parliament dealing with applications of this kind require the Commissioners of National Education to certify to the Lord Lieutenant that they are satisfied that a male teacher who would be entitled to a retiring allowance under the Act has become incapable from permanent infirmity of mind or body to continue to discharge his duties, and if such certificate be forthcoming, the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, may grant to such teacher a gratuity. In the present case the teacher died on the 2nd April, before the issue of the certificate by the Commissioners to the Lord Lieutenant, and they, therefore, had no legal power to certify to the application for a gratuity under the provisions of the Act. I may add, however, that on proof of title a sum of £20 11s. 8d. will be paid to the representatives of Mr. Coates on account of premiums (with interest thereon) paid by him towards the retiring allowance whilst in the service of the National Board.

  PARISH AWARD.
  MR. HERBERT LEON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board—(1) whether, in a case where a parish award is in the custody of the clerk of the peace of a county, he has any legal right to charge a parish council a fee for inspecting or taking extracts from it; and (2) whether a parish council, upon providing some safe place, is entitled to the custody of the award?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): It is impossible to give a general answer to the first question, as the rights of the clerk of the peace vary according to the
  1258
  terms of the Act under which the award was made. As a rule, however, a fee is chargeable, and the parish council would have no right to exemption. I may refer generally to the provisions in Section 35 of the General Enclosure Act of 1801, and to the General Enclosure Act, 1845. The parish council are not entitled to the custody of the copy of the award which has been deposited with the clerk of the peace, and which is to be kept with the records of the county.

  SHEERNESS NAVAL GUNNERY SCHOOL.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the rifle ranges and buildings ordered in connection with the Sheerness Naval Gunnery School, for which £2,000 have been appropriated in the Estimates of 1895–6, have been begun; if not, when will the same be commenced and completed; and what is the cause of the delay?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The work in connection with the rifle range at Sheerness (for which £2,000 is taken on account of £3,350 in this year's Estimates) will be carried out by the War Department as a repayment service. The commencement of the work was delayed pending settlement by the Treasury of general financial proposals for the joint ownership and maintenance of rifle ranges by the Naval and Military Departments. This question having been decided, the War Office were asked by letter dated May 30, 1895, to cause early steps to be taken for proceeding with the work on this range.

  DISTRESS IN KNOCK SOUTH, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has again been called to the distressed condition of Knock South, County Mayo; can he state how many families the Local Government Board inspector inspected on his third visit to this district, on the 11th instant, and did he find them to be in need of relief; if so, why the only provision made for

  1259
  these people was to instruct the relieving officer to put them on the outdoor relief list; whether, when the inspector visited the townland of Coogna, he found there 12 families in a condition bordering on starvation, and has he reported that the people in those districts are anxious to be afforded an opportunity to earn the means of obtaining support by working on the neighbouring public works for 1s. a day; and whether he will endeavour to obtain funds for the relief of this distress, and enable these people to tide over the present season of scarcity?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: My attention was recently again drawn by a communication received from the hon. Gentleman, to the alleged existence of distress in this district. The Local Government Board inspector visited a considerable number of families in the district on the 11th instant, but he cannot state the exact number. In addition to others, the inspector visited eight houses, the occupiers of which were stated by the relieving officer to be poor. The inspector recommended the relieving officer to afford provisional relief in three of these cases only. The inspector reports he found no families bordering on a condition of starvation, and that there is no indication of the existence of acute distress in the district. Upon the information before the Local Government Board they are unable to recommend the opening of relief works in this locality.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether he was to understand that while the Government could not find money to relieve distress in Ireland they were about to expend £500 on a statue of Oliver Cromwell?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that if there were such distress in any part of Ireland as would justify relief, the money to relieve that distress would be found.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would expend the £500 the Government asked for in respect of the statue in relieving the distress to which his attention had been directed?
  [No answer was given to the question.]

  PORTADOWN POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when it is proposed to proceed with the erection of the post office at Portadown?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I learn from the Board of Public Works in Ireland, in whose department and not in mine the matter rests, that they expect to be in a position to invite tenders for the work towards the end of the present month.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how many persons who have been reported by Election Commissioners to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices at municipal elections have subsequently to such Report been acquitted before a jury of such practices?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Home Office has no information as to the number of such cases.
  MR. DARLINGasked whether the Lord Chancellor had not introduced a Bill to give relief in such cases as those referred to in the question?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that when the Bill came down to the House the hon. and learned Member would be able to discuss its provisions.

  SWAZILAND PAPERS.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that Mr. Shepstone removed all the books of the Swazi nation and papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland from the chief kraal to Pretoria, and has not returned them in spite of repeated requests from the King; if so, by what right does Mr. Shepstone retain these books and papers; and will the Government use their influence to secure their immediate return?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I understand that the books and papers sent to Pretoria were those bearing on Mr. Shepstone's financial and other relations with the Swazi nation. They were sent to Pretoria with a view to a thorough investigation into Mr. Shepstone's financial transactions, which was desired by the Swazis. A Swazi

  1261
  deputation went to Pretoria to attend at the audit. I understand that on completion of the audit the books and papers will be returned to Swaziland.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid, the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had asked him to postpone this question on a previous occasion. He wished to know by what authority Mr. Shepstone had detained these books and papers?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that he did not understand that these books and papers were in the possession of Mr. Shepstone. They were sent to Pretoria in accordance with the more than once expressed desire on the part of the Swazis that Mr. Shepstone's affairs in regard to them should be properly investigated. He, however, understood that the books and papers would soon be returned.
  MR. COCHRANEasked why they had not been returned already? The King had made application to have them returned long ago.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)asked whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was aware that the Swazis had repeatedly asked for these books and papers, and why Her Majesty's Government had continued so long to recognise Mr. Shepstone as representing the Swazis after he had been dismissed by them?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that he should wish to have notice of the latter part of the last question. He understood that the books and papers had been sent to Pretoria with the object of their being examined and audited. They were of a voluminous character, and their investigation had taken some time. That, he understood, was the reason for the delay. Her Majesty's Government had received no formal complaint on the subject, and he did not think that there had been any unreasonable delay with regard to it.

  ARKLOW FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wicklow (Mr. E. P. O'KELLY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in
  1262
  view of the failure of the Arklow fishing industry, he will impress upon the Congested Districts Board the necessity of extending the time for repayment of money lent to Arklow fishermen for the building of boats and for fishing purposes; and whether the legal proceedings threatened by the Board against the sureties for loans to Arklow fishermen will be suspended while giving the borrowers a reasonable time to pay the instalments due to the Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Some of the Arklow boats have had fair success this season, and the Congested Districts Board would be most unwilling to proceed harshly in any case in which fishermen have been fishing zealously without success. In the cases of some borrowers, as many as eight half-yearly instalments are overdue, and in these cases the borrowers have not made any efforts, as far as the Congested Districts Board can judge, to discharge any part of their liabilities. The Board are unable to give any general undertaking to suspend proceedings except that they will, as heretofore, always give fishermen a reasonable time to pay their debts.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have seized upon an Arklow fishing boat, named the True Light, for a balance due upon the original loan, although the borrowers had already paid £120 of the loan; and whether it is the intention of the Board to sell the boat by auction?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board seized the boat True Light, upon which £209 12s. 8d. had been paid by the borrowers out of a loan of £500. The Board have sold the boat for a debt of £244 1s. 4d., the amount of the outstanding arrears due. The boat was seized owing to the very bad repair it was allowed to get into by the borrower, and because it was rapidly becoming useless. The Board regretted having to seize the boat, but they felt obliged to do so, both because of the failure of the borrower to meet his engagements (seven half-yearly instalments of £34 17s. 4d. each being overdue), and because of the unsatisfactory condition into which the boat had been allowed to get.

  BRITISH BECHUANALAND
  CAPTAIN BETHELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the case that the Representative Assembly of Cape Colony has passed a resolution favouring the annexation of British Bechuanaland to Cape Colony; and whether, before assenting to that proposal, the Government will be careful to give the House of Commons an opportunity for discussing it?
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government have come to a decision with regard to the proposed annexation of British Bechuanaland to the Cape Colony; and whether there have been any protests from native races against this annexation?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A resolution such as that mentioned in the question was passed a few days ago by both Houses of the Cape Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have not as yet had an opportunity of duly considering these resolutions; I cannot, therefore, as yet make any statement on the subject. Petitions against the proposed annexation have been received from two native chiefs and their councillors, which will be duly considered with other matters bearing on the case.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has Khama sent in a protest?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Khama is not in that part of the country.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had not answered the latter part of the question.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That question will depend on the position which the Government may take up with regard to it.

  RELIEF WORKS IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when are the relief works on the new road between Ardara and Glenties, in County Donegal, to be commenced, in view of the fact that the people of these districts are without employment and in great distress?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Since I replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman's previous question of the 30th ultimo in this matter, I have been informed by the Local Government Board Inspector that he has made further inquiries into the circumstances of the people of the district, and that he does not now consider it necessary to recommend the opening of the particular work referred to. Eight new works have been commenced in the County Donegal during the present month, and of these two are in the Glenties Union.

  FOREIGN FORAGE.
  COLONEL LOCK WOOD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will grant a Return, for the year 1894, showing the amount of foreign forage and meat issued to Her Majesty's troops in Great Britain and Ireland; and if, in case it should be found impossible to obtain this from the various contractors for the past year, he will issue such instructions as will insure the information for another year?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, Burghs): It is not in my power to give Returns of the sources whence supplies for the Army are drawn. Provided contractors deliver supplies of the quality required, it has not been the custom to stipulate that they shall be exclusively of British origin. To do this would be to run counter to the commercial policy of this country. In reply to a question similar in principle in 1893, the late Prime Minister said:—
  "The Legislature has, by a series of Acts, made careful provision that the whole of the community shall have free access upon equal terms to all products whatever in whatever country produced, and it appears to me that those Acts of the Legislature are presumably a guide for the Executive Government. It would be a singular step for an Executive Government on its own discretion to allow the course of legislative precedents to be infringed."
  Published Returns of the Board of Trade give complete information of the imports and exports of this country, and it is not desirable to grant special Returns dealing with a mere fraction of the subject; especially as the object for

  1265
  which they are asked appears to be to call in question the settled policy of the country.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, that arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, he should like to ask him whether he was to understand that it was for the benefit of the public service that the information for which he asked was not to be given?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is contrary to the usual practice to do so. I will make inquiries, but it is not usual or desirable that I should make a Return on the subject.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether, all things being equal both in price and quality, the right hon. Gentleman would give a preference to English produce?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: All considerations being exactly equal, I should personally give a preference to English produce, but that rather begs the question.
  MAJOR RASCHasked what was the object of buying this cheap foreign meat for the use of the troops?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is out of order.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AT PARIS.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Her Majesty's Government will be represented at the International Conference which is to assemble in Paris on 25th instant to consider the subject of the protection of wild birds useful to agriculture; and if so, whether the British delegates have yet been appointed?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden): Yes, Sir; we think it will be of advantage that Her Majesty's Government should be represented at the Paris Conference on the Protection of Wild Birds useful to Agriculture, and it has been arranged that Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Howard Saunders, F.L.S., F.Z.S., and a member of the staff of the Embassy at Paris, shall be the British delegates at the Conference.
  Mr. CYRIL DODDasked whether these gentlemen were
  1266
  good enough to represent Her Majesty's Government at their own expense, or whether their expenses were paid?
  MR. GARDNERsaid, that it was usual for the expenses to be paid.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he still declines to allow the House to have knowledge of the Report submitted to him in print a fortnight since by the hon. Members for Central Sheffield and Bolton, with reference to the importation of goods made by foreign convicts and felons; and what is the reason for withholding the information contained therein from the representatives of the people whose working interests are alleged to be injuriously affected by this traffic?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,: It would be entirely irregular to present the Report of a seceding minority of a Committee before the Committee has itself reported.

  COLDSTREAM GUARDS BAND.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the full band of the Coldstream Guards will play at the Elevation of the Host at the celebration of Low Mass, 29th June, on the occasion of laying the foundation stone of the new Roman Catholic Cathedral; and if so, whether such performance is usual and has the sanction of the authorities?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question may I ask whether the Cold-stream Guards and other regiments are not supported by the taxes of Roman Catholics as well as Protestants?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe Roman Catholics pay taxes as well as Protestants. In answer to my hon. Friend opposite, I have to say that in ordinary circumstances no impediment is placed in the way of a regimental band performing on occasion of a public ceremony of a neutral character; but as some political construction, or construction connected with ecclesiastical polemics, might be put upon the participation of a band in the ceremony referred to,

  1267
  and a meaning given to it which would not be intended, it has been decided not to allow the band to be present.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: Arising out of that question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that British military bands frequently play during the celebration of Mussulman religious ceremonies in Egypt?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that in this country it is usual to do so. Military bands may play upon various occasions, but the general principle to be followed is that they should not take part in a ceremony as if they themselves were directly connected with it. The particular reason of the authority being refused on this occasion was, as I have stated, the fact that it was contemplated that they should attend a ceremony which had already been twisted into a polemical act.
  MR. E. HENEAGE: By whose order are the bands not to play? Is not a regimental band under the orders of the colonel of the regiment, and subcribed to by Catholic as well as Protestant officers?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly; the very same principle would apply to a Protestant ceremony as to a Catholic ceremony under similar circumstances.

  FOREIGN OFFICE CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it would be possible to effect a reduction of the existing establishment of Foreign Office clerkships, and to create an equivalent number of staff posts of the Second Division; and whether it has now been decided, as recently recommended by the Treasury, to discontinue appointments outside the Office to the Supplementary Class?
  SIR E. GREY: No such recommendation has been made by the Treasury. No reduction can be made at present in the existing establishment. But it is under consideration whether, on the occurrence of vacancies in certain posts, they might not be filled by the promotion of Second Division clerks, if any of these possess the necessary qualifications.

  CABS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is now in a position to inform the House what steps are being taken to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Cabs; whether the new inspectors to be appointed will be men possessed of technical knowledge of cab building, and what instructions they will act under with regard to the approval of vehicles; and when the new regulations will come into force?
  MR. ASQUITH: Arrangements are now completed for giving effect (with some slight modifications) to the recommendations of the Committee relating to the increase of the staff and the technical qualification of the inspectors, to registration of cab-yards, to the prohibition of sub-letting, to the minimum age and practical knowledge of drivers, to the use of cautionary notices in the case of first offences, and to the incorporation of a statement of facts with summonses against drivers. Some other points are still under consideration, and will be settled without delay. The new inspectors will all be possessed of technical knowledge, and will act under the instructions which are issued from time to time by the Commissioner of Police. It is hoped that the new regulations will all be in force by July 1 next. Several of them are already in force.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1894.
  *MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that in a Circular issued by the Local Government Board (Scotland) it is stated that, where a parish is partly landward and partly within a police burgh, the appointment of the representative for the landward part of the parish on the district committee of the county council falls to be made by the parish council, including the representatives of the police burgh, whether he will state if this is in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (7), of Section 19, of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan and Kinross): I think that the Circular issued by the

  1269
  Local Government Board correctly states the effect of the sub-section referred to in the question. A parish which is partly landward and partly within a police burgh, is not, within the meaning of the Act, a parish partly landward and partly burghal; it therefore follows that the appointment of a representative from the parish council on the district committee falls to be made by the parish council.

  BATOUM AND THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Article 59 of the Berlin Treaty enacted that Batoum should be constituted a free port, essentially commercial; and that, in July 1886, the Earl of Rosebery instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to inform the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the proceedings of the Russian Government, with regard to Batoum, constituted a violation of the Treaty of Berlin unsanctioned by the Signatory Powers; Her Majesty's Government consider themselves to be under the same obligation with respect to Article 59 as with respect to the remaining Articles of the Treaty of Berlin?
  SIR E. GREY: I can only repeat what I said in reply to a similar question on the 14th instant, that the extent and degree of the various obligations imposed by the Treaty of Berlin must be gathered from the words of the Treaty itself.

  GOVERNORSHIP OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to state whether any appointment to the Governorship of New South Wales has been made?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject, and I must repeat that, in accordance with practice and courtesy, the first public intimation of the appointment will be made to the Government of New South Wales.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact and a matter of common knowledge that this appointment has been offered to an hon. Member of this House, and if he has practically accepted it, whether that does not vacate the seat?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, I must altogether decline to answer such a question.

  ROYAL EXCHANGE TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  SIR EDWARD REED: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the alleged undermanning of the staff of the telegraph office at the Royal Exchange, and to the statement that they are working under conditions of great hardship; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the truth of these statements?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: My attention was drawn to a paragraph in The Telegraph Chronicle of the 7th June to which my hon. Friend probably refers, stating that the increase of business at the Stock Exchange shows "how fearfully undermanned the staff of the office is at the present time," and adding that if this state of things should continue, a "vigorous protest" would reach the Controller from the staff concerned. I am glad to be able to state that the staff on seeing the paragraph, spontaneously addressed a letter to the Controller repudiating the authorship and sentiment of the paragraph in question. I should like to take the opportunity of adding that the staff, so far from grumbling or showing a discontented spirit, worked cheerfully, and exerted themselves to the utmost to meet the pressure. And I believed that this conduct, which I am happy to recognise, is a far better indication of the feelings of the staff towards the Department than the exaggerated and usually unfounded statements which have appeared from time to time in the Public Press and which have attracted attention in the House.

  OLIVER CROMWELL STATUE.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the small

  1271
  majority by which the first Vote towards the statute for Oliver Cromwell was carried on Friday, and the strong feeling of opposition to it, he will ask the House of Commons to proceed further in the matter; or, if not, will he arrange to take the Report Stage at an hour when the matter can be further considered?
  MR. DARLINGasked whether the proposal to put up a statue to Oliver Cromwell was not carried by a majority exceeding the normal Government majority. [Loud Nationalist cries of "Order," and laughter.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Derby): I do not think this is a matter of sufficient importance to require special arrangements to be made in reference to it. I think it should proceed in the ordinary course.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his statement that the matter was of no importance, whether he was aware of the fact that every newspaper in Ireland, of all shades of opinion, had condemned this proposal; and whether, in view of the fact that the erection of this statue would undoubtedly give great offence to a large portion of the community, he would not consider it advisable to withdraw this estimate and let the admirers of Oliver Cromwell pay for the statue themselves.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In my Office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I should be very glad if gentlemen would pay for the statue themselves. I did not say it was a question of no importance; I said it was not of such considerable importance as to demand a special arrangement. It is really a matter for the House to decide, and I think it ought to be decided in the ordinary way.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether it was intended to take that night the report of the Vote of Supply involving this sum of £500 for Oliver Cromwell's statue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I beg to give notice that I will oppose it as strongly as I can.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: So will we all.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. E. HENEAGE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Government have now taken all the time of the House, and the heavy work entailed upon Private Members in attendance on the numerous Committees, he will undertake to move the Adjournment of the House every night when the House is sitting at the conclusion of Government business?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, an undertaking of the kind the right hon. Gentleman referred to was only given when the Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the records of last year he would see that the time of the House was taken on the 31st of May, and the undertaking to move the Adjournment of the House was only given on the 16th of August. We have not got to the 16th of August yet.
  In reply to Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said that Supply would be taken on Friday.
  MR. HANBURY: Army Estimates?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to proceed with the North Pacific Bill and the Naval Works Bill—on both of which there must be a certain amount of discussion—that night, as they were both on the Paper?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF the EXCHEQUERsaid, that as to the Seal Fisheries Bill it was absolutely necessary that it should be passed next week by both Houses of Parliament. They must therefore proceed with that Bill.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will report Progress on the Welsh Church Bill at Eleven o'clock? [Cries of "Answer! Answer!" from the Irish Benches.]
  [No answer was given to the question.]

  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the

  1273
  Government intend to make any proposals giving precedence to Government measures over other Bills which have been sent to the Grand Committees; and, which Bill will be brought before the Grand Committee on Trade after the Committee on the Factories and Workshops Bill is concluded?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the Factories and Workshops Bill was concluded before the Grand Committee, it would be made known which Bill the Government proposed should next be referred to the Committee.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in rising to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the use of locomotives on highways, explained that the Bill only contained one clause, and was not, he hoped, of a controversial nature. Its object was to exempt carriages propelled by other than horsepower from the regulations of the Locomotives Act in cases where they were not used for traction purposes. Hon. Members who had recently visited Paris would have observed that there were a not inconsiderable number of carriages propelled by petroleum, gasolene, steam, and, in some cases, by electricity. In a trial run between Paris and Bordeaux a carriage propelled by petroleum won, having travelled at a rate of 15 miles an hour. These carriages were completely under command, and horses were not frightened by them any more than by the ordinary traffic. The use of these carriages was practically prohibited in this country by the regulations of the Locomotives Act, which was passed with the object of applying mainly to engines used for traction purposes. Under the provisions of that Act, it was necessary that every such locomotive should be in charge of three persons at least—one walking in front, one behind, and one driving; and the engines could not proceed at a
  1274
  greater speed than four miles in the country and two miles in a town, and were also subject to a licence of £10 each for every county where they were used. These regulations were totally inapplicable to the light carriages such as he had described as in use in Paris. Under the circumstances, it appeared to him to be reasonable that the House should exempt carriages of that kind from the provisions of the Locomotives Act. They would be subject to the ordinary regulations of other carriages, or to any other regulations that the House might think fit to be made by the Local Government Board. He thought that the regulations should be made by that or some other central authority rather than by some local authority, because the necessity for uniformity was so great that it would not, he thought, be well to make these vehicles liable to different regulations by every county. He had hoped to carry the Bill further, and had been in correspondence with the County Councils Association for this purpose; but that Association desired further time to consult the Local Authorities on the subject. He had, therefore, been compelled to postpone the further scope of the measure, and to limit it to the one purpose which he had described.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYSinquired whether these carriages would pay the usual locomotive tax.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that they would not. It was proposed to exempt them from that tax, but to make them pay in the way that ordinary carriages now pay.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked what limit of weight the right hon. Gentleman proposed to fix for these vehicles.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he had put a limit of two tons.
  Leave given; Bill presented accordingly, and read 1° to be read 2° upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 315.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. MELLORin the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.

  PRIVATE BENEFACTIONS.
  "(1) Any property transferred by this Act to the Welsh Commissioners which consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property given by any private person out of his own resources since the year One thousand seven hundred and three, and does not come within the description of a church or ecclesiastical residence for which provision is otherwise made by this Act, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a private benefaction. (2) The Welsh Commissioners shall ascertain and by Order declare what part of tie property transferred to them by this Act constitutes private benefactions within the meaning of this Act, and shall on the request of the representative body hereinafter mentioned, vest the same in that body, subject to the charges and incumbrances and interests saved by this Act."
  The first Amendment on the Paper was in the name of Mr. W. WICKHAM (Hants, Petersfield), and had for its object the omission of the word "private," but—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that this and the following Amendment, which stood in the name of Mr. TOMLINSON, were out of order.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHon the point of order arising out of this ruling, said, that he certainly thought, when the Committee reported progress nearly three weeks ago, that they had not yet come to the word "private" at all. He, therefore, desired respectfully to ask why the first Amendment was out of order?
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if this was to be treated as a question of principle, the Committee had come to a decision which was inconsistent with the first two Amendments.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH,interposing, said, that he thought the Committee had got into a somewhat awkward position.
  1276
  He did not question the Chairman's decision in the letter, but he did think the spirit of it was open to criticism.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)said, that he felt some little embarrassment in approaching the question, because he did not quite understand what the decision of the Committee was which had rendered the first Amendment on the Paper that day out of order. Having said that, he might add that he had been going to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Wickham), because he thought they had almost come to an agreement as to the happier mode of wording this part of the clause.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that, after the explanation which had been given, this appeared now to be a merely drafting Amendment, and he would, therefore, allow it to be put.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that he would suggest that the Committee should accept the first Amendment on the Paper.
  Mr. WICKHAM'SAmendment to omit the word "private" was agreed to.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLthen moved, in line 6, to leave out "own" and insert "private."
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENreminded the Home Secretary of his promise, that if the words in the Bill were insufficient to cover the case of any public company that had made a contribution which ought to be considered a private benefaction, he would bring in words to meet the case. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered that point and whether he intended to bring in any words.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have considered the point, and I am satisfied that the words as they will stand will be sufficient to meet the case.
  *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, it seemed to him that the Government were requiring the Church to prove the origin of gifts as to which often no evidence existed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYwho had given notice of the following Amendment—
  "Line 6, after 'resources,' insert 'including all churches, mission rooms, burial grounds, ecclesiastical residences, and any fund for the benefit of any ecclesiastical office or corporation in or connected with the Church in Wales or the holder of such office,'"
  said, he had put down the Amendment in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of redeeming the pledge he gave earlier in the Debate that the Church should have exactly the same treatment as was given to Nonconformists. The words were taken from the Dissenters' Chapels Act. If the right hon. Gentleman assured him that the words of the Bill covered the case he would not press the matter further.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, all the, matters enumerated in the hon. Member's Amendment, if they fell within the description of having been property given by a person out of his private resources, will clearly be included in the definition of "private benefactions."
  SIR JOHN GORST SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University moved, line 6, leave out "since the year one thousand seven hundred and three." The object of this Amendment, he said, was to challenge the principle that private benefactions could be secularised, provided they were old enough. In the first place, he did not think the principles were at all just, and in the next place, he challenged the particular date which had been fixed. In this matter they got no assistance from the precedent of the Irish Church, except this, that in the case of the Irish Church Act an attempt was made to discriminate between old private benefactions and the more modern private benefactions. The date then fixed in the Bill was 1660, but after a great deal of discussion a lump sum was given to the Disestablished Church in lieu of all private benefactions whatsoever. On what principle were private benefactions to be secularised, provided they were old? When the Irish Church Act was under discussion, and the question of the secularising of private endowments given before 1660 was raised, Mr. Vernon Harcourt, as he then was, broached the doctrine, which had been so often broached as a philosophical principle—that there should be a
  1278
  limitation placed on all private endowments of every kind; that the power of the testator to leave his property by will for public purposes should be restricted to a certain number of years, and that when that period had elapsed the property should revert to the State, which should have the right to decide what its disposal should be without any regard whatever to the antiquated views of the private benefactor. He did not know that anybody on the Treasury Bench now would uphold a principle of that kind as one that should guide Parliament. But what was the ground upon which the date in the Bill was fixed? In the case, of the Irish Church the principle laid down was that the Church should have all those private benefactions which had been given to her when she was in a condition which could be identified with that of the existing Church. The contention of the Government of that day was that, previous to 1660 the Irish Church was really a different body to that which was then in existence—a body with a different constitution, and not properly capable, of being identified with the Irish Church, which was then being made the subject of legislation. Now, that principle would not apply at all to the Church of England in Wales. There was no breach of continuity. It had for centuries been part of the Church of England. It underwent, like the Church of England, doctrinal changes at the Reformation, but there was no ground for saying, as there was in the case of the Irish Church, that the Welsh Church at the middle of the 17th century was not just as identical with the present Church as the Church in the middle of 18th century. It was quite true that at the Reformation, although there was no alteration in the legal continuity of the Church, there was a change of doctrine. Such a change took place in the articles of religion and in the tenets of the Church as might enable people plausibly to argue that although legally the Church before and after the Reformation was identical, yet practically there was such a change made that persons who gave property to the Church before the Reformation could hardly be held to have intended to give it to the Church after the Reformation. If that had been the principle upon

  1279
  which the Government had proceeded, some date about the time of the Reformation would have been taken. What the foundation of Queen Anne's Bounty had to do with the benefactions of private persons to the Church in Wales he entirely failed to see. The Home Secretary made an explanation to which he listened with attention, but he came afterwards to the conclusion either that his powers of understanding were very imperfect or that it was one of those occasions when the right hon. Gentleman was affecting to make an explanation when he was really making none at all. He asked the Committee to take the case of a benefactor in the early years of the eighteenth century. Why was the endowment made by that person to be now secularised by Parliament, and why was the endowment made ten years later out of private sources still to be allowed by Parliament to be applied to those religious uses for which it was intended? In 1700 the Church of England was the same Church as in the later period, there was no Reformation, no change of articles. In order to enable some Member of the Government to explain the conundrum and to give an explanation why the date had been selected, he moved the Amendment which stood in his name omitting the date altogether.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, the view of the Government was this—that those endowments which might reasonably be held to have been given to the Church of England in Wales, in respect of her present discipline, ritual, government, and doctrine, ought especially, as apart from that given to any other religious body, to be continued to her, and the date 1703 was chosen as the convenient date, being the date of the establishment of Queen Anne's Bounty. It marked the date when machinery was devised and could be provided, when the gifts could be received without offending the law of mortmain. If an earlier date had been taken it would have been said that the gifts made at an earlier time were made at a time when there was still reason to suppose that the Church was entirely united, and no such thing as Dissent had emerged. The end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries was therefore the time. The
  1280
  united Church of England then became a separate Church, and then it was made clear that the Roman Catholics on the one hand, and the Protestant Dissenters on the other hand, were not likely to be united to the Established Church The gifts were given to the Established Church in respect of its being the National Church, and the Government were confirmed in the view they took by observing that prior to the Revolution it would not have been consistent with the law to have given any private benefactions to any other Church. He presumed they might take it, therefore, that it would have been impossible before the Revolution to have made any private gift to those who were called Protestant Dissenters or Roman Catholics, because they were aware that the exercise of worship, except in accordance with the rites of the Church of England, was prohibited under severe penalties down to the Revolution. Conventicles were prevented by severe penal legislation, and men like Baxter and Bunyan were thrown into prison. After that date, when, by the toleration Act and other Statutes, the right of Nonconformists to receive gifts and to exercise their form of worship was admitted, gifts could be given to them as well as to the Established Church. Therefore, there was an important distinction between the time when the Church of England in Wales was the only Church whose worship was publicly permitted, and the time subsequently when it was recognised that gifts could be given to Protestant Dissenters as well as to the Church of England. That, speaking broadly, was the view which induced the Government to choose this period as the time when a distinction might properly be drawn, and they had conceived that gifts given to the Church since 1703 might be given to her in respect of her special doctrine and ritual. It was no doubt a question of some interest, but, after all, more of speculative interest than any other.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAMsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had left the Committee more in the dark than they were before. The right hon. Gentleman had made a speech in favour, not of 1703 but of 1688; and the argument which might have been a good one if dealing with England, was a bad one when applied to Wales. There

  1281
  were no conventicles in Wales at the time specified by the right hon. Gentleman, and the problem which arose to any extent there did not justify the argument, which the right hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the Committee. Stripped of the pleas submitted by the right hon. Gentleman his argument amounted to this—that the Church of England in Wales was to be attacked because once she gathered the whole of the population within her folds, and the date chosen was the date at which she ceased to claim the whole of the population of Wales among her adherents. It was impossible to describe the action of the Government in selecting the period of 1703, except on the hypothesis that they wished to punish the Church, not for her comparative failure in the last century, but for he complete success in the preceding.
  *MR. C. BILLthought that some better reason ought to be given for this arbitrary selection of the date than that which had been assigned by the Government. Last year the Home Secretary, speaking on the selection of 1703 as the date, said:—
  "We have come to the conclusion that we ought to take as our date 1703, when Queen Anne's Bounty was established, because it was only from that year that it became possible, through the machinery of Queen Anne's Bounty, for private persons, without offending against the law, to invest in property of that description for ecclesiastical purposes."
  The right hon. Member for West Bristol showed clearly in the Debate on the Second Reading, that for grants of tithe no licence in mortmain was necessary; and as tithe in Wales amounted to nearly £180,000, out of the gross revenue of £233,000, surely the reason for fixing this particular date, to a great extent, fell to the ground. He thought that there was one eminent person to whom the Government were bound to listen—namely, the eminent Prelate, the only supporter of the policy of this Bill on the Bench of Bishops in the House of Lords, the Bishop of Hereford. He was prepared to surrender to the Church private endowments from 1662. In Convocation on May 14 the Bishop of Hereford said:—
  "It seems to me that if we take the endowments which date back, let us say, beyond the Act of Uniformity (and that is the point which I
  1282
  should be glad to see adopted), those endowments were given virtually for the whole people; and now that the national voice, under changed circumstances, and after a long lapse of time, demands a readjustment, we are not able to see any ground for contesting the reasonableness of that demand."
  This point was of enormous importance, because they were not merely dealing with a few comparatively small endowments of the Welsh Church, but they were setting a precedent which would presumably be followed when the far richer revenues of the Church of England in England came to be dealt with. What effect was this proposal likely to have on the dispositions of charitable and pious persons after this date? It could not be either the wish or the intention of Parliament to check the flow of pious and charitable endowments, but if this date were adopted it would stand on record that the House of Commons had accepted the principle that after 190 years any property or funds given over to Church purposes might be arbitrarily diverted to secular purposes. No doubt 190 years was a long time in the opinion of some persons, but what would William of Wykeham and the other great founders of Church and educational endowments have said if they had known that in 192 years their vast religious and educational endowments might possibly be swept away? What would they have said if they had thought that all the funds of which they had voluntarily divested themselves for the religious advancement of the nation might be swept away by Parliament for purposes utterly alien to those to which they had been originally devoted? In times past, Churchmen, and Dissenters too, had given large funds to their own religious bodies for all time. In Wales itself, deeds conveying property for the use of Dissenters as well as of Churchmen frequently contained the words, "as long as the rivers flow." Of course, such endowments were always subject to the consideration that these religious bodies went on as lively and effective members of a national organisation. When they had absolutely gone into decay and effeteness, then Parliament might be asked to consider whether these funds should not be put to some better use. But was that the case with the Welsh Church? And why should Church endowments which existed before

  1283
  1703 be taken away and Dissenters' endowments left? A very large number of Dissenters endowments was given in the 20 years which followed 1703; but there was also many which were given just before; and ho would mention two instances. One was the case of the Baptist Chapel of Llandewi in Pembrokeshire On a wall inside the chapel there was this inscription:—
  "John Evans, of Llwyndwr, bore the expense of this house in the year 1701, desiring it to be for use of those persons who hold the 6 principles in 6 Ch: Heb: 1 & 2 verses."
  He could not help wondering whether those six principles were still insisted upon. Another case was that of the Dutch Church in Norwich, to which an endowment was given in 1619. It was so contrary to all principles of justice and equity that the private endowments of one denomination should be subject to confiscation at the end of 190 years, while other denominations were to be protected for all time in their endowments, that he felt confident, when the propsals of the Government came to be fully understood in the country, there would be a greater revulsion of feeling than ever against this Bill.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he understood the Government now to state they had selected a date when something happened to alter the relative position of the Church. At any rate, they had chosen the latest date they could consistent with preserving the endowments of Dissenters. But how was it consistent with their professions of religious equality that they should preserve those endowments of Dissenters which accrued just before 1703,while they took away those of the Church? It was true they were few in number; but, if the Government had acted on principle in this matter, he should like them to explain how it was that they proposed to deal out one measure to the Church and another to the Dissenting bodies.
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it would be difficult to fix upon any date which would not be called arbitrary from some point of view. But the date of 1703—the reign of Queen Anne—was that of an entirely new departure, when the Church was cut off from Catholics on the one side and from Dissenters on the other. It marked
  1284
  a distinct change in the character and position of the Church of England. He should not have objected if the date chosen had been 1688, but he was afraid that no date would be satisfactory to the Opposition. If the two sides could see their way to a compromise he should offer no opposition.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was desirable, they should realise what was the effect of the Amendment they were discussing. Oil that Amendment no question of competing dates arose; it was an Amendment to exclude any date whatever, and to secure to the Disestablished Church all private endowments from the beginning of time. Therefore the questions which had been raised, interesting and important as they might be, as between 1703 and 1689 or any other arbitrary date, were not strictly relevant to the Amendment. The Government could not possibly accept this Amendment; the effect of it would be to give the Disestablished Church the whole of the tithe.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman contended that tithes were given by the State?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was an arguable position to take up that, although tithes became a compulsory tax after a certain date, they were originally a voluntary obligation, and were given by private persons out of their own resources; and, if the Amendment were adopted, it might be contended, and it might be open to a Court of Law to say, that practically the whole revenue of the present Established Church passed to the representative body of the Disestablished Church. In other words, this Bill, instead of disendowing the Church, would re-endow the Church. The principle on which the Government had gone throughout was this—that property, whether in the form of money or of land, which was given to the Church, whether out of public funds or out of private funds, at the time the Church was co-extensive with the community, at the time it represented the community organised, as a whole, on the spiritual side, at a time when no other religious body in the country had a legal status, at a time when the endowment of any other religious body could not be legally effected, that such property was property

  1285
  which, under a Bill for Disendowment, might fairly be taken away and appropriated. Whatever might be the precise point at which the dividing line ought to be drawn, there was such a dividing line, when the Church ceased to be co-extensive with the community, and when the legal status of dissenting bodies had been recognised, and anything given to the Church after that date ought to be treated as given to it distinctly from other denominations, and ought to be retained by the Church after Disestablishment. That was the principle of the Bill; it was a clear and definite principle, which could be easily understood. It was because the Government had adopted that principle that they could not accept the Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, he agreed that there were two questions involved, and the main question was, whether there should be any limit beyond which endowments given by private persons should not be excepted from the operation of this Bill. He was glad to hear the casual admission of the right hon. Gentleman that tithe was private property.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he had not made any such admission; he had only anticipated a plausible contention which would be adopted by the Opposition if the Amendment were accepted.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of what a court of law would say. [Mr. ASQUITH: "Might."] The view of the Opposition always had been that tithe was private endowment, but no court would construe tithe as a private endowment under the words they had already agreed to, unless it were proved to have been given out of private resources; and, therefore, the exemption would only apply to those gifts of tithe which might be proved by existing charters or wills, or other documents, to have been so given. They on that side entirely accepted the principle of the Amendment; they saw no difference between property given to the Church out of private resources before 1703 and property given after that date. Examples had just been cited by the hon. Member below the Gangway—and he gave some on the Second Reading—in which, from wills or other documents, it could be conclusively shown that private persons gave endowments to
  1286
  the Church before 1703, the Church being the same in doctrine and ritual as the Church of the present day. He utterly failed to see any reason whatever, in justice or fairness, why those gifts should not be excepted from the operation of the Bill. Parliament had accepted the principle of the Amendment, as applied to Nonconformist bodies, in the Dissenters' Chapels Act. By that Act a 25-years' possession of an endowment by any denomination was considered conclusive of the right of the denomination to that endowment, even though the denomination might have entirely changed in doctrine or ritual or in any other respect. That being the law with regard to Nonconformist endowments, all that the Amendment asked was that the same principle should be applied to endowments which had been given to the Church by persons out of their private resources, when they could be proved to have been so given by testimony which the courts could accept. But there was another aspect to the question. The House had got as many as three views on behalf of the Government before it. First of all, there was the view of the Home Secretary, who, in announcing the year 1703 as the date to be inserted in the Bill, gave as the reason that it was only from that year that it became possible, through the machinery of the Queen Anne's Bounty Act, for private persons to invest in land for ecclesiastical purposes. That was not true, and the right hon. Gentleman did not say it was true in regard to tithe. It was possible for private persons so to deal with tithe before Queen Anne's Bounty Act; and it was the fact, as could be shown by many existing charters, that many private persons did endow the Church, not only with tithe but with land, before the passing of the Queen Anne's Bounty Act. Therefore, since the speech of the Home Secretary in the Debate on the Bill last year, no Member of the Government had attempted to argue that the year 1703 should have been taken. But the President of the Board of Trade took another view of the matter. In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill this year, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Since the Toleration Act of 1689, and the other legislation which marked the epoch of the Revolution, the Established Church had

  1287
  passed from being co-extensive with the nation into being virtually only a denomination, and something entirely different from the Church of the Middle Ages and the Tudor Epoch. The Established Church was no longer the National Church in the old sense, for it was not now, and had not for a long time been, the only body to which any endowments that were given must be given. When endowments could be bestowed on any denomination of Christians, a gift to the Church of England became, by hypothesis, a gift to it in respect to its special claims, and by the preference of the donor, just as gifts to a particular Nonconformist body would be."
  The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of 1689, and the right hon. Gentleman was bound, after what he said in that speech, to accept the year of the Toleration Act, instead of the year 1703. Then the Under Secretary to the Home Department, who, if he might be allowed to say so, made, in his opinion, the ablest speech in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, was not content with either the date of Queen Anne's Bounty or the date of the Toleration Act. The hon. Gentleman said:—
  "If the question is asked why a particular year is chosen, I confess I am not very much concerned to defend that or any other particular year. The essential point is this—the Church will be allowed to retain all that has been given to her by private donors since she has been theologically and spiritually what she is now."
  That went far beyond the date of Queen Anne's Bounty and the date of the Toleration Act. The hon. Gentleman then went on to say—
  "Surely no candid critic can deny that the theological change made by the Reformation was a significant and a profound one. Surely the 39 Articles embodied an entirely different system of theology from that which prevailed in the pre-Reformation Church, and I cannot convince myself that the persons who made gifts to the Church in mediæval times would have bequeathed their land had they known that, as a body, the Church was about to rebel against the See of Peter, which they regarded as the one source of authority and orthodoxy."
  The view of the hon. Gentleman was therefore in favour neither of 1703 nor 1689, but of 1559, the first year of Queen Elizabeth, or some date which might be called the date of the Reformation. Therefore, there were three absolutely different views expressed on behalf of the Government as to the date that should be selected for bringing private endowments under the Bill. The right
  1288
  hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary might not be able to accept the Amendment, but let him carry out his own words on the Second Reading Debate, when he said the Government would treat the Church generously in this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman carry out the view that had been pressed upon him by his own followers, by the representatives of Nonconformists in this House; by the hon. Member for Monmouth Boroughs, who said, at the Second Reading, he was sorry the Government had not taken the year 1662; and by the hon. Member for West Fife, who said he would not only be generous but lavish in dealing with the Church, and that if it were shown that the proposals of the Government were unjust and harsh to the Church he would aid in any endeavour to resist them. This, at any rate, was true. There had been nothing since the Reformation which could possibly have compelled any man to give or to leave any property to the Church, if he did not believe in the Church. He could understand that in the dark mediæval ages, when men were coerced by spiritual terrors for themselves or for others to leave property to the Church, they might have done so unwillingly. But after the Reformation it was impossible that any man could be coerced by any feeling whatever to leave his property to the Church. He would go farther. He saw no reason whatever for the view of the Under Secretary of the Home Department that those who had left property to the Church in pre-Reformation times would not have done so if they had known that the Church would throw off the authority of the See of Peter. He believed that in Wales and in England in pre-Reformation times men were continually protesting against any attempt of the See of Peter to impose on them any unjust claim in temporal matters.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: My argument applied to spiritual and not to temporal authority.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, the hon. Member must know that spiritual claims went on to temporal claims. He thought history showed that the real difficulty arose when the claim of Rome

  1289
  became a claim to interfere in the absolutely temporal government of the kingdom. He did not think that a single argument had been used which would justify the adoption of any year whatever in this clause, beyond the argument that the Church had altered its doctrine or ritual. But any alteration in the doctrine or ritual of Nonconformist bodies did not deprive them of their endowments. The claim of the supporters of the Amendment was that the Church should be treated in this matter on an equal footing with the Nonconformist bodies; and they contended that it was neither just nor right to do anything else.
  *MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid, that as he had on the Paper a similar Amendment to the Amendment before the Committee he desired to say a few words. He believed the importance of the question as a precedent could not be over-rated. They were now about to lay down a precedent for diverting ecclesiastical property left before a definite date to the Church by private persons from their private resources to secular purposes. It had been admitted by some of the supporters of the Bill that any date chosen for the purpose must be an arbitrary date. But why should they have any date at all? There was a competent tribunal to be created by the Bill for ascertaining whether or not those endowments were endowments given by persons out of their private resources. If the Welsh Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or in other cases of Queen Anne's Bounty, determined that endowments came within this clause, then they were to be given back to the Church body, but if otherwise they were not to be given back. Surely they might trust those bodies to determine the question in respect to all endowments without any limitation of date. He reminded the Government that in regard to the fixing of a definite date that great authority, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, was against them. In the Debate on the Irish Church Bill in 1869, the right hon. Gentleman defended the fixing of the date (1660) then proposed upon the ground that a private endowment must be given to a definite religious system rather than to a Church which was co-extensive with the
  1290
  nation. As far as he understood them, the principles upon which the present Government defended their proposal were the same in substance as those on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian defended a very different date. They had the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that "since 1660 there had been different religious systems in both England and Ireland." "That was a time"—said he—"when the Puritans or Nonconformists became a body external to the Established Church." If therefore, the present Government accepted that very high authority, it at once cut the ground from under their feet in fixing such a date as 1703. Taking all the precedents of prior legislation, the Government had no ground to go upon in fixing any arbitrary date in this matter. They could not rely on the Charitable Trusts Acts, or on the Endowed Schools Act. It was only where the purposes of charitable trusts had failed either wholly or in part that there might be a diversion of those trusts to other purposes, and even then the cy près doctrine applied. Those who had followed the discussions on the Endowed Schools Acts knew how carefully the interests of denominational charities had been guarded even by those Acts passed by Liberal Governments. There had been an Act passed whereby a large amount of endowment was diverted from ecclesiastical to civil purposes—the City Parochial Charities Act; but that was done on the distinct ground that the purposes had to a great extent failed. This, therefore, was a new and far reaching precedent, and he thought all those who considered that ecclesiastical charities ought to be safeguarded to ecclesiastical purposes, ought to unite in resisting this proposal and in insisting, at any rate, that if the Government named any date at all, it should be a date sufficiently far back to guard all those endowments which had, without any reasonable doubt been left for the benefit of the Church of England as it at present existed and as it had existed in Wales as well as in England for so many centuries.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONnever heard such a muddle as had been given to the House by the Government Bench in their support of this proposal. The President of the Board of Trade made it out that in

  1291
  1702 there was a break in the continuity of the Church, and although a little time ago the Home Secretary smashed up Lord Rosebery's idea that there was a break in the continuity of the Church at the time of the Reformation. He now contended there was a greater break up of the Church in 1703. The right hon. Gentleman made another extraordinary error when he said that before 1703 Dissenters were not allowed to hold property. Dissenters did hold property before that time, as was proved by the dates on some of their chapels. Let them put aside the question of continuity and deal with the simple question—When did a private benefaction become not a private benefaction? The Home Secretary answered the conundrum by saying "1703." Why? Because Queen Anne's Bounty was formed in 1703. What had the one to do with the other? The President of the Board of Trade said "There were so few of these endowments before the year 1703," but the Home Secretary said "Oh, no! there were such a number." De minimis non curat Secretarius domesticus. Again, it was said the title of the Church was old. He once heard a barrister say to a Judge, "This is old law, but it is none the worse for that." He believed most people were rather proud of old titles. Why was an old title worse than a new one? He appealed to the Home Secretary to reconsider the question. One gentleman defended the proposal on historical grounds, and declared that Dissenters had no money given them before 1703. They read that Dissenters went in a body to William, and that he gave the chief of them an annuity of £500 and each of the others an annuity of £50. Dissenters had received money for a great length of time. Why did not the Government fix on the date 1648? The Church did cease to be the Church of the Nation then because Mr. Oliver Cromwell got rid of the Church of England for ten years and put the whole of the property in the hands of others. On historical grounds, as well as on grounds of justice, he hoped the Committee would reject the proposal of the Government.
  *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, the President of the Board of Trade had told them that the poorer they could make the Church the better it would be for the
  1292
  Church. He sometimes wondered why the right hon. Gentleman did not go a little farther. It was said the blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. Was it not a wonder the President did not try a little martyrdom? But that was by the way. It had already been shown that the three grounds on which different Members of the Government had supported this clause were entirely distinct, and mutually self-destructive. He could understand a date being fixed if it was on a give and take principle, if the Government said—
  "Everything acquired after a particular date shall be given to the Church, and everything given before that date shall be taken away."
  But they did not say that. If they were to prove the origin of a benefaction in order to keep it they ought not to be limited to a particular date. Surely the most elementary principles of justice were violated by fixing an arbitrary date of this kind. Right hon. Gentlemen might think they had the country or some outlying parts of the country with them upon this Bill, but there was proof now that, at all events, the Scotch people were not quite so fond of robbing churches as the Members of the Government supposed.
  MR. E. HENEAGEsaid, he regretted that alternative dates had been brought forward at all, for the mention of them only weakened the Amendment. He objected altogether to any private benefactions or any public money, the property of the Church of England, which had been given to the Welsh dioceses in their poverty, being used for secular purposes. These benefactions were given to the Church entirely for Church and religious purposes, and neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Commissioners, whom they proposed to set up, had any more right to divert those moneys from religious to secular purposes than a trustee would have a right to divert trust-money to his own uses. If the Church in Wales had no longer any use for these benefactions, it would be far better that they should revert to the representatives of the donors, or to the Mother Church in England. There were plenty of populous places in England and Scotland where the moneys could be employed to great advantage. There was a fallacy running throughout

  1293
  the whole of the principle on which the Home Secretary had advocated the financial clauses. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that, because money had been left to the Church in Wales, it therefore belonged to the Welsh people to do with as they wished. He denied that proposition altogether. After all, the discussion of this Bill would be almost a farce, if it were not that they believed that this Bill would be the precedent in the future for a Bill to disestablish the Church in England. Therefore it was necessary to point out its objectionable features. But not only might the provisions of this Bill be extended, perhaps by a single clause, to Northumbria, or East Anglia, or any other part of England, but some future ecclesiastical highwaymen might extend it to other religious denominations. It must not be supposed that this spoliation could be limited to the Church of England. In future the question would be asked: What virtue is there in Ecclesiastical Endowments or money given for Church purposes? The Endowments of the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist bodies were of much greater importance to them than those of the Church were to the Church. The election of Saturday had shown what the members of the Free Kirk and the Roman Catholics of Inverness-shire thought of the Disendowment clauses of this Bill; and he knew that in Lincolnshire there were a large number of thoughtful Nonconformists who, while desiring equality between all denominations, also disapproved strongly of these Disendowment clauses. He knew how many Nonconformist bodies held as their Endowments the sites on which their chapels stood; and they did not see what would prevent, if this Bill passed in its present shape, their property from being confiscated and diverted to parish purposes at some future date. He supported the Amendment in its integrity, and hoped it would be carried in the interest of the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist bodies.
  *MR. GRTFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that, there had been one or two useful admissions made that afternoon. First of all, the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Denbighshire admitted that this date (1703) was an arbitrary date——
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I did not say that. I said it would be difficult to find a date which hon. Members opposite would not regard as arbitrary.
  *MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that he was glad to have the right hon. Baronet's assent to the proposition that the whole Bill was an arbitrary Bill. Then there was the still more useful admission made by the Home Secretary, that there was a strong probability, if the case were taken into the Courts of Law, that the tithes would be considered under this amendment to be private benefactions. [Mr. BRYCE dissented.] If the clause were framed on any principle of justice, why not give the Church tha benefit of any doubt? Why take away Endowments which were at least very likely given by private individuals? Professor Freeman had written—
  "The nearest approach to a regular general endowment is the tithe, and that is not a very near approach. The tithe can hardly be said to have been granted by the State. The case rather is that the Church preached the payment of tithe an a duty, and the State gradually came to enforce that duty as a legal exaction afterwards."
  If a private individual gave property, and the State said that the property was to be respected, that did not constitute a grant by the State. If it did, why preserve any of the private benefactions to which the State was giving its sanction by this very clause? The President of the Board of Trade had stated that the date 1703 was chosen because it was only after that date that money could legally be left either to the Church or to Nonconformist bodies. But whether money could be left legally or not, it certainly was left before that date, and such private benefactions could easily be traced. There was the case of a Nonconformist endowment at Bardon Hill, near Leicester, where a Congregational Chapel received in 1666 a benefaction of farm lands and tithes. Then, as an instance of a gift to the Church, there was the case of Worthenbury, Flintshire, in the English Maylor. In 1653 John Puleston of Emral, Serjeant-at-Law and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who was an adherent of Cromwell, appointed Philip Henry Minister of Worthenbury, and built a house "for him and his successors for ever," and gave him a rent-charge on his estate for his maintenance. At

  1295
  the Restoration this bequest was confirmed, and there was added, "all the tithe corn growing yearly within the parish." Could anyone contend that a confirmation, made before 1703, was not intended for the Church as we knew it now? The contention was absolutely ridiculous. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Denbighshire must have been writing a new history of England and Wales to suggest that there was a new departure in the Church in England or Wales at the Accession of Queen Anne. The only real precedent was that of the Irish Church. In that case the right hon. Member for Midlothian recommended in Committee the year 1660 as a limit, in the following words:—
  "The reason that has recommended this to us is the fact that the Restoration was really the period at which the Church of Ireland assumed its present legislative shape and character. In Ireland Presbyterianism and Episcopacy were struggling powerfully together during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. But when we come to the times of Charles II. the ecclesiastical condition of England became perfectly distinct, and we know historically that a man at any rate knew what he was doing when he left property to the Church after that date; and the fair presumption arises that, if he gave the money for the Church, it was for the support of that form of religion to which it is now applied."
  If that was the case in Ireland in 1660, why not in Wales also? Why should it be supposed that the Church in Wales crystallised into its present shape at a later date than the Irish Church? That supposition was disposed of by another statement made by the right hon. Member for Midlothian. On Mr. Watkin Williams' Motion on 24th May 1870, the right hon. Member for Midlothian said—
  "There is not a more curious fact in 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 Welshman were appointed to fill them … What was the consequence? Puritanism, which was strong in England in that period, did not exist in Wales at all."
  The Puritan or Presbyterian period, which made it necessary in the Irish Act not to go before 1660, had no existence in fact, with regard to Wales. If any date were taken they must, in common honesty and justice, admit that
  1296
  the only reasonable date was that at which they knew a real change did take place in the Church of England or Wales—namely, the Reformation. No one wished to exaggerate the changes made then, but the strongest Protestant, who attached the greatest importance to the change made at the Reformation, if he left money to the Church after 1559 knew it was for the Church, as he understood it now, and it was most unfair and unjust if any date were taken at all to take any date subsequent to 1559. He would not argue whether there should be an alternative date. It was not the question before the Committee. He took his stand on the broad principle which he had always understood was the principle of the Liberation Society. If they must take from the Church any national money or property found in her coffers, and hand it back to the nation that gave it, he could not see in that principle how they could possibly assume at what certain date private benefactions began, and that anything given before that was not a benefaction although given by a private individual. He was at a loss to understand why the Government would not assent to this Amendment. When the country read that evening's discussion it would find out what they had already learnt from the Member for East Denbighshire that this was an arbitrary date in an arbitrary Bill.
  EARL COMPTONsaid, the hon. Member had spoken of himself and his friends as Church Members. He forgot that there were Church Members on the Ministerial side of the House who were as fond of the Church as, if not fonder than, he was himself. [Opposition laughter.] He did not think this was a laughing matter. On his side of the House they were anxious, in disestablishing and disendowing the Church, to do what was fair for the Church; and at the same time believed, and honestly believed, that it would be to the advantage of the State Church to be disestablished and disendowed. Chuch Members were not all on the Opposition side.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, he had not the slightest desire to exclude the noble Lord as a Church Member. If he would vote with Members of the Opposition on this Amendment they

  1297
  would be glad to enrol him as a Member of the Church Parliamentary Committee.
  EARL COMPTONthanked the hon. Member for the invitation, but he had not the slightest intention of voting for the Amendment. He had voted for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales, but by this Amendment they would be distinctly voting against, instead of for, Disendowment, which was the real question the Amendment was intended to bring before the House. In his opinion, it was impossible to omit a date altogether, though the substitution of another date might be argued.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDpointed out that, in the case of the Irish Church, a date was inserted and passed through Committee of the House at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Midlothian. But when the Bill left the House of Lords no date was inserted at all. This was not a question between the State and the Church, but one of private endowments. If it were a question between the State, and the Church, he would remind the House of what Dean Hook said on the subject:—
  "Honour alike your father the State and your mother the Church, but if your father strikes your mother, you are bound to take your mother's part.''
  This was not a matter between the State and the Church. They were trying to save the private endowments of pious persons in the past. For himself he entirely opposed, and always would oppose, the taking of any money given by anybody, private or public, for religious purposes and making use of it for secular purposes.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid, he was not a member of the Church of England, but of the Scottish Free Church. But when the noble Lord was speaking he could not help feeling that the Amendment distinguished between those who desired to bring about Disestablishment, because they loved religious equality, and those who desired it from denominational jealousy. He was, and had always been, a rigid advocate of religious equality, believing all intervention by the State in religious matters tended not to help
  1298
  but to weaken the religious influence of the Church. If any one held that view, and at the same time sympathised with the work the Church was doing, he must sympathise with the protection of private funds which had been given to the Church by private individuals. Those who had advocated Disestablishment in the past had done so partly on the ground that to remove all State intervention tended to increase individual Christian liberality towards the Church; but would it encourage the Christian liberality of men of to-day to take away property given by the sons of the Church in days gone by? The only argument he had ever heard used in favour of this was that divisions had taken place in the Church since 1703, and secessions having come about they could not tell to which of the divided bodies pious donors would have given their money had they foreseen those secessions. That was a dangerous argument to use by anyone who believed in the wealth of any of our Churches, voluntary or otherwise. The Methodists in Wales had been subdivided from time to time; but did anyone maintain that it would have been fair if the State took away the whole funds of the denomination and devoted them entirely to secular purposes, because you could not tell to which section the pious donor would have given them. He supported the Second Reading of the Bill, because he was in favour of Disestablishment. He should oppose the Third Reading of the Bill if it remained unchanged, because the principles of religious equality were infringed more by taking away money given by individual sons of the Church than they were even by the maintenance of the Church as it now existed.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 214. (Division List, No. 127.)
  MR. GRANT LAWSONproposed to omit the words "One thousand seven hundred and three" in order to insert the words "One thousand five hundred and fifty-nine." The grounds upon which he based his Amendment were, in the first place, that in the latter year the Second Act of Uniformity was passed, the first having been repealed by Queen Mary, the Roman Catholic. By the Act of 1559 the present order of

  1299
  things with regard to the Church had been established which had existed ever since. Another reason why he had proposed to select the date 1559 was—that it had been proposed by no less an authority than the then Archbishop of Canterbury to take that date in the case of the Irish Church Act. An Amendment, similar to that he now moved, had been moved in the House of Lords in the course of the discussion on the Irish Church Act, and the only reason why that Amendment was not pressed was, because the Government of the day had agreed to drop the question of dates altogether and to give a lump sum as a compromise. That Amendment of the Archbishop of Canterbury would certainly have been carried in the House of Lords, and in all probability it would have been accepted in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had given a definition of private benefactions which was the clearest that he had met with either in the speeches of hon. Members or in the writings of historians. Speaking in the Debate on the Irish Church Act, on the 29th April 1869, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Let us consider what are the points necessary to make up the definition of private endowments, such as we are justified in keeping from the general mass. In the first place, it must be an endowment from the private resources of a private person; in the second place, it must he devoted to the endowing of a particular religious persuasion; and if it is given to an Establishment, it must he given to it, not in its character as an Establishment, but in its character of a definite religious persuasion; lastly, it must be a gift to the same distinct religious persuasion as that on whose behalf it is proposed to be severed from the general mass."
  He submitted that all benefactions given by private persons out of their private resources since the date of the Act of Uniformity entirely fulfilled the conditions which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, because since that date the Church of England had been a distinct religious persuasion. It was in that view that he begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, there were three or four dates before the Committee as to the time which should be selected after which any benefaction given to the Church of England in Wales should be
  1300
  deemed a private benefaction. The years 1559, 1662, and 1689 were all advocated, while 1703 was the year at present in the Bill. It was not likely that since the year 1559, the date of the Reformation, that any Roman Catholic would have made any considerable benefaction to the Established Church. The Protestant party at that date included all those sections of Protestants who had subsequently become divided into the different denominations which they knew to-day. He thought it might safely be said that there was no one in the reign of Elizabeth who could have prophesied that 250 years afterwards there would have been a large number of powerful Protestant denominations all acknowledging the general doctrines which were embodied in the theological settlement of 1559, and yet differing from each other in many minor points. He thought it would be generally admitted that the dominant tendencies and spirit of Parliament at that time were very largely Puritan; but the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign considered that they were right in remaining in the Church of England, and remained there in the hope and persuasion that they would be able to effect reforms in the Church of England which would bring them nearer to the ideal that they had conceived. All through the reign of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., those then called Puritans, whose views approximated to those of Nonconformists of later times, were members of the Church of England not intended in any way to separate from it. That being the case, they could not treat the Church of England as being anything but one body up to that time, and they must assume that during the whole of the reign of Elizabeth, and at any rate down to the end of the Commonwealth, all the bodies which subsequently became Protestant Nonconformists were still included in the Church of England, and all benefactions which were given to the Church must be assumed to have been given to her as one body, and as a national Church. They were obliged, therefore, to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division, that 1559 should be the date, because, at any rate down to 1662, all the bodies which subsequently developed out of the Church had an equal claim to be considered the

  1301
  heirs of the Church. Though not quite to the same extent, still, to a large extent, they conceived that the argument which applied to the Church down to 1662 applied to her at any rate down to 1689. At that time a Bill was brought into that House to carry out a scheme which, if it had passed into law, would have avoided, at any rate, the main divisions which then became permanent, and would have kept a very great number of Protestant Nonconformists in the Church of England. They were entitled, therefore, to say that down to 1689 the hope of union had not been abandoned; there was still, down to that date, the possibility that the Church of England might have retained all, or nearly all, the Protestants of the kingdom. It was only the policy of the Conformation Scheme of 1689 that wrecked that hope. Down to 1689 they might fairly contend that endowments given were not given to the Church in its present form, and might equally well have been given to her by persons who would find their proper representatives in some of the dissenting communities to-day. The same result would follow if they adhered to the principle that endowments given while the Church of England was still the only church recognised by law, belonged to the Church. While she was the only religious body that was capable of receiving endowments, those endowments could only be given to her as a National Church, and not in respect of any special doctrine which she possessed. The hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division had, in a previous Amendment, cited the case of an endowment given in 1666, which he argued ought not to be dealt with in the way proposed; he was not in possession of the fact, but he would remind the hon. Member that it was at that time a penal offence, which was severely punished, to frequent a conventicle, and an independent chapel would certainly fall under that description. It was quite clear that the endowment of a conventicle at that time was an illegal act.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, there was such an endowment, and also many others, even before that date.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that as it was an illegal act, severely punished in 1666, it was hard to see how any endowment
  1302
  could have been given then. However, he would not pursue that matter further, as he desired to tell the House the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government had arrived. They had been very desirous of dealing in a lenient spirit with this matter, and they had stated more than once that they were by no means anxious to press what they thought the extreme rigour of their principles might require against the Church of England in Wales where an appeal was made to them. They had therefore come to the conclusion that although strictly the year 1689 would be the proper year to fix as being the time when the Church of England and the Protestant Nonconformists became separate, they might consent to the year 1662 as being the definite date at which that separation took place. They were willing therefore to accept the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the Bow Division of the Tower Hamlets, to the effect that 1662 should be taken as the date after which any benefaction given to the Church of England in Wales should be deemed a private benefaction. He hoped he had sufficiently explained the view the Government had taken as well as the principle on which they based it, why they could not at all accept the date 1559, and the reasons for which they were willing to accept the date 1662.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House, as might be expected, a very interesting speech on the subject, but it was one containing absolutely no arguments. He thanked the Government for their concession in taking the year 1662. At the same time he was sorry that it deprived him of showing, as he could have done, that the date 1703, to which the Government had committed themselves, was about the most illogical period they could have adopted; but he was obliged to abandon that contention, inasmuch as the Government were going to accept the Amendment for the date of 1662. When he heard the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to 1559 about various Nonconformist bodies, it seemed as though they were discussing a scheme of concurrent endowment; for all that they heard from him about the condition of

  1303
  the Church, the ritual of the Church, and the doctrine of the Church from 1558 to 1662, it might be supposed that the various Nonconformist bodies, who were believed to represent the Church more nearly at the time of Elizabeth than the Church of England in the present day, were entitled to this money. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that not one sixpence of this money was to be devoted to religious purposes at all, but that the whole of it was to be applied to secular purposes? Not more than three-quarters of an hour ago he had listened to a speech in which the right hon. Gentleman laid down three principles relating to the ritual, the doctrine, and the government of the Church, which might be strongly used on behalf and in support of the date they had advocated. If these three tests were to be applied, he did not hesitate to say that the year 1558 more nearly corresponded with those conditions. No one would deny that fact with regard to ritual; and as to discipline, beyond the fact that discipline had been altered by statute, they might fairly say that, subject to the development of modern times, discipline was still the same. He would remind the Committee that they were not now dealing with a scheme of concurrent endowment, but that they were fixing this date with reference to the intended diversion of the funds of the Church from religious to secular purposes, and that being so, and that being the question they had to consider, what was the proper form in which this problem should be presented to the House? He submitted it was this—what the Church most nearly represented from 1558 down to 1662. What was the case, then, for shifting the date of 1703 back to 1662, and for not bringing it back to 1558? It was, he supposed, that the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported him felt that they could not upon any principle support the date 1703; and without really giving any reason to the House, but putting it as a matter of favour, he said the Government would take the date back to 1662. Supposing it were proved that private individuals gave property to the Church for religious purposes, what claim had the Welsh ratepayers now to put their hands upon it, and to appropriate it to their purposes? The right hon.
  1304
  Gentleman had referred to the Commonwealth, as if it were a period from the history of which some conclusions could be drawn to support some date other than 1558. But from his reading of history he should say that during the whole of the Common wealth the Church in Wales was the National Church. This question, however, was not being argued so much as a Welsh case for Disendowment and Disestablishment, but it was being debated with a view to developing arguments to be used in the future for the Disestablishment of the Church of England. It was scarcely possible to believe that men who worthily represented the Church could look with feelings other than those of shame upon any attempt to rob the Church of that which was given to it as private endowments for religious purposes, and he believed there were many Churchmen on the other side of the House who, but for Party ties, would support the Opposition in the arguments they were using to protect those private endowments. They were not discussing property supposed to have been left to the State, but rather what was the origin of some of that property, and they started from the position that they were dealing with private benefactions. By the very test the right hon. Gentleman himself had laid down—the points of government, ritual, and discipline—they were entitled to say that the Church in Wales represented the ecclesiastical body which was established in 1558, and they contended that to deprive that Church of private endowments given to it by private individuals from love of religion and love of the Church, during the period from 1558 to 1662, was to take away gifts which were given purely for religious purposes, and he hoped that even yet some Churchmen would rise and say that the Church in Wales ought not to be deprived of the endowments granted to her at any time since 1558.
  EARL COMPTON, after remarking that he was in favour of the Amendment which had just been moved, said, the arguments which applied to 1662 would apply also to 1558. He had always felt that the question, of the Disendowment of the State Church must involve great difficulty. Disestablishment was quite another thing, but he knew that Disestablishment could not be carried

  1305
  out without Disendowment, and he was ready to admit that the great mass of Nonconformists were prepared to act generously towards the Church. It was because he believed that it could be said that the money really belonged more, to the Church than to any other body that he supported the Amendment. He was in a very unfortunate position, owing to his defective eyesight, and was unable to see hon. Members opposite. He was paired until 10.30, but if the Division took place after that hour he should vote for the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that he was sorry to hear of the state of health of the last speaker, as, otherwise, the Committee might have hoped to hear from him many speeches such as they had just listened to, and to have, on other occasions, the vote which he trusted that the hon. Member would be able upon the present occasion, to give. He confessed that he did not see upon what ground this Amendment could be resisted, except upon the ground that no date of any kind ought to be inserted. The date now proposed was certainly a better date than 1662. Although he had listened attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he must say that no speech had ever had a less convincing effect upon his mind. According to the right hon. Gentleman every endowment conferred at any time might be afterwards called in question if the people could be shown to have had a tendency in a particular direction. This was a most amazing doctrine, and was totally inconsistent with the policy of the Government, because upon what ground did they propose 1703 or any other date? The gifts some years subsequently to 1703 might well be assumed to have been given by persons who had a tendency to follow John Wesley. There was afterwards a High Church tendency, which led to a certain number of secessions to the Church of Rome, and money given at that time might probably have been given by some persons who had a tendency towards Romanism. And why, then, did not the Government scrape all the gifts, subsequent to 1703, into the holocaust? Were all the gifts made to the Church about those periods to be vitiated? He could not understand any man so betraying his knowledge of history as to put
  1306
  such an argument as that of the right hon. Gentleman before the House of Commons. He did not thank the Government for the concession which they had made in accepting the date of 1662 in place of 1703. Forty years was all that the Government were conceding to the Church, for which he and his friends were claiming the property for hundreds of years. If the Government were going to disestablish and disendow the Welsh Church, he asked them to disestablish and disendow it like gentlemen, and not like hucksters who took credit to themselves for giving up 40 years. He asked the Government to give that which, in justice, the friends of the Church had a right to demand.
  MR. CYRIL DODDthought, that after the speech the Committee had just heard it was a little difficult to speak quietly on this subject; but, notwithstanding the language of the noble Lord, he asked the Government to consider the facts, and to say how much money was involved between the one time and the other. So far as he had been able to gather information on the subject he believed that the amount of money involved was very small indeed, and that it would make very little difference whether the one date or the other wore to be inserted. If the information in possession of the Government confirmed this he would ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, notwithstanding the violence of the language which had been used on the other side, it might not be worth while to accede to the Amendment.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 199.—(Division List No. 128)
  MR. J. A. M. MAC DONALD MR. J. A. M. MAC DONALD (Tower Hamlets, Bow) moved in page 3, line 6, to leave out "Seven hundred and three," and insert "Six hundred and sixty-two." He said he was quite content to rest by what had been said on behalf of the Government on this matter. No stronger arguments could be used than those which had been advanced by the President of the Board of Trade, and he did not believe that any better dividing line could be adopted. He would content himself by moving the Amendment.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he did not know whether it was of any use to

  1307
  address a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but after that Division it was possible that the Government might be a little more disposed to to meet the objections raised on his side of the House. The majority that had decided against the Amendment of his hon. Friend was so infinitesimal that it did not establish the authority of the Government in this matter at all. His noble Friend opposite (Earl Compton) who had made an interesting speech earlier in the evening had said that if he had been present he would have voted for the Amendment, and that would have reduced the majority to nine. He did not know whether this Bill was intended to pass the House, but if it were to do so, it ought to be carried on in some spirit of conciliation and concession. There were cases of Nonconformist endowments before the year 1662. At Cardiff a chapel was established in 1622, and there was a case in another locality of a Baptist chapel having been founded in 1652. There was also an educational endowment founded in the time of the Commonwealth, and so imperative were its conditions that the trustees were to be two clergymen of the Church of England. That showed that the Nonconformists were active long before 1662. Why the year 1662 should be chosen he could not imagine, except to show that the Government in pretending to meet the wounded feelings of the friends of the Church were doing nothing that could possibly offend their allies in Wales. He was opposed to all dates. He claimed for the Church all her endowments, and the only reason why he voted with his hon. Friend was that he was anxious to save anything he could out of the melting pot.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that in this matter the Government were acting on what had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian in the Debate on this question in the Irish Church Act in 1869. His right hon. Friend then said—
  "In fixing upon the date 1660 we were actuated by the feeling expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he said—if he did say so—that the Bill would be a gracious and a generous one, and we felt that in fixing that date we had reached the furthest limit to which we could go and yet preserve intact the principle of the Bill."
  1308
  It was in that spirit that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade agreed to accept the date 1662. With regard to the existence of Nonconformist endowments previous to that date, he did not believe there was any accurate information to be got upon that point. His strong belief was, having made such inquiry as he could, that such Nonconformist endowments as existed previous to 1662, consisted chiefly of meeting-houses; and under this Bill every church now belonging to the Church was to be left in the hands of the Church. He had not heard a single instance of a Nonconformist endowment falling within the language of this section of an earlier date than 1662. It was true that there were Independents and Presbyterians at the time of the Commonwealth, but they were in the Church of England. One of the greatest Independents was John Owen, who was Dean of Christ Church in the very University which the hon. Gentleman represented.
  MR. TALBOT: Where was the ejected Dean of Christ Church?
  MR. ASQUITH: The ejected Dean of Christ Church was in exactly the same position as the expelled Nonconformist Ministers in 1662. During the seventeenth century the benefactions and endowments of the Church were handed over to those persons who happened to be in sympathy in point of doctrine and ritual with the predominant power. Many of the most valuable of benefices were held by Independents and Presbyterians—men who were nowadays Nonconformists.
  MR. TALBOT: Taken by force.
  MR. ASQUITH: They were taken by the governing authority which then existed in the State, just in the same way as in the reign of Henry VIII. a number of other things were taken. He could not, therefore, admit that the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Commonwealth invalidated the position which the Government had taken up in accepting the Amendment. He agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that, logically speaking, they ought to have taken a later date, because it was not until Nonconformity became a legalised and tolerated thing that endowments could properly and lawfully be left to Nonconformist bodies; and he conceived that, in going back to the year 1662,

  1309
  they were going at least as far as was consistent with the principle on which the Bill was founded.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid the Home Secretary sought to draw an inference in favour of the Government from the fact that the Independents were in the Church at the time of the Commonwealth. They were forced on the Church by a military despot, whom the Government proposed to do honour to later in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that the endowments given to Nonconformists before 1662 were endowments of actual meetinghouses, and that, as the Church buildings were to be retained by the Church, there was no injustice in the Dissenters retaining these endowments. That was not the point. The point was, that the fact that these endowments existed showed that people before 1662 recognised the distinction between the Church of England and the various Dissenting bodies, and chose between them according to whether they were in agreement with one or the other.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had refrained from arguing in favour of his Amendment because he had hoped the Committee would accept it without Debate. He thought it was true that before 1662 endowments or benefactions given to the Church were given to the Church as representing the nation, and as being co-extensive with the nation. There was no other recognised religious community in the country. Of course, before the Reformation the Church was co-extensive with the nation. Between the Reformation and 1662 there was a hope on the part of contending factions that they would become the sole representatives of the religion of the people. It seemed to him to be rather a bold thing to say that the ancient donors of gifts to the Church of England would have held towards the Church as established by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, precisely the same attitude as they held towards the religious organisation when the gifts were actually made. He did not agree with the argument either of the Home Secretary or of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the date of 1669. It had been said by both that at that date no Nonconformist body could legally hold property. But that
  1310
  was not the point. The point was whether or not any private benefactions given to the Church after 1662 were given by men who were in harmony with Dissent; whether the donors of Church gifts after 1662 were not men who distinguished between the Church and Nonconformity just as much as any who gave benefactions after 1689. Did the benefactors to the Church really intend that these benefactions should be used in the promotion of the religious life as settled by the Act of Uniformity, or in the promotion of some form of religious life as understood by one or other of the Nonconformist bodies. That was the dividing line which appeared to be finally settled by the Act of 1662. It could be quite truly said that benefactions given before 1662 were given by the Church as representing the religious life of the nation. After that date they were given to the Church as distinguished from Nonconformity.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, the hon. Member opposite was in a very inconsistent position. He said the money given before 1662 was given for the religious life of the whole nation. Then why should it now be taken away and devoted to secular purposes. He could understand the hon. Member saying the money should be divided among the various sects. But his proposition was to give it for baths and washhouses and other secular purposes. Where was this process going to end. There might be people in the Church now who might set up Nonconformity hereafter, and the same argument might be used for taking from the Church property given to her during the present year. Any man had an absolute right to dissent from any Church he pleased. The question was—Had he the right if he dissented to walk off with part of the property of the body from which he dissented?
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that to put the burden of proof upon the Church was, certainly, in many cases, to put the Church at a great disadvantage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, after the last Amendment, to add "or money raised by voluntary subscriptions since that year."
  SIR R. WEBSTER SIR R. WEBSTER moved to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "subscriptions" the words:—
  "Were voluntarily given since that year out of funds not liable under any provision, statutory or otherwise, to be applied to ecclesiastical purposes by the holder of any ecclesiastical office."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER SIR R. WEBSTER moved to add after the last Amendment:—
  "And all interest reserved and capitalised on grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty."
  This Amendment, he explained, was intended to meet cases in which the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had withheld their annual payments in consequence of the non-residence of an incumbent, or of some other special cause. The interest on the grants in these cases had been reserved, and formed part of the general fund. It could hardly be contented that such reserved interests was Welsh national property.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the point had not been brought to his attention before. He understood the cases which the hon. and learned Member had in his mind were cases in which grants from Queen Anne's Bounty had lapsed through some temporary matters in consequence of the death or non-residence of an incumbent. These were cases in which the grants had been retained and added to the general fund of the Bounty. The question was whether this income, which had not been paid over and which had been capitalised, had been treated as appropriated to the Welsh Church. [Sir R. WEBSTER: "No."] Then he did not think that it would pass to the Commissioners. But he would ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment now, so that he might have time to inquire into the subject with which it dealt.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that the funds in question were formed by the accumulation of incomes which had not been paid over, and which had passed into the general fund. He would take the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and withdraw his Amendment for the present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER SIR R. WEBSTER moved to add after the last accepted Amendment:—
  "And all grants (other than grants out of moneys voted by Parliament) made by lot or otherwise by Queen Anne's Bounty."
  Having regard to the origin of first-fruits and tenths, he held that it was wrong to regard the income derived there from as national property which could properly be appropriated to secular purposes. Up to the thirteenth century, the clergy enjoyed their incomes in full, and then this tax was imposed upon them. Subsequently, he maintained, that the tax was paid to the Crown. It was not paid by the whole of the population; it was exclusively paid by the clergy. On what ground, therefore, was that tax, levied specially and solely on the income of the clergy, to be regarded as national property? Money so given by the Crown, or by individual clergy, was just as much private benefactions, as far as the law was concerned, as incomes from any private source. He thought that Churchmen were justified in raising this protest.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that this question had been, in substance, already discussed in Committee, and he did not know that there was any argument on one side or the other which had not been already adequately stated and considered. While accepting the hon. and learned Member's account of the history of this fund, he did not accept the inferences which were drawn from the hon. Member's historical statement. The inference he drew from that history was that these first fruits and tenths at an early time in our history were a tax levied on the clergy exactly as compulsory in its character as the tithe which was levied from the lands of the landowner. This tax had formed as much a part of the general revenue of the Crown as any revenue subsequently granted by Parliament. That being the origin of the fund, it was, under Statutory authority under Queen Anne, devoted to the purpose to which it had since been applied, and it was impossible to distinguish between the character of that fund, whether in origin or use, and the great mass of the endowments which, rightly or wrongly, the Government were devoting by this Bill to other than ecclesiastical purposes. It was, therefore,

  1313
  impossible to exclude it from the operation of the Bill.
  *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, it was clear that the first fruits and tenths constituted a tax laid on the clergy by Henry VIII. Parliament had just as much right to remit a special tax on a special class as any tax levied generally, and special taxes or special interests had been remitted from time to time. Queen Anne thought it to be for the benefit of the Church that those sums which had been previously levied on the clergy should be made into a fund for the benefit of poor livings. He would ask, however, whether it was worth while to confiscate any part of the property derived from Queen Anne's Bounty. When the cost of ascertaining what part of a benefaction had arisen from private donations and how much from so-called public funds, there would be very little left for secular purposes.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR R. WEBSTER SIR R. WEBSTER moved an Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment with the view of including within the category of private benefactions—
  "all grants (other than grants out of moneys voted by Parliament) made by Queen Anne's Bounty in excess, of the total amount of first-fruits and tenths derived from the Church in Wales."
  MR. ASQUTTHsaid, it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Home Secretary's Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL*SIR F. S. POWELL moved to insert after "three" in line 7—
  "or which has not been derived from endowments of the Church arising in Wales or Monmouthshire."
  He regretted the absence of the Home Secretary, and certainly thought it unreasonable that when an Amendment of this importance was on the Paper the right hon. Gentleman should not be able and willing and ready to assist the Committee in their deliberations. The Amendment was absolutely necessary, in order to make the Bill complete, perfect, and just Under Clause 4 of the Bill property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners situate in Wales was to go to the Welsh Ecclesiastical Fund, but property
  1314
  belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which was not situated in Wales, but in England, was to be retained by the Church in the English dioceses. He took the word "property" as meaning landed property—farms and estates of that character. His object was perfectly clear and simple; it was that what was enacted in regard to property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should apply to property not so vested. Subsection (a) of the third clause spoke of property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, and then it dealt with property not so vested, and it was the latter class of property which was the subject of his Amendment. Property situate in Wales he was ready for the purpose of Debate to leave it as Welsh Ecclesiastical property, but his contention was that landed property situated in England, although appropriated or used for the Church in Wales, ought to be regarded as a private benefaction. He did not see why one law should be applied to property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and another law applied to property not so vested, and he complained that the treatment of the property which remained in the English dioceses should be adverse to the Church of England. There were many cases where the proceeds from farms situate in English counties were appropriated to the use of the Church in Wales. It would, he maintained, be a great injustice if that property were not in the future to be appropriated and used for the purpose of the Church in Wales exactly as other private benefactions would be. They who had any knowledge of feeling of the country knew how great was the jealousy of removing the proceeds of any landed property from the parish. When those proceeds were transferred from the parish and used for the purposes of the National Church of England and Wales there had been so far little dissatisfaction; it was taken as part of the general arrangement. But if the clause stood as now framed, proceeds of farms situated in England would be no longer devoted to Church purposes in Wales, but to the miscellaneous and absurd purposes mentioned in the schedule of the Bill. Such a proceeding would assuredly create a feeling of injustice. He believed the great majority of the

  1315
  properties so situated were the fruits of private endowments. The evidence might fail in some cases, but he believed there would be, in the great majority of cases, in the absence of legal proof, a moral claim to which no fair or just resistance would be made. He was acquainted with the case of a native of Westmorland, who made a fortune beyond the boundaries of that county. That man gave a farm in his new home for the endowment of a vicarage in Westmorland. The vicarage remained and the endowment remained. Would it not be felt to be a great injustice if the proceeds of that endowment were devoted to some purpose not only utterly strange to the liberal founder, but unpopular and unknown and distasteful to the inhabitants of the parish wherein the farm was situate? It was for such foundations he appealed. He appealed on behalf of parishioners to whom injustice would be done if the proceeds of property were devoted to objects with which they had no sympathy, if, indeed, they knew anything at all about them.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAMsaid, it was in no spirit of disparagement either of the capacity or courtesy of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department that he regretted the absence of the Home Secretary. Although they differed from the principles of the Home Secretary, and although they had some quarrel with his definitions of those principles, the right hon. Gentleman was always logical, and endeavoured to deal with points they raised. Clause 5 was really complemental of Clause 3. Under the third clause the whole body of property appropriated to the Church in Wales was transferred en bloc to the Welsh Commissioners. Under Clauses 4 and 5 certain exceptions were made so as to put the machinery in working order. The principle of the Government was to divert from the Church of England in Wales so much property as could, according to their own definition, be called in any sense the national property of the Welsh people. In the third clause the property was divided accidentally and for convenience into two sections: property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, and property which was not so vested. All his hon. Friend had asked the Government to do was to deal
  1316
  with the two classes of property on the same principle. The Government argued that some of the property was private benefaction, and could not be called the public property of the Welsh people by any abuse of language. Between Clause 3 and Clause 5 there was a lacuna. They begged the Government to fill up that lacuna in the Bill; and since they excepted from vested property transferred by them that which was private benefaction, and that which arose from lands not situate in Wales and Monmouthshire, let them carry out the same principle in regard to non-vested property. Perhaps the Government would urge that this did not fit in with their drafting of the Bill; but that would only be a formal objection, for it would be perfectly easy to find suitable words to give effect to the object of the Amendment. A few days ago the Home Secretary had thrown a little doubt on the point by saying that he had been so generous in the case of vested property that he was within his right in being less than just in the case of non-vested property. But as a matter of fact he had not been so generous. He had been just according to his own rules of the game; but he had taken every sixpence which could be called Welsh or public by any stretch of language. But assuming that the Government were quite justified in taking from the Church all property which could be called national or Welsh; assuming that Wales ought to include Monmouthshire, and that a hard and fast line should be drawn at the year 1662 with regard to private benefactions,—then they asked the Government to treat the property not vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the same lines as that which was so vested. The Government excepted vested property situate in England simply because in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners they had a body of men in existence who were able to do the necessary book-keeping for them. They did not except non-vested property simply because they would have to invent a body to keep the accounts or to draw up rules for the purpose. The Government were the last men who could refrain from this duty on the ground that it was intricate and difficult. Years ago the right hon. Member for Midlothian pointed out that one of

  1317
  the great obstacles in the way of carrying out Disestablishment of the Church in Wales lay in the overwhelming difficulty attaching to the task of disentangling the endowments of the Church on one side of the border and on the other. That being so, it ought to be a point of honour with every hon. Member opposite not to shirk the difficulty.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the Government could not accept the Amendment. The historical and statistical inquiry as to the origin of these various endowments which would be involved would be an interminably complex process; and he could not agree that Parliament ought to exclude from the capital value of the property of the Church, as it would stand on the day of Disestablishment, sources of income, where so ever situate, which had been, in fact, regarded and treated as the property of the Church. The argument of hon. Members was really a repetition of that brought forward in connection with Queen Anne's Bounty. In that case it was true that if an account were taken going into the past and disentangling the various sources of revenue, it would be found that a larger proportion of the income of the Church was contributed by sources situated in England than by sources situated in Wales. But the Church of the two countries having been treated by the Queen Anne's Bounty Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as a single Church, no such distinction had ever been made. On the books of these Commissioners would be found certain properties and funds attributed to the Church in Wales which, if Disestablishment did not take place, would continue to be enjoyed by that Church. The Government were not bound to enter into questions which would never be entered into at all but for this apportionment proposed in the Bill. The principle of the Government was that, in ascertaining which portion of the property of the Church ought to be attributed to the Church in Wales, regard must be paid to the existing accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Queen Anne's Bounty Commissioners, and private benefactions. That which was not appropriated to the Welsh dioceses should be attributed to the Church in England.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that the Government had set up two principles. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the Government paid regard to the geographical situation of the property; with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty they paid regard to the application of the property. In respect of private benefactions the former principle ought to be followed.
  MR. W. R. BOUSFIELDsaid, that the Home Secretary's argument, derived from the fact that the Churches had been treated as one in the past, might be a good reason for not dividing them now. But it was not an argument, for those who were going to make a violent severance between the Churches, against going fully into the accounts. In the past funds, derived from English property had been freely devoted to the Church in Wales, and now, when ecclesiastical property was being appropriated to Welsh secular purposes, it could not be right to take advantage of the connection of the Welsh Church with the English Church to secularise the funds of the whole Church, which, upon the hypothesis of the right hon. Gentleman, had never been separately devoted to the Church in Wales.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAMsaid, that if the vested property of the Church in Wales exceeded the vested property derived from lands in Wales by £35,000 a year, there was no generosity in not diverting that £35,000 to secular purposes. It was money which came from England, and it would be monstrous, because a majority of Welsh people objected to Establishment and Endowment, to secularise the money derived from England, where a majority were not in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment. The Home Secretary was inconsistent in declining to put upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the labour the Amendment would involve, seeing the research he had imposed upon them by the sub-sections of Clause 4, with reference to the income derived by them from property in Wales. Having thrown so much on the shoulders of the Commissioners, why should be not now grant the request made upon him with regard to property about which there was no dispute at all? A good case had been made out according to the Home Secretary's own position.
  *SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that the effect of the adoption of the Amendment, instead of being to open accounts and produce discussion, would be to close accounts and prevent discussion. It would very much simplify arrangements. This Amendment was really one step towards the arrangement made in the Irish Act to prevent litigation with respect to private benefactions; and it was in harmony with the framework of the Bill with respect to property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was just to the donor and fair to local inhabitants. He was satisfied the Bill as it stood would cause mischief which the Government themselves would earnestly deprecate.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he would put the hypothetical case of a man contributing to the endowment of a church in Wales by means of a rent-charge on land in England, and he asked on what different footing did it rest from a similar amount derived from land situated in Wales devoted under similar circumstances to similar objects. The only difference was the locality of the piece of land on which the rent-charge was placed. It was true he had provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should hand over to the Welsh Commissioners only so much property as arose from estate in Wales; the rest consisted of payments made out of their common fund in aid of Welsh benefices. Here you were dealing with a case in which a donor specifically indicated by the terms of his gift that his land or money was to go to a Welsh benefice. The objection to the Bill would not be made if the motive were not to rescue the property from what were called secular uses.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had put the case of a Welshman providing a Welsh endowment from property in England, but suppose an Englishman endowed a church in England from property in Wales. Under the Bill that property, devoted to ecclesiastical purposes in England, but arising in Wales, was vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be handed over to the church in Wales, subject to the payments provided for in Clause 21. If that happened in the case of an Englishman who endowed
  1320
  an English church from property in Wales, the converse ought to happen in the case of a Welshman who from English property enriched a Welsh church.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that the only effect of Clause 21 was to provide for a readjustment of charges. It was thought to be undesirable that where property in Wales was appropriated to English purposes, and property in England was appropriated to Welsh purposes, the properties should continue to be so applied; and the only effect of the Bill was to provide that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should make such a redistribution that the proceeds of the Welsh property should go to Wales and that of the English property to England.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the charge on the common fund would come from English property.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the common fund would be relieved of an enormous sum which it advanced to Wales.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENasked why did the Home Secretary not apply the principle of the 21st Clause to the 5th Clause, and be consistent all round? Sub-section 2 of the 9th Clause said:—
  "In the application of property under the Act, due regard shall be had to the wants and circumstances of the parish in which the property is situated or from which it has been derived."
  If that were the case, the parish that ought to benefit under the Bill, supposing the property in England were to be regarded as private benefaction, was the ecclesiastical parish in which it was situated. It was ridiculous to hand over glebe, tithe, or real property in England for the benefit of a Welsh parish.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was clearly provided that, in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what was taken from England was given to Wales, and vice versa. By this Amendment it was proposed to deprive the Church in Wales of property situate in England without an equivalent at all.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, if the Government would accept this Amendment, it would be only fair that whenever there was property in Wales appropriated to some benefice in England, the Parish Council should be allowed to make

  1321
  representations to the Welsh Commissioners, and have a transfer made. Unless the Home Secretary could draw a distinction between vested and non-vested property, he would not have an argumentative leg to stand on.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, the Home Secretary had thrown useful light on the operation of the 21st Clause, but had not entirely explained its effect financially. He himself had always understood that the bargain was, that, whereas the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were to hand over to Wales all ecclesiastical property in Wales vested in them, on the other hand the common fund was to be relieved of all the grants which at the present time were made to Wales. But the right hon. Gentleman had stated that, under the 21st Clause, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were also to receive property not vested in them—property in Wales vested in some ecclesiastical corporation in England. They were to take that property and hand it over, under the 4th Clause, to the Welsh Commissioners, and to pay the ecclesiastical corporation in England what it was entitled to out of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Obviously that would make a much more considerable sum transferred to Wales than was contemplated in the financial statement (if he might so call it) by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the effect of the Bill upon the Ecclesiastical Commission. He did not know what the amount might be, but there might be very considerable property to which Clause 21 might apply. They had had no estimate whatever of the amount of that property from the Government, and he thought before the clause was reached they should have some explanation from the Home Secretary of what its financial operation would be. He was bound to say that, having regard to what the Home Secretary had stated, he agreed with his hon. Friends behind him that it was only right—assuming this to be the plan of the Government—that property in England, of whatever nature it might be, which had been devoted by private donors to ecclesiastical purposes in Wales, should not be taken from the Church in Wales.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that when they came to Clause 21 he would be able to show, in regard to earlier clauses, that
  1322
  what he stated on previous occasions was true—that the Church in England, as distinguished from the Church in Wales, would, as far as the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were concerned, be an enormous gainer by this transaction.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEpointed out that Clause 21 did not deal with property at present owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but property arising in one country and devoted to the other. He gathered from the Home Secretary that he was prepared to make a statement on Clause 21, when the Opposition would take care to give an opportunity of doing so.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 162.—(Division List No. 129.)
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD COLONEL LOCKWOOD moved to omit the following words—
  "and does not come within the description of a Church or ecclesiastical residence for which provision is otherwise made by this Act."
  He moved this Amendment with the view of finding out exactly, if possible, what the right hon. Gentleman meant by this phrase. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on the subject. Would not the clause be equally effective if the words referred to in his Amendment were left out?
  MR. ASQUITHsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn. The words proposed to be left out were inserted for the purpose of leaving open the question which would have to be discussed on Clause 7, namely, whether cathedrals and bishops' residences in Wales should be treated in the same way as other Church property in that country.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that he had placed upon the Paper an Amendment similar to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He must confess that he could not quite follow the explanation that had just been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what was the precise use of these words. As regarded the ordinary Churches the words were entirely unnecessary, because the same thing was to be done with the private

  1323
  benefactions, namely, they were to be handed over to the representative body. These words therefore could only apply to the cathedrals and to episcopal ecclestical residences which had been provided since 1652, and which were to be treated differently from other property which had been acquired before that date. These words would either be unnecessary, because they applied to Churches which had been provided for in some other way, or they constituted a difference between private benefactions generally, and those which had been devoted to cathedrals and episcopal residences. If capitular residences, or a cathedral, had received pecuniary value since 1662 it ought to be exempt from the operation of the Bill, just as any other private benefactions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had put these words in under a misconception, and had not taken into account what followed in Clause 6. The right hon. Gentleman was really making a great distinction between these cases and other private benefactions, and the effect would be that if benefactions had been devoted to the cathedral they were to be secularised, and if they had not they were not to be secularised.
  MR. ASQUITHthought the words were necessary, and did not in the least prejudge the question as to what was to be done with the cathedrals or the capitular residences. If the Committee decided to adopt the proposition in the Bill to hand over the cathedrals to the Commissioners to be held in trust for the Church, these words would be necessary. There was the cost of a cathedral, which existed long before 1662, which had been restored or embellished since that date.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that was a very common case.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it certainly had occurred in Wales, and unless they adopted some rude method such as Solomon adopted with the child, they could not say that one part of a cathedral should belong to the Welsh Commissions and the other part to the representative body, they could not act as was proposed. It was quite obvious that they could not deal with buildings of that kind according to the manner in which it had, or had not been constructed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, there was a case of a capitular residence which had been wholly constructed since 1662.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, such cases would be dealt with under the clause. When that was the case they would make ample provision for it. This was really not a contentious point.
  SIR R. WEBSTERdid not think his right hon. Friend opposite had given the best reason for the insertion of these words. If he intended that the Church Cathedrals, the ecclesiastical residences, should pass without any inquiry at all, then probably these words had better remain in.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was perfectly true that that was an additional reason for their insertion.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, it was quite conceivable that ecclesiastical residences which were of an exceptionally expensive character to maintain might have been partly, and perhaps largely built by private contributions, and yet the Church body might not exercise their power to take over and maintain those residences because of their expensive character. In such cases they would be deprived of benefactions which were admittedly from private donors. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought in common fairness to provide somewhere that in such a case the representative body should be entitled to receive as a private benefaction any money that could be proved to have been spent on the residence by private donors.
  MR. ASQUITHsuggested that the proper way of dealing with such cases would be under Section 7. He admitted that a residence made since 1662 by a person out of his own private resources, whatever its worth, ought to go to the representative body.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that every cathedral or capitular or building built since 1862 would be exempt from the operation of the Act. He instanced the Palace of Llandaff as a case in point. He and his friends objected to the sweeping away of the voluntary contributions which had gathered round the cathedrals and capitular buildings since 1662, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain that this was not contemplated under the Bill.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was unnecessary to waste time by premature discussion. Full opportunity would be given

  1325
  on the next clause, and on Clause 7, for discussing the whole question of the cathedrals and other Church buildings. The only effect of the words objected to was to leave open the question for discussion, and they would not at all prejudice it in any way.
  COLONEL LOCK WOODsaid, that under those circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, he moved to add the following words at the end of Section 7:—"And shall be held for, and applied to, the same purposes as those to which it was applied at the passing of this Act." So far as he had been able to gather, this Bill did not follow the precedent of the Irish Church Act. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to recognise private benefactions, and they knew what the interpretation of private benefactions should be, because since a certain date they had been given by individuals, or by subscription, or whatever it might be, for the benefit of the Church in certain parishes and localities. This clause recognised the validity of those benefactions and would retain them; but, instead of handing them over to the locality, vested them in the Church body without any trust for the benefit of the locality to which they certainly belonged. What he desired, by proposing the words he had submitted, was, to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government their intentions with respect to this point. He did not see how it could be considered fair to the localities that benefactions given to them, either by way of building, or endowment, or towards the living of any particular parish, should be handed over to the Church body to be applied possibly by that body to the benefit of some parish or another at the other end of Wales. He could not imagine that that could be the object of the Government, and he had moved the insertion of the words he had read in order to hear what were the intentions of the Government on the point.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he did not in any way quarrel with the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. The only reason why the Government had made no proposal of the kind was that they
  1326
  thought the matter might well be left to the representative Church body to deal with. It could scarcely be believed that the Church body would divert those benefactions from the purposes to which they had hitherto been applied. If the right hon. Baronet thought it desirable that they should create under statute a trust to ensure that this property should continue to be applied as at present, he had no objection, and he would assent to the Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, he had drawn up the words hastily, simply in order to raise the point. As the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the principle of his proposal, he thought it might be better that he should withdraw the words in order that an Amendment might be submitted hereafter in a more technical shape. He wished to leave reasonable freedom to the Church body consistently with the legal interests concerned. Having elicited from the Home Secretary the statement which the Committee had just heard, he would prefer to withdraw the present Amendment in order that the words should be carefully considered.
  MR. ASQUITHthought that a very reasonable course, because he thought that when they came to Clause 22 it would be desirable to have the clause drawn up in apt words providing that there should be a general regard for the representative body.
  *MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that the representative body would have a certain amount of property vested in its hands, and objected to the object of the Amendment being described as protecting individual interests from the vagaries of the Church body.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  The next Amendment upon the Paper standing in the name of Mr. BOUSFIELD, was as follows:—
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end, insert:
  '(2) Where, in the case of any such property given since the year One thousand seven hundred and three, the source from which such property was derived is unknown, it shall be presumed to have been given by a private person out of his own resources.'"
  MR. BOUSFIELD, in rising to propose his Amendment, remarked that if the Government were dealing with one

  1327
  class of cases, they would assume that the money came from public sources. If, on the other hand, they were desirous of treating the Disestablishment of the Church with a certain amount of generosity in these cases, then they said that they would be willing to make a presumption that in such cases where the origin of the fund could not be traced, it should be assumed that the fund had come from private sources. After what the Home Secretary had said he had some reason to suppose that the Government would accept the Amendment. One or two alterations would be required in the wording of his Amendment since it was put down. The year 1662 would have to be inserted instead of 1703. Then, also, the Government had accepted another Amendment. In addition to the property transferred which had been given from property derived from private sources, they now had money which had been raised by private subscriptions, The new sub-section which he now moved would, therefore, run as follows:—
  "(2) Where, in the case of any such property given, or money raised since the year 1662, the source from which such property or money was derived is unknown, it shall be deemed to be a private benefaction within the meaning of this Act."
  This would, he thought, meet the changes which had been made or contemplated in the section.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir F. LOCKWOOD, York)said, that he had reason to know that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was willing to entertain favourably the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend as it originally appeared upon the Paper. But his hon. and learned Friend had made not only considerable additions to his Amendment, but also a very important alteration in the terms in which that Amendment was originally drawn. It appeared to him that the Amendment was almost unnecessary, but he was willing to admit that as the Committee had altered the date, there was really more necessity for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend than there was before the Amendment in the date was accepted by the Government and passed by the Committee. He would suggest something of this kind:—
  "that it shall be deemed to have been given by a private person out of his private resources, or raised by voluntary subscription."
  1328
  He did not know what was meant by the word "deemed." The word "presumption" was one which all lawyers ought to understand, but he did not appreciate the meaning or legal significance of the word "deemed."
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, that he had used language which had been employed by the Government and already passed in Section 5.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERALreplied that the word used by his hon. and learned Friend was used in a different sense from that in which it was used in the particular section referred to. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would achieve his end better by words setting forth that in cases where there was any doubt as to the origin of the gift or of the sum raised by voluntary subscription, the legal presumption should be that the gift was made on the voluntary subscription raised after 1662.
  MR. BOUSFIELDhoped he was not out of Order in saying that he submitted two alternative forms to the Home Secretary, the one being that which the Solicitor General had just suggested, and the other the form in which he had himself moved it. Both alternatives occurred to him, and it was a matter of indifference which form might be adopted. It was not so much a question of construction by a court of law as of working directions to the Welsh Commissioners.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsubmitted that it would be well to follow as far as possible the wording of the Bill itself. Now, the expression "deemed to be" occurred in the first sub-section of the present clause, and also in the 33rd clause, which was the Interpretation Clause, and, therefore, he hoped it would be allowed to pass. The phrase "deemed to be" was familiar in legal phraseology and more familiar than "presumed to be."
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERALsaid, it appeared to him that the word "presumed" was used in the technical sense of the legal presumption which would arise on certain conditions. But the object which they all wanted to ensure was the same, and, therefore, on behalf of the Government, he was prepared to accept the words as his hon. and learned Friend read them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The following consequential Amendments standing in the name of Mr. ASQUITH were agreed to:—
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 11, after 'The,' insert 'Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, as respects any property transferred from them respectively, and the.'"
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 11, after 'Commissioners,' insert 'as respects any other property transferred to them by this Act.'"
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 12, leave out 'transferred to them by this Act.'"
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 14, after 'and, insert 'the Welsh Commissioners.'"
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the substance of the next Amendment, subject to certain questions which were raised by Amendments on the Paper, would probably be assented to. It provided the machinery by which the orders to be made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be made effective. He begged to move:—
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 16, at end, add,—
  '(3) Every order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, and every such order of the Welsh Commissioners under this section as relates to a benefice with respect to which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty have sent to the Welsh Commissioners full particulars of any private benefaction made thereto through them, shall be made with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty as the case requires.' (4) 'if any concurrence required by this section to any order is not given, the order shall be made with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen in Council given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.'"
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved to amend the Amendment by leaving out the word "such" in line 3. His object was to raise the point that the Welsh Commissioners should not be the one authority to decide under this clause what were private benefactions, but that the concurrence of a body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be required on behalf of the Church before the question was determined. The Home Secretary had met his view to this extent, that where the property was actually transferred from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners then they would have a voice in the matter. But there would be a great deal of other property which was now in the hands of individual Corporations, and it would be in the absolute discretion of the Welsh Commissioners to say
  1330
  whether it consisted of private benefactions or not. He thought that just, as Clause 4 required the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners to orders made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under that clause; so here it would be only fair and right to require the concurrence of the body representing the Established Church in an order under the present section.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, his hon. Friend would see that the Amendment was really unnecessary. Section 12 allowed an appeal to the Queen in Council against any decision of the Welsh Commissioners with respect to any question as to what constituted a private benefaction. Therefore the Welsh Commissioners had not absolute discretion to determine whether or not a benefaction should be deemed private; and he did not think it would be desirable to bring in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty. They would demur to having cast upon them the duty of expressing concurrence in a matter in which they had no special knowledge, and which might involve them in an expensive and troublesome inquiry. It would be more convenient that the concurrence of these two bodies should only be required when they themselves had some proprietary or other interest in the question.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he should have thought that to put every person aggrieved to the expense and trouble of appearing before the Privy Council might be to inflict very considerable hardship. He would not, however, press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN moved in line 6 of the proposed Amendment to omit the words "through them." The practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and of Queen Anne's Bounty was to make a contribution on condition that a sum was raised from other sources, and that sum was, of course, a private benefaction. The object of the Amendment, he understood, was—that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty might make a declaration that that sum was a private benefaction, and he wanted to know why the words "through them" were necessary.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was only in cases where a benefaction, not from their own funds, passed through their hands that the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty would be required, because it was only in respect of these grants that they would have any knowledge as to the date on which they were made, and as to the sources from which they came.
  Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. ASQUITH'SMr. ASQUITH'S Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved—
  "(5) Where part only of any glebe is a private benefaction within the meaning of this Act, the glebe shall either—

  (a) be divided; or,

  (b) be vested wholly in the representative body, upon payment by that body to the Welsh Commissioners of the value of such part of the glebe as is not a private benefaction; or,

  (c) be retained wholly by the Welsh Commissioners, subject to the payment by them to the representative body of the value of such part of the glebe as is a private benefaction.

  (6) Where a part only of any tithe rent-charge is a private benefaction within the meaning of this Act, the whole of that tithe rent-charge shall be retained by the Welsh Commissioners subject to the payment by them to the representative body either of an annual or a capital sum, as the Welsh Commissioners determine in respect of the value of such part of the tithe rent-charge as is a private benefaction.
  (7) The Welsh Commissioners and the representative body may make and give effect to agreements for carrying into effect the provisions of this section respecting the division, vesting, and retention of glebe or tithe rent-charge of which part only is a private benefaction and the payment in respect thereof, and in default of agreement in any case the question shall be determined by arbitration."
  MR.GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN MR.GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN moved to insert in line 13, after "shall," "at the option of the representative body" He said that glebe often surrounded the parsonage house, and argued that the clergyman who lived in that house ought to have the right through the representative body of saying whether he wished the glebe to be divided, or reserved, or parted with.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that this question could not of course be raised until after the existing interest had expired. He could not accept the Amendment. The effect of it would be this. Take the
  1332
  case of a glebe, 99 per cent. of which was an ancient endowment, and 1 per cent. had been added since 1662. The whole of the glebe would be vested in the representative body, and the Welsh Commissioners would have to take in payment or in rent-charge an equivalent for their share. This would be an undesirable state of things. It was clearly better to leave the arbitrator to say which of the two competing bodies had the preponderant interest or whether there were any local circumstances which suggested a different solution. It was better to rely on the good sense and judgment of the arbitrator to have full regard to the special circumstances which the hon. Member had indicated to do justice between the parties; and thus he preferred to leave the provisions in the elastic form in which it appeared in the clause.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of a glebe, part of which was ascertained by an impartial tribunal to be a private benefaction within the meaning of the clause; and, therefore, belonged to the representative body of the Church. Why should there be any arbitration in the matter? Why should not the representative body be given the power to purchase at a fair price if they chose the rest of the glebe as well as the portion to which it was entitled under this clause? It might be a matter of the greatest importance with reference to the position of the incumbent in the living. All that was given to the representative body by adopting this Amendment would be the chance of making the parsonage and its surroundings more agreeable to the incumbent and more convenient as a place of residence in future. Surely that was a small concession to ask.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the Government had to consider not only the representative body, but the interests of the Welsh Commissioners, or rather the interests of the parish. It might be most important to the parish that the glebe should be used for the purposes contemplated by the Bill. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow the representative body if it so chose, by virtue of the possession of a single rood of a large glebe, to withhold the whole of the glebe altogether from the enjoyment of

  1333
  the parish, and on the payment of a sum of money to retain it for the purposes of the representative body. This was very undesirable, and in the interests of the parish and the Welsh Commissioners he did not think that the option ought to be with the representative body any more than with the other authority. He thought it was better to leave a question of that kind to arbitration.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONpointed out that the representative body in these arbitration schemes would at least have to pay a large share of the cost, and as far as he could see the whole scheme of the Bill was one to endow the legal profession at the expense of the ecclesiastical. There was one other point which appeared to be overlooked, and that was that this glebe at present belonged to one of the parties, and all that was asked was that they should be allowed to say whether they preferred to retain it, and pay ransom for it, or give it up. It appeared to him that this was an exceedingly reasonable Amendment.
  *MR. E. W. BYRNEsaid, that in the clause as it stood there was no guide given to the arbitrators. That was not common or usual in arbitration. There was generally a guide given to the arbitrator as to who primâ facie had the choice, and therefore he would ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the Amendment. On the one hand, there were the parties who were to take a property which they had never held before—and in 999 cases out of a 1,000 it would be better for them to take the money than to have the land; and, on the other hand, in a very large number of cases, it would be important for those who had the land to have the option of retaining for a number of various reasons. He put it to the Home Secretary whether it was not reasonable to say—You, who have hitherto held the land, shall have the right to say whether you will retain the land or whether you like to give up the primâ facie right and take the price.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDventured again to call attention to what happened in the case of the Irish Church. The representative body were allowed to purchase all the glebe lands, and they did so purchase them. What happened after that? In cases in which two parishes had to be united, the representative body had to sell what glebes they did not
  1334
  require, and they would again come into the open market. In the case of the Church of Ireland, the sitting tenant, the rector, and the representative body, had the right to be the purchasers of every acre of glebe, and for the life of him he could not see why the same measure should not be meted out to the Church in Wales. If the land was not wanted for church purposes it would come into the open market, and could be purchased by the county or district council. This concession to the Church in Ireland gave her a fair start.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSurged on the Home Secretary that this was not a matter on which any section of his supporters had any strong feeling. All that was asked was that the owner should have the choice and not somebody else, and surely to every reasonable mind that was a fair proposition. If the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment, would he not deal with the question raised by his hon. and learned friend beside him, and indicate what was to govern the arbitrator if the unnecessary cost of arbitration had to be incurred owing to the action of the Government? He would also urge the Home Secretary to concede that if the larger portion of the glebe arose from private benefactions, then the owner should have the option.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he was quite willing to accept an Amendment, in the sense that where the larger portion of the glebe was private benefaction, the representative body should have the option, if that would meet the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought perhaps they might arrange a compromise with these words.
  SIR R. WEBSTERappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further. They had not, he ventured to say, been unreasonable in the manner they had brought forward their Amendments, and had not discussed any points that had been previously debated. Why should the Welsh Commissioners be entitled to dictate or ask the arbitrators to say that a man should not be left with the property when he was willing to pay the full value of it? There was no principle involved in this. If he thought he was asking the right hon. Gentleman to infringe any of the fundamental principles of the Bill, he should have no hope of his appeal being successful, but he

  1335
  was not asking for any infringement of the fundamental principles of the Bill. Surely, a person who was being deprived of property ought not also to be deprived of the right of saying, in the case in which it was taken from him, whether he would buy it back at its full value, or whether, where it was not so taken from him, he would have the money instead of being left with the property. Surely it was a reasonable thing to ask that this option should be given.
  MR. ASQUITHdid not care to keep up a controversy of this kind on a comparatively small point, and he would consent to accept this Amendment. In doing so, however, he must make one or two conditions. He observed a similar Amendment also in the name of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division, lower down on the Paper, dealing with the tithe rent-charge. He did not desire, nor would it be in order from him, to discuss that subsequent Amendment now, but he thought it was perfectly clear that it was most undesirable, in the interest of all the parties concerned, that the Representative Body should be be in the position of tithe-owner and tithe collector. They could not be injured pecuniarily by the tithe rent-charge being invested in the Commissioners, and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw that subsequent Amendment he would, on this question, accept the Amendment under discussion.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENintimated that he would not, under these circumstances, move his subsequent Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved the following Amendment, which, he explained, was necessary in order to make the meaning of the Amendment perfectly clear:—
  "Line 17, after 'glebe,' insert 'subject to any life interest preserved by this Act.'"
  The Amendment was accepted, as was the following, also Moved by Sir R. Webster:—
  "Line 24, leave out 'Welsh Commissioners,' and insert 'Representative Body.'"
  MR. ASQUITH'SMR. ASQUITH'S Amendment, as amended, was then formally put from the Chair and agreed to.
  On the Motion that Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he did not think anybody could say otherwise than that the clause had been discussed in a businesslike spirit. There was, however, one aspect of the clause to which he desired to direct attention. The Home Secretary had agreed to exempt Private benefactions from the operation of the Bill, not to the extent to which they ought to be exempted, but at least to some extent. Under the scheme of the clause, as amended, all private benefactions since 1662, with the exception of Queen Anne's Bounty, were exempted. He contended that the refusal to include Queen Anne's Bounty in the exemption constituted a breach of faith on the part of Parliament towards private benefactors, because a large number of private benefactions for Church objects were made to meet an equal sum from Queen Anne's Bounty for the same objects, and would never have been made at all were it not for the grants from the Bounty. He personally had some little experience in the matter. It happened that not very long ago he was engaged in a scheme for cutting a large parish in England into two smaller parishes. A generous private donor having come forward with a certain sum of money in aid of the endowment of the parishes, a similar grant was given for the same purpose from Queen Anne's Bounty. That money would not have been given by the private donor only he knew that a like advance would be made from Queen Anne's Bounty. There were thousands of cases of the same kind, and the refusal to exempt Queen Anne's Bounty from the Bill was in every one of these cases a distinct breach of faith on the part of Parliament towards the private benefactors, who gave their money in consideration of the grants from Queen Anne's Bounty. He thought the clause showed, more than any other clause, the logical and argumentative difficulties in which the Government had placed themselves by the Bill. He did not suppose any of his hon. Friends desired to take a Division upon the clause, and therefore he did not propose to challenge one, though he very much regretted the Home Secretary had not seen his way to go further and take a more generous view of private benefactions.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, he was anxious to give the reasons why he thought the clause ought not to pass without a Division. This was the first time in the history of Parliament when it was proposed by a clear enactment to devote private benefactions for religious purposes to other purposes. The Home Secretary had given way in several directions; he now seemed impressed that the was robbery greater than he at first imagined. This proposal constituted an entirely new departure. Tithes rested on a different footing, and this clause did not affect tithes; it really affected private benefactions, many of which had been given by deed, and given absolutely and definitely for religious purposes. Parliament was now for the first time setting aside these benefactions to secular purposes. It seemed to him the opponents were obliged to protest against the act of spoliation which was involved in the clause, and therefore he hoped his hon. Friends would divide against the clause.
  *MR. TOMLINSONthought they ought to make a final protest against the misappropriation of funds which, during successive centuries, had been set aside by Parliament to the purposes of the Church.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Islington in protesting against the idea that any endowments given to the Church by private persons should be appropriated by the State for secular purposes, at whatever date those endowments were given. But he suggested to his hon. Friend that the clause which committed this iniquity was Clause 3, and that the present clause, as far as it went, was in mitigation of the evil of Clause 3. The Opposition had endeavoured to extend the mitigating effects of the clause, and had failed, but by a majority so small that he hoped the proposal might be raised again at another stage with greater success. He hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee against the clause. If it were struck out he did not know what would happen to the Bill or to the Government, but it would make the Bill infinitely worse from the Opposition's point of view. The Committee had made considerable progress with the Bill during the evening; Clause 6 entered upon new ground, and he hoped the
  1338
  Government would not ask the Committee to proceed with the Bill at that sitting.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee, report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [14th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was very unwilling to interpose at this stage of the Bill, but he really should be glad if they could have some further explanation with regard to it from the Government. They would give him credit for interposing from any desire to cause them inconvenience. The Bill related to an arrangement made as between Russia and Great Britain, and as respected Russian waters, and it could not fail to have some effect on the position of matters as far as the United States was concerned. In the earlier part of the Session he had asked questions with regard to the progress of the negotiations as affecting the United States. He had no doubt Her Majesty's Government were desirous of bringing them to a conclusion as soon as they could. At the same time, it was extremely unsatisfactory that restrictions should be imposed upon British seamen in the navigation of the high seas. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told them it was necessary, in connection with the promotion of these schemes, to maintain the arrangement between Russia and Great Britain which expired some time last year. The House was absolutely ignorant of the facts. No papers had been produced, and he had assumed in favour of Her Majesty's Government that there were reasons why papers could not be produced. Before the House acceded to the Second Reading of a Bill which was to restrict the rights of British subjects in regard to fisheries on the high seas, they ought to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government of the necessity for passing the Bill.
  It being now midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

  SUPREME COURT (OFFICERS) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTERasked what course the Government were going to take with regard to the Bill. He did not propose to discuss it now, but there were very strong feelings about it both from the point of view of the proper control of the officers of the High Court of Justice, and of the serious objections of the officers themselves. Having regard to these feelings, in the present stage of the Session. it really seemed hopeless to attempt to pass it, and therefore useless to keep it on the Paper.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he begged to move "That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY [14th JUNE].
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1895–96.

  CLASS I.
  On the Resolution—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £74,000 (including a supplementary sum of £6,000) be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for the royal parks and pleasure gardens,"——
  *MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he desired to draw attention to the proposal to allow bicycling in Hyde Park at certain hours, to which proposal he very much objected. The proposal had been brought forward in a very surreptitious and secret manner, but he believed that after the rules had been laid upon the Table of the House for 40 days they were to have people caracolling around Hyde Park on bicycles. The fact was that the whole thing was a job between hon. Members and the ladies to whom they were permanently attached or hoped to be permanently attached. It appeared that bicycling was to be allowed in the Park only before Ten o'clock in the morning. For his part he objected to bicycling altogether in Hyde Park, but it was evident that this was class legislation. The richer classes who could perform on bicycles before Ten o'clock in the morning would be allowed
  1340
  to do so; but the poor man, who could only ride a bicycle after his day's work was over, was to be prevented from using it in the park. He objected to bicycles altogether in the Parks, but he thought that everybody ought to have the same opportunites of taking their amusement upon these horrible contrivances, and he therefore moved to reduce the Vote £500, and he hoped that he should meet with the support of all hon. Gentlemen who represented democratic constituencies.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONseconded the Motion.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said, that he was not sure that this question, directly arose out of this Vote, but he must remind the hon. Gentleman that at the present moment bicycling was not allowed in Hyde Park, seeing that the rules by which they would be admitted had not yet been laid upon the Table of the House. He would suggest, therefore, to the hon. Gentleman that he should wait until the rules were laid upon the Table, when he might raise a discussion in reference to them.
  *MR. DISRAELIsaid, that after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution agreed to.
  On the Resolution—
  "That a sum not exceeding £24,325 be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings,"—
  [Mr. JUSTIN MCCARTHY, Mr. L. P. HAYDEN, and Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose together. There were loud calls for Mr. Hayden and Mr. Justin McCarthy.]
  MR. W. REDMOND MR. W. REDMOND rose to Order. He wished to ask whether, in a matter of this kind, the hon. Member who had moved the reduction of the Vote in Committee of Supply, and who had given notice of his intention to move a similar reduction on the Report, was not entitled to move the reduction of the Vote on the Report.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Of course the hon. Gentleman who has given notice of his intention to move a reduction of the

  1341
  Vote will be entitled to make his Motion, but the hon. Gentleman who first catches my eye has the right to speak first.
  *MR. JUSTIN MCCARTHY: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500 for the purpose of preventing the erection of a statue, by public money, in or about this House in memory of Oliver Cromwell. Now, even if I were an English Member of this House, and if I were a great admirer of the fame of Oliver Cromwell, I should still object to raise a statue as a national monument to his memory in defiance of the opinion of a large number of Members of this House, who are supposed and admitted to belong to the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. I can hardly imagine the possibility, if the Netherlands had continued under the rule of Spain, of the Netherlanders erecting a national monument to the Duke of Alva. The Duke of Alva represented to the population of the Netherlands just the same feelings and memories as Oliver Cromwell represented to the Irish people. He was our most unsympathetic, persistent, determined, and ruthless enemy; every fibre in his heart throbbed against the Irish people, and every fibre in the Irish national heart throbs against his memory. I cannot understand how a Liberal Government, and how above all a Home Rule Government, could find it in their minds to put what we could not help thinking an insult upon the Irish people, by pressing that we should out of our national resources help to erect a statue of Oliver Cromwell in or about the Imperial Chamber of this Parliament. I contend that it is not fair to ask Irish Members of Parliament to join in raising a monument of national recognition to a man, who, above all other men, was the enemy of the Irish race, and of Irish national feeling. I should like to know what would be thought of me if I were in this House—supposing it to be in my legal and constitutional power to do so—to propose that a statue should be erected within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament in the honour of some great Irish leader who fought against Cromwell. What would English Members think, if, for instance, I were to suggest the erection of a monument in or near the Houses of Parliament to Owen Roe O'Neill, who was elected Commander-in-Chief of the Irish national forces against Cromwell, who defeated Cromwell's
  1342
  lieutenants more than once, who, but for his sudden death, might have encountered Cromwell himself when he came over to Ireland, and who might then have changed the whole course of the history of the Irish people. I shall be curious to know how many Liberal Members are going to vote for this outlay of money for the statue of Cromwell, who, I repeat, was the most unsympathetic and the most relentless enemy the Irish race ever had to encounter; and I cannot understand how hon. Members of this House can fail to comprehend that it is a duty, and a sacred duty, for the Irish Members to strenuously oppose any national recognition of a man who was so bitter and so cruel towards the Irish people This question whether Cromwell should have a statue has been raised time after time in my recollection. Everyone must know who has followed the history of Parliament that it has met with opposition—incessant opposition from the Irish Members, and from other Members—Conservative Members of the House of Commons. I am surprised and sorry that the Government should now, in the days when we hope to carry a measure of Home Rule—I am surprised that any Liberal Ministry should have obtruded this Vote on the House, and I can only say that my Friends who act with me give it their strongest opposition. I, therefore move the reduction of the Vote.
  *MR. L. P. HAYDENin rising to second the reduction, did not complain of not having been called upon by the Speaker in the first instance, as he took sufficient satisfaction to himself in having raised the question three months ago, and he was glad that he had brought the House together that night to resist the Vote. He believed that the opposition to it had been enormously increased since the Vote of Friday night. All the organs of the Press, with few exceptions, had expressed opposition to it. [Cries of "No!" from the Ministerial Benches] One exception had been the Daily News, which had said that it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons if it refused to vote the money for this statue. He believed, however, that the disgrace would be all the other way, and he believed that the House of Commons would reverse the decision which the Committee arrived at on Friday night,

  1343
  and would refuse a statue to one who behaved so cruelly in Ireland. He did not intend to discuss Cromwell's conduct in England, but if Englishmen insisted on making Irish Members discuss the business of spending the money of this country as well as their own, they would refuse to vote money to glorify the memory of a man whom they would always detest, and whom they had strong reasons for detesting. Although 250 years had passed away, they could not forget that Cromwell's one aim was to have cleared out the Irish people from the Island. He failed to do that. But as long as he left a remnant of that people they would fight English rule, and they would fight that night one of the worst symbols of it which could be suggested. He did not intend to postpone the Division. He only rose to Second the Motion for reduction of the Vote, and hoped that a strong majority would refuse to sanction the spending of this sum.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne): I have listened to both the speeches of the mover and seconder of this Motion, and considering my position in the Government, I have taken a not unnatural interest in them. My hon. Friend who moved the reduction of this Vote said that he wondered how we so little comprehended the sentiments and feelings of his countrymen as to put a Vote like this on the Table of the House. I think my hon. Friend and the Gentlemen who sit round him will not accuse me at all events of failing to sympathise even with the deepest emotions of his countrymen, but I frankly confess, though I have done my best to make myself at home with the sympathies, sentiments, and yearnings of Irishmen, I myself did not suppose that the fires of two-and-a-half centuries ago still burn with intense heat. That may have been my ignorance, but it is an ignorance I share with my colleagues, and I should say it is shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are not, I presume, going to Vote, as they did the other night, out of sympathy with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, for the policy of Cromwell, which both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night have denounced, is in effect the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Loud Opposition cries of "No" and cheers.] I am
  1344
  anxious on this occasion not to make a controversial or polemical speech; but if that were my object I think I could show that Cromwell, the first great Unionist, was the man who closed the doors of the Irish Parliament. [Cheers and Opposition cries of "The English."] I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the other night—that, in proposing this Vote we hoped we were making a proposal upon which Members in all parts of the House might agree. Instead of that we find, and it is our duty to recognise, it that gentlemen from Ireland, whose representatives in Ireland, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, thought it right to redecorate and reinstitute the statue of King William III., who, I should have thought, was as determined an enemy of their ends as Oliver Cromwell. We supposed that we might look for the same magnanimous and conciliatory temper on this occasion as was shown by the Corporation of Dublin not many years ago in that proceeding. I have never been an admirer of the Irish policy of Cromwell. It was not only stained by what I regard as crime, but it was a political blunder—the greatest blot upon his illustrious name. History must deal with the doings of Cromwell in Ireland, and I cannot doubt that the verdict of history upon these doings will be a condemnation of all that Cromwell did and all that Cromwell aimed at in Ireland. They will remain a dark blot upon his great fame. I do not agree for a moment, however, in what my hon. Friend who moved the reduction of this Vote said when he declared that he thought Cromwell had burning in every fibre of his heart hatred of Ireland. I am bound to say I do not think he had anything of the kind. What Cromwell had in his mind when he was carrying out these ruthless measures of his was the incorporation of Ireland in the United Kingdom. He went the wrong way about it. As had been said, he either confiscated too much, or he exterminated too little. I understand perfectly well the point of view of Gentlemen from Ireland, though I do not sympathise with them. But this Vote is opposed not only by Gentlemen from Ireland, it is opposed by the Conservative Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that

  1345
  he failed entirely to see upon what principle this Vote was proposed. He said—
  "Is it because Cromwell was a great statesman, a figure and a character of great energy and great power?"
  And he asked—
  "Then why do they not propose a statue to Strafford?"
  I will give the right hon. Gentleman the answer in a single expression, the force of which I do not think he or Gentlemen opposite will be able to deny. Cromwell was what Strafford never was, nor any other statesman. Cromwell was for years the head of the State. Cromwell, as the head of the State, was the founder of the naval greatness of the country. [Cries of "Lord Howard" and "Blake."] The foundation of the maritime greatness of the nation was laid in the time of the Commonwealth. [Cries of "Blake."] An hon. Member says "Blake," but Blake was a Cromwellian. Cromwell was not only the founder of the maritime greatness of England; he was the ruler, the titular ruler, and the real ruler, to whom foreign Courts had accredited their representatives and Ambassadors, and who in their turn were only too glad to receive and pay deference to the Ambassadors whom he sent. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of Strafford he entirely ignores the fact that for five years England had as the head of the realm a ruler and a prince who held the head of England higher, who made her power in Europe greater, than it ever was before, and as great as it has ever been since. But then the right hon. Gentleman will. Have you proposed a statue to Cromwell from the point of view of Jingoism? No, not at all, because Cromwell's desire was that the power and the strength of England should be exerted in Europe, not for mere aggrandisement or for mere territorial annexation, but for what he considered, rightly or wrongly, a great moral, political, and even spiritual cause. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the powerful historic Party of all Parties in the world—when they repudiate the notion of recognising in this form of a statue one of the greatest rulers [Some Opposition cries of "Regicide!"] we ever had, one of the greatest
  1346
  statesmen we ever had, I think they are breaking furiously away from the traditions of their Party. [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] When intelligent, cultivated, educated persons, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite somewhat pharisaically declare themselves to represent [Opposition, cries of "When?" and "Rosebery!"]—when they take up this position [Cries of "No; Rosebery!"] of refusing to recognise a name which is honoured and revered wherever the English language is spoken [Nationalist cries of "No!"]—leaving out Ireland—when educated, intelligent, cultivated persons who know what English history is, and who recognise the greatness of the greatest names in English history, hear of the attitude of hon. Gentleman opposite, they will, I think, feel very great amazement. But I know quite well what a storm we expose ourselves to, and, in face of the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and in face of what surprises me still more, namely, the attitude taken up by the gentlemen from England. It is perfectly clear that the movement which we propose would not be, and could not be, under these rather surprising conditions, any tribute of a truly national character. Cromwell's is a name that is written in our history. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the other night that Cromwell had left no traces behind him. This is not the occasion for an academic discussion between me and the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but, at any rate, Cromwell left behind him the freedom and the liberties of the people. It is quite true that Cromwell closed the doors of this House; but the England after Cromwell had departed was cast in a different mould from the England which he found. He moulded modern England ["Oh, oh," "No," and cheers]; but as I said, this is not the occasion for an academic discussion. We have other things to think about. The Government feel, however, that unless this monument were the expression of a national recognition ["Oh, oh"] of one of the greatest names—of one of the greatest princes and rulers who ever swayed the destinies of this realm—we shall miss the purpose for which the vote was proposed; and that being the case we shall not object to the withdrawal of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: While I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Government upon the conclusion at which they have arrived, I cannot congratulate them on the manner in which it has been announced. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he did not intend or desire to make a controversial speech. I do not think it can be said that he has succeeded in carrying out that benevolent wish. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, had he not deliberately singled me out for attack in this matter I should not have thought it necessary to add a word to what I said the other night. But the speech which I made has had the result of producing some effect apparently on the minds of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the speakers from Ireland, told us that it was an unexpected surprise to the Government that the revived memories of 250 years still rankled in their breasts. Anyone who has not realised that the whole history of Ireland consists of memories, not only of 250 years old, but of 500 years old, has not yet begun, I venture to say, to understand Irish history. The Irish question does not deal with present realities—it deals with memories; it is based on memories, stimulated on memories, and fed on memories—and unless we realise that, whether we agree or do not agree, we fail to understand the position they occupy. I pass from that to what the right hon. Gentleman has observed about Cromwell as an English statesman as distinguished from a statesman dealing with the three kingdoms, and he has told us that the reason why Cromwell has been specially selected by the Government is—that Cromwell was, for some period, one of the rulers of England; and he was to be distinguished in that particular regard from Strafford, whom I mentioned incidentally on Friday night as one to whom no statue was proposed to be erected. I again ask: Are we to put up this statue to Cromwell as a man who succeeded, in a quasi-kingly way, the king whose head ha cut off? Is that the title he has to our regard, because if it is he does not bear it alone? We must increase the Vote by another £500 and put up a statue to Richard Cromwell. If you are going to complete the series—which may be a very proper thing to do—of men
  1348
  who have either been kings of England or held kingly office, call it by what name you like, then Richard Cromwell must be added to Oliver. But after all we know that is not the reason. There is a much more plausible, a much sounder, reason, and one with which an English Parliament can sympathise. They say he was a very eminent Englishman, to which we all agree. They also, apparently, say he founded the naval power of England. To that I do not agree. Are we really to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman never heard or has temporarily forgotten that such persons as Drake or Hawkins ever existed, or that the Armada had been successfully combated? I thought England had proved herself, at the end of the 16th century, to be the greatest Naval Power, as she most undoubtedly did; and though I give full honour to Cromwell as a statesman who had the most energetic and vigorous foreign policy of almost any of those who ever preceded or succeeded him, I should not think it right to say he was the founder of the naval power of England. I say distinctly, and all modern and most recent research, the recently published volume of the "Naval Record" series, all support the statement that at that time the English Navy was the greatest navy in the world; and let me add, the triumphs of Blake and the whole of the great Commonwealth sailors do not, on the whole, compare with the great Elizabethan sailors. Take them all in all, in point of discoveries and in deeds of national importance, there is no comparison between them. I only wish to traverse the contention of the right hon. Gentleman; but if he says he, as a Member of the Government especially animated by a desire to have a vigorous foreign policy—who wish to do honour to a great predecessor, if I am to regard Cromwell as a forerunner of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then I think, though the parallel is an unexpected one, I do understand the motives which have animated the Government. When I am told that I am bound to admire Cromwell, not merely as the great author of the jingo policy, but as a man who, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, did more than anybody else to maintain the freedom and liberties of this people, then I really am utterly staggered. Is it possible that history can be read so differently as it is evidently read by the

  1349
  right hon. Gentleman and myself? I had always understood that Cromwell was an able, a vigorous, and in many respects a beneficent, ruler, and certainly a very strong man. But I have always understood that he depended, and depended wholly, not upon the will of the people, not upon public opinion, but upon the Army alone. And I am to be told that the man who not only destroyed the Parliament which he found, but attempted in vain to set up every other Parliament in its place, and who was forced after every experiment to admit that his power and the Parliamentary power could not co-exist—and I am to be told that he is the founder of our liberties? The paradox is fatal, and is too glaring. Whatever else we can say of Cromwell—and we can say much in praise—we cannot say he was a constitutional statesman, we cannot say he was the founder of liberty, and we cannot say he was the author of any modern development of the English Constitution. If I am asked to do honour to Cromwell as a great man I will do it. If I am asked to vote money for his statue I can conceive circumstances under which I could do that also; but I do not see my way now—[ironical Ministerial cheers]—any more than I did on Friday last, to voting a sporadic £500 to encourage English art for the purpose of commemorating one single man, chosen on no principle—["Oh, oh!"]—chosen, at all events, on no principle we have yet heard stated from the Treasury Bench. Till I know whether the Government mean to carry out a great scheme of commemorating great Englishmen of the past, I certainly am not going to vote in favour of giving this particular commemoration to one individual who, whatever merits he possesses, does not possess the merit of being a national hero equally respected and equally remembered in every part of that United Kingdom whose citizens we are.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,would not have intervened in this Debate, but he was anxious to explain the reasons which governed him in the vote he was about to give. He had listened with amazement and regret to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There were parts of it, containing many noble passages, which had his full sympathy, and which he thought would have
  1350
  pledged the right hon. Gentleman to go on with the Vote. He never would have supposed that a speech of that kind, and arguments of that force, were to lead up to such an impotent conclusion. Because his opinion was not the opinion of everyone else in the House, the right hon. Gentleman took his inarching orders, and gave up his convictions for the convictions of the Nationalist Party. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, answered the question of the Leader of the Opposition when he asked why there was not to be a statue of Strafford. The name of Strafford was inseparably associated with the policy of "thorough," and with a policy of "thorough" this Government could have nothing to do. He thought there were many reasons why they should erect a statue to Oliver Cromwell. One reason was that, as the question had been raised, it was necessary for the credit of the House of Commons that they should maintain the decision which had been already come to. He thought it unfortunate that the question should have been treated very largely from the Irish point of view, and he did not wish to add fuel to the fires of national animosity. But the speech of the hon. Member for Longford was a strange commentary on the doctrine of the "Union of Hearts," of which so much was heard, because it showed that the hon. Gentleman had forgotten nothing and forgiven nothing in Irish history. But, as he had said, there were many reasons why the House should vote a statue to Cromwell. In the House of Commons they had, in considering this question, to take into account other interests besides the interests of Ireland. He pleaded for a statue to Cromwell on the ground that Cromwell was one of the greatest rulers this country had ever had. If they took the names of the five greatest of our rulers the name of Cromwell would be found amongst them. Three of those rulers were represented by statues in the precincts of the House; and Cromwell and Elizabeth, whom he would put amongst the first of the group, were alone unrepresented. When Cromwell took over the management of the affairs of this country he found it in almost the lowest depths it had ever reached. He made it one of the proudest nations in Europe. While he lived and ruled the country Englishmen might carry their heads

  1351
  high, and might be proud to belong to this nation, for they were sure of their nation being respected amongst foreign powers. That alone was for him sufficient reason for voting for a statue to Cromwell. Even when they considered his dealings with the House of Commons there was more to be said for Cromwell than the Leader of the Opposition would allow.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish we had him now.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas inclined to agree with his hon. Friend. What was the House of Commons that Cromwell suppressed? It was a House of Commons that had long outstayed its welcome. It was a Party majority in the House of Commons which had ceased to represent the feelings of the country, and which knew it could not face an appeal to the country. It was a House that had abolished the other Chamber, and which, at the very moment that its deliberations were closed by Cromwell, was considering, by means very little creditable to it, how it might prolong its wretched existence. Cromwell came down to the House of Commons—one almost wished with his hon. Friend there was some man to do it to-day—to tell those who had lost the confidence of the country, and who yet would not quit the power which they were too weak to wield, to make place for better men, and to cease to make the business of the nation the plaything and tool of party. Even in those feelings of his which had been most censured they might find something to admire, and at any rate something which no House of Commons should forget. It was well they should have within these walls, or within the precincts of this House, a statue of the man who once taught the House of Commons that great lesson. He should vote for the erection of the statue in the hope that when it was placed within these walls it might call to mind this lesson to Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench when they were in like circumstances, and that they might be cautioned by the fate that befell that House of Commons never to run the same risks again or degrade this great Assembly so far.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid, that at One o'clock in the morning he would not indulge in extremely interesting but
  1352
  somewhat unpractical criticisms upon what took place some 300 years ago. He was under the impression that the Government were rather short in the matter of time. It, therefore, seemed to him somewhat surprising that they, without considering what would be the view taken by Members of the House, should last Friday condemn them to a discussion of two hours upon a Vote for a statue of Oliver Cromwell, and when they had granted the money tell them that the whole time was absolutely wasted. The Irish Secretary now told them that, to his great and intense surprise, he found the Irish objected to a statue to Cromwell. The right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of living in Ireland and of governing Ireland, and yet he actually came down to the House and told them he was under the impression that Oliver Cromwell was loved in Ireland, and that the enthusiasm of the Irish members of all classes for the Government would be increased by the proposal to erect a statue to Oliver Cromwell. He sympathised to a very great extent with the feelings of his hon. Friends opposite. He could perfectly understand that they were opposed to a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell did nothing, certainly nothing in Ireland, to recommend himself to them. Cromwell most unquestionably acted with the greatest barbarity in his conduct towards the Irish, but hon. gentlemen must remember two things. Oliver Cromwell acted very much according to the spirit of his age. [Colonel NOLAN: "Raleigh."] His hon. Friend thought that Raleigh should have a statue as well. Surely Raleigh committed atrocities in Ireland as great as Oliver Cromwell, who only followed the example set by the leading men in the reign of Quean Elizabeth? But the other point which he asked hon. Members for Ireland to consider was this—that they were in London and not in Dublin. They were not asked to erect a statue to Cromwell in Dublin. He would remind them that those who proposed this vote were Englishmen who wished to erect a statue to Cromwell in London. The Leader of the Opposition had said that he could not conceive why Cromwell should have a statue and Strafford not. The reason was, that Strafford was one of the vilest instruments of the tyranny of Charles I., [Cheers and "Oh !"], while Cromwell

  1353
  avenged liberty on Charles I. To him Cromwell was the embodiment of successful resistance to arbitrary power. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear"], and though there might have been as great or greater rulers than Cromwell, yet he was, what they were not, as well as a man of genius, the greatest ruler which this nation had ever known. He could understand that in the present circumstances the Government would have bee a wiser not to bring this controversial Vote before the House, but having done so, it seemed a miserable thing to bring it in one day and back out of it two days later. He called upon every Member of this House who voted for the statue to Cromwell on Friday, to vote for it also on this occasion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that as one of those instrumental in raising this question, he should wish to say a word. He heartily congratulated the hon. Member for North Roscommon—as all Irishmen worthy of the name in every part of the world would do—for having brought this matter to a successful issue. He hoped that he should not be wanting in courtesy if he added that he thought it would have been more magnanimous and fair on the part of the hon. Member for Longford if he had left this matter in the hands of the hon. Gentleman who raised it. All Irishmen would join in the wonder expressed by the hon. Member for Longford at the Government ever thinking of putting up a statue to Oliver Cromwell. That wonder would be increased tenfold when they read the speech of the Chief Secretary, who had been for the past three years in Ireland, who had twice occupied the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and who was still able to tell the House and the people of this country that he had not learnt with what loathing and horror the Irish nation regarded the memory and name of Oliver Cromwell. On Friday night the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer uttered a direct incitement to the excited Nationalists of Dublin to destroy a statue in that city. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward as a reason why Irish Members should not object to a statue of Cromwell, that there was a statue of William of Orange in Dublin. True, it was there, and an ugly one it was, but it was erected at a time when national feeling had no
  1354
  power in the country, when the smallest minority in the country controlled even the municipality of Dublin; and it was unreasonable to say that the people of Ireland should look with favour upon a statue of Cromwell because they tolerated in the interest of the minority a distasteful monument in a street of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman would be lucky if, before he ceased to be Chief Secretary, he did not find himself prosecuting some people who considered themselves incited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make war upon this statue. The Chief Secretary said that Cromwell's name was looked upon with reverence and admiration by intelligent and cultured people in every part of the world. It was true that, owing to our system of Government, the Irish people had been somewhat restricted in the matter of culture, but nothing the Government could do could interfere with the intelligence of the Irish people, which was at least equal to that of the Treasury Bench at the present time. The Chief Secretary said the name of Cromwell was revered wherever the Queen's English was spoken; but wherever it was spoken there there were found Irishmen by whom the name of Cromwell was despised as much as it was admired by some Englishmen. As a man said in Ireland the other day, after supporting the Government with a blind loyalty never equalled in the history of politics, all that the majority of Irish Members could take back to Ireland was a statue of Cromwell; it was bad enough to have nothing, but that was worse than nothing. Every Irish newspaper had condemned this proposal—including Conservative journals and Nationalist of every shade; and to carry it would be to put on the Irish people an insult which would be intolerable. Where was this statue-erecting to end? By-and-by he supposed that a proposal would be made that every person with Royal blood in their veins should have a statue, and on the Estimates they would find an item of £500 sterling to erect a statue to the last of the Plantagenets.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It cannot be denied that we have had an interesting and entertaining evening. At a quarter-past One in the morning I suggested to the House that the subject might drop. This is one of those occasions on which I

  1355
  remember Lord Palmerston's saying in this House it is desirable there should be considerable unanimity. When you are erecting a national monument you should have pretty general assent, and as it is obvious that there is not that general assent we should defeat the whole object we have in view if we attempted to press the matter on the attention of the House. I confess the same ignorance which my right hon. Friend has admitted. I was not aware we were treading on the smouldering ashes of these treacherous fires. Now they have burst forth it seems to me that the best thing that we can do in the interests of the House is to extinguish them as soon as we can. It is a reasonable and sensible course. I sympathise with the sentiment so well expressed by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire. I doubt very much whether by securing a considerable vote against Oliver Cromwell he would attain the object he has at heart. Therefore I cannot agree in the course he seems to favour. Oliver Cromwell is—like Mary Queen of Scots or Mary Tudor—an historical character upon whom a great number of people hold different opinions. As a great conflict of opinion has been raised it would be wasting the time and the temper of the House of Commons if the matter were pressed beyond the point which we have already attained. I do not regard it as a matter of first-rate importance, and so strong a feeling has been expressed by the Members from Ireland and the Leader of the Opposition that I think it is the duty of the Government to say they will not press this proposition, and therefore, when the Motion is put that this Vote be reduced by the sum appointed for the statue, we shall not oppose it. If the Government has misinterpreted the feeling of the House they must take the responsibility for it and bear the blame. They acknowledged that the Vote was one that it certainly would not be wise to press, reserving all our own opinions with reference to the character of the man to whom we desired to do honour. Under these circumstances, when the question that the Vote shall be reduced is put from the chair, we shall not oppose the Motion.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that it was not so easy to lay the ghost of
  1356
  Oliver Cromwell as some hon. Members appeared to suppose. This Vote had already been passed by a considerable majority in Committee, and now they were asked by Her Majesty's Government to stultify themselves by rescinding their previous Resolution. It was his intention, and he believed that there were a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who took the same view of the matter as he did, to back up the original intention of the Government, and to give the latter an opportunity of showing in the Division Lobby that their original intention was the one dearest to their hearts. He quite agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said—namely, that as far as Oliver Cromwell was concerned the Government did not know much about Ireland. He quite sympathised with hon. Members below the Gangway, because he knew that with them, at all events, Oliver Cromwell was not popular. The hon. Member who had seconded the Amendment had associated himself with those people whom he said Oliver Cromwell had persecuted because he held the same views with regard to the resistance to English rule that they did. Perhaps if he held the same views on that subject that the hon. Member did he should have adopted a similar course to what the hon. Gentleman had done. He shared the astonishment of the hon. Member that the Government should have thought of bringing such a Vote forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no Vote had ever been brought forward in the House of Commons that could give more pleasure to the Nonconformists than this one, and it had evidently been a question with the Government whether they should give way to the opinion of the English Nonconformists or whether they should give way to the orders of their masters from Ireland. Whether such a course would succeed in the country or not was another question—and it had certainly not succeeded at Inverness. Before he sat down he should like to say that ho was no new convert to the idea of erecting a statue to Oliver Cromwell, but, on the other hand, he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor

  1357
  of the Exchequer had so suddenly developed this admiration for that distinguished character, who, at all events, if reports were true, was not greatly in favour of a Local Veto Bill. He had always had a great admiration for a man whom he looked upon as one of the most distinguished rulers that over governed this country. As an Irishman, he admired Oliver Cromwell. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not admire the severity he used in Ireland, and he was certainly opposed to some of his methods. Oliver Cromwell came to Ireland in the years after the massacres of 1641, massacres which nothing short of a great vengeance could have satisfied. In those massacres between 40,000 and 50,000 Irish Protestant men, women, and children were killed, and under the circumstances they must excuse some of the severities of Oliver Cromwell. One thing that Cromwell did for Ireland was to revive her trade, and they found that shortly after he came to Ireland, so prosperous had she become that English landowners proposed protective measures to prevent the competition of Ireland in the English markets. He absolutely differed from the opinions expressed by his right hon. Friend below him; he believed that Oliver Cromwell did make the Navy of England, which he found in a helpless state. He made Great Britain what she had not been before, and made her respected among the nations of the world. The man who so distinguished himself deserved a statue. Oliver Cromwell rendered the Revolution of 1686 not only possible but inevitable, and founded the liberty which we enjoyed. He felt it his duty to Divide the House in order to show that he, at any rate, as an Irishman, was not ashamed—["Oh, oh!"]—nor afraid to state that, apart from some unfortunate circumstances in his history, he looked upon Oliver Cromwell on the whole as one of the greatest, finest, and noblest English rulers that they had ever seen in this country.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid, that he voted with the Government in Committee on Friday night for the statue, and he thought it most unfortunate and discreditable that the Government had been led to desert their supporters on this question. If the Government would stick to their principles with
  1358
  half the tenacity they stuck to office they would be far more respected. He voted for the statue because he held, as had been stated over and over again by other hon. Members, that Cromwell was a great Englishman. It was because he felt that the Conservative Party was now the only depository of the liberties Cromwell did so much to develop, and because that Party had a monopoly of the Imperial foreign policy of which he was the greatest exponent, that, as a Conservative, he felt himself free to vote for the statue.
  MR. A. BIRRELLsaid, this was one of the most interesting questions that had engaged the attention of the House during the Session—a question in which most of them were personally interested, and one on which many hon. Members were well qualified to speak. The matter was one, therefore, which ought to be fairly discussed. He confessed he was surprised at the ferocious rhetoric of hon. Members from Ireland, because the question was not an Irish one, but one as to whether Cromwell was really a great man and a great ruler, and whether they should erect a statue to a public character. The question of the morals of that character had nothing to do with the matter of a statue. It was enough for them, as Englishmen and Scotchmen, to know that Cromwell was Lord Protector of these realms, and that for very many Sundays—and here he should have the sympathy of his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight—was prayed for in Church by the Established clergy. Cromwell was our established head—our head of the Church and of the State, and, as some Members of the Opposition had acknowledged over and over again, he was a great and distinguished man. He vigorously represented the country abroad; ambassadors trembled at his frown; there were documents still in existence signed with his nervous handwriting as Oliver P., and that certainly meant quite as much as Charles R. The whole of our public statues were erected in our midst for the edification of intelligent foreigners and intelligent children. He was not aware that any grown man in the country took any particular interest in any of the statues which adorned their surroundings; but what would their children say—what would the intelligent foreigner say if they

  1359
  found that there was no tangible record of one of our greatest men, whose name and fame he had studied and was well acquainted with? The question was not at all one of Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland. He treated the inhabitants of Drogheda as they would have treated him and his followers. When a statue was raised to the memory of any man in recognition of any particular act or career, they always found it recorded on the pedestal, generally the prettiest part of the statue. He was looking at one that day erected on the Embankment to a man named Raikes, and if anyone wanted to know why it was erected, he would find on the pedestal that it was because he introduced Sunday Schools. Statues also had been erected to the memory of Jenner, and there again the reason was given on the pedestal—that this man introduced vaccination. He could understand that anyone who objected to vaccination or to Sunday schools, would object to such statues; but men of great public position and of great public character were not subjected to microscopic criticism on other matters than their public acts. Would any Englishman or Scotchman deny that Cromwell pre-eminently shone? Never mind his misdeeds. The question was, whether the historical records of this country would be complete without some honour were done to him? He dismissed from his mind the suggestion that Her Majesty's Ministers did not know of the unpopularity of Cromwell's memory in Ireland. No educated man could be ignorant of that fact. It might, perhaps, have been a foolish thing for the Government to bring this question forward; but he thought it would be a disgrace to the character of the House if they did not, all of them, take the opportunity of dividing upon it.
  *MR. W. RATHBONE, as one of the oldest Members of the House, thought he might say a few serious words. He regretted to hear one of the parts of the Chief Secretary's speech, when he said that Cromwell had raised the greatness of this country in foreign lands to the highest pitch. So did Napoleon Buonaparte. Both used their power to crush out liberty, and degraded their countrymen. Cromwell prepared the way for the degrading reigns of the Stuarts, and England was never more corrupt than
  1360
  under Charles II. and James II. ["Oh!"] He considered that true greatness did not consist in using power to crush out the liberties of their country and corrupt its inhabitants.
  *MR. R. G. WEBSTER, whose rising was greeted with loud and prolonged cries of "Divide!" said, he wished to interpose for only a very few minutes betwixt the House and the Division; but he could not let go unchallenged the peculiarly unfair and unjust sneer of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Birrell) at the clergy of the Church of England, more particularly as it was made whilst there was an attack being levelled against that Church by means of the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The hon. Member said that the clergy of the Church had, during the time of the Commonwealth, prayed for the Protector, and, therefore, he was entitled to a monument; and the hon. Member had inferred that they acted merely as time servers. He, however, totally forgot to add the historical fact that at that time hundreds of clergymen of the National Church threw up their livings, being in consequence reduced to a state of poverty, and did so rather than take the oath of allegiance to the Protector. It was a remarkable thing that at the present time the Government of the day should ask Parliament to pass a Vote for a statue to Cromwell, when it was recollected that for the last three years of his life Cromwell was doing everything in his power to reconstitute the House of Lords, and to abolish Representative Government in this country. Amongst other things which hon. Members for Irish constituencies, supporting the Ministerial Party, probably objected to in Cromwell was, that when he allowed Parliament to sit at all at Westminster, which was not often during his rule, it was essentially a Unionist Parliament, and contained representatives from both Ireland and Scotland, but only in the proportion of 400 from England, and 30 from Ireland and Scotland respectively. It was said that Cromwell's Parliament had, or was intended to have, representatives in it from the British Colonies, or, as they were then called, the British "Plantations." As hon. Members were impatient for a Division, he would not occupy the time of the House further than to say that the Government had,

  1361
  according to their own confession, apparently blundered into this mess—they had brought forward the Vote to provide funds to erect a statue to Cromwell without thought, and had abandoned the proposal without courage.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 83; Noes, 220.—(Division List No. 130.)
  MR. DAVID PLUNKETsaid, he wished to call attention to another question raised on Friday night—namely, the question of the official residences connected with the House of Lords. He might remind the House that only last year they obtained, after communications of a friendly character with the authorities of the House of Lords, the concession of a considerable number of rooms, of which the House of Commons was now in the enjoyment. He wished specially to refer to one of the officials of the House of Lords, with regard to whom statements were made, and to set right a misapprehension created in the House with reference to him—he meant Black Rod. It was stated by an hon. Member—he thought the hon. Member for Northampton—that Black Rod occupied 35 rooms, that it was a monstrous thing that 35 rooms should be occupied, that Black Rod shut up his rooms, and had not lived there for three or four years; and it was asked whether it was true that during the absence of Black Rod in the last three years the rooms had been sublet. The facts furnished to him showed that the size of Black Rod's House was exactly the same as that of the Serjeant-at-Arms—33 rooms—that there were three public rooms and 11 available bedrooms for family and servants. Black Rod had been in constant occupation of his house during the whole tenure of his office, and he had lived in in it continuously with his family, and had no other home.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid, the statement that Black Rod had at his disposal 35 rooms was founded on a Return by a Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The right hon. Gentleman did not question the accuracy of the Return, and, therefore, they were bound to accept the statement as correct. As to the other point, whether the premises were sublet, he contended that it
  1362
  was not unreasonable in the circumstances such a question should be asked, seeing Black Rod had not been able to perform the duties for two years. The real reason why the question was raised was to secure, in the event of any change taking place in the office of Black Rod, that more accommodation should be placed at the disposal of Members of this House.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that during the whole evening the Conservative Benches were entirely empty, there not being more than seven or eight Members present; and if the House of Lords were attacked in this way hon. Members had themselves to blame.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, it was very much to be regretted the right hon. Gentleman had not given notice of his intention to bring this matter forword at Two in the morning. He regretted the illness of Black Rod; but, seeing he had not discharged his duties for two years, surely it was his duty to resign and give up the rooms and his £2,000 a year to officials who would do the work. They wanted to know what he did with all these bedrooms and other rooms. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works could give them no information or help in the matter, which ho stated was not under his control. The Committee in the result decided that they would obtain possession of these rooms, and he hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee.
  MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, he could only speak again by the indulgence of the House. He asked to be permitted to say that he was present during the earlier part of the evening on which this Debate took place, and if he had had the smallest idea that this particular matter was to be raised he should have made an endeavour to be present. He was absent because he had to fulfil a long standing engagement, and this was the first opportunity he had had of giving the House the information which came into his possession a short time ago.
  *MR. W. R. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)understood that during his absence the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University had challenged the accuracy of the figures he (Mr. Cremer) quoted in the recent

  1363
  Debate which took place in Committee of Supply on this question.
  MR. PLUNKETremarked that that was not so. What he did was to explain that a great number of these rooms were not really rooms in the strict sense of the word, but were sculleries and so on, and that the bedrooms were not more than enough for the accommodation of the household of the person who held the position in question.
  *MR. CREMERwas sorry that he was for the moment absent from the House when the right hon. Gentleman, who had given him no notice, again raised this very important question. He ventured to say, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that the figures he (Mr. Cremer) quoted to the Committee on a previous occasion, were absolutely correct. When the return was submitted in manuscript to the Committee which considered the question of the accommodation in the House, he adopted the precaution of making a copy of it, and he repeated what he said the other night—that when that return reached them in the printed form, the mumber of rooms which, in the manuscript were given as 315, had been boiled down to 280 and the number of rooms at the disposal of the Speaker, instead of being 60 as originally was stated, were represented in the printed return as 50. Whether this alteration was made by somebody who was ashamed of the scandalous state of affairs the Report to the Committee brought to light he was unable to state, but the fact remained that while the number of rooms at the disposal of the Speaker was correctly given in the manuscript return, this number had been reduced or falsified in the printed form. It was because he considered it a scandalous state of affairs that 315 rooms should be placed at the disposal of officials, whilst Members of the House found it difficult even to get a room in which to receive deputations, that he moved the reduction of the Vote on Friday night. The rooms at the disposal of the Under Secretaries were also ill situated and altogether unsuitable for their purposes, and in face of such a state of affairs, and having regard to the large number of rooms available for officials, he considered hon. Members were perfectly justified in making the protest they made on Friday last.
  1364
  He did not think that even Members on the Treasury Bench were sorry they had made their protest, and that the Amendment had been carried.
  *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid his hon. Friend had given the House to understand that a certain written return was presented to the Committee, which was subsequently withdrawn, and a printed return substituted, which differed from the written one, and his hon. Friend suggested that this was done for the purpose of misleading the Committee. His hon. Friend was altogether wrong. The Officers of the Board of Works were asked to make out a table showing the number of rooms occupied by Officers of the Houses of Parliament. In the written return, many closets and other spaces in the building were inserted as rooms, which were not rooms; and, as in his opinion the return was calculated to give the House a misleading idea of the number of rooms occupied by officers, he directed that the second, or printed return, which gave only the actual rooms in occupation, should be issued.
  *MR. CREMERsaid there were no closets mentioned in the first return.
  Resolution as amended, agreed to.
  The other Resolutions adopted in Committee of Supply were agreed to.

  INSTITUTIONS FOR IDIOTS (EXEMP TION FROM RATES) BILL.
  Order for second reading read.
  *MR. J. ROUNDsaid, that in view of the hostile action of those who represented the Local Government Board in the House, he could not hope to carry the Bill further this Session. He desired to say, however, that the excessive rating to which these institutions had been recently subjected was the cause of the introduction of the Bill, and until that great injustice was removed, the friends of the institutions would not rest satisfied. He moved that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Two of the clock.