CLAUSE 8.—(Distribution of Property by Welsh Commissioners.)

HC Deb 18 December 1912 vol 45 cc1533-643

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Welsh Commissioners shall by Order transfer the property vested in them by this Act, as follows:—

1. (a) they shall transfer to the representative body—
1. (i.) all churches;
2. (ii.) all ecclesiastical residences, together with any movable chattels held and enjoyed with or as incident to the occupation of any such 1534 residence, by the incumbent for the time being of the office to which the residence is attached;
3. (iii.) all funds or Endowments specially allocated to the repair, restoration, or improvement of the fabric of any such church or ecclesiastical residence;
4. (iv.) all glebe: subject to the payment by the representative body to the Welsh Commissioners of a sum equal to the value of such part of the glebes so transferred to them as does not consist of private benefactions, such value to be determined by the Welsh Commissioners, regard being had to the tenancies, charges, incumbrances, interests, and rights subject to which the glebes are transferred to the representative body;
5. (v.) all private benefactions;
6. (vi.) if so requested by the representative body, any burial grounds which before the date of Disestablishment have been closed under or in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of Parliament or of any Order in Council made thereunder;
2. (b) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer the burial ground of any ecclesiastical parish so as to vest the same in the existing incumbent during his incumbency and on the determination thereof—
1. (i.) where the burial ground is situate in an area in which the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, are in force or in which a burial ground has been provided under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or a local Act, in the burial authority, or where the burial authority is a joint committee, in such one or more of the authorities represented on that committee, or in trustees on their behalf, as the Welsh Commissioners think fit;
2. (ii.) where the burial ground is situate in a rural parish, or in a part of a rural parish in which the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, are not in force, in the council of that parish, or, if there is no council, in the chairman of the parish meeting and overseers of that parish; and
1535
3. (iii.) in any other case, in the council of the borough or urban district in which the burial ground is situate:
3. (c) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer any tithe rent-charge which was formerly appropriated to the use of any parochial benefice to the council of the county in which the land out of which the tithe rent-charge issues is situate:

Provided that where such land is not situate in Wales or Monmouth-shire they shall transfer the tithe rent-charge to the council of such county in Wales and Monmouth-shire as the Welsh Commissioners think fit;

(d) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer any other property which was formerly appropriated to the use of any parochial benefice (including the money paid under this Section by the representative body in respect of glebes) to the council of the county in which the ecclesiastical parish to the use of which the property was so appropriated is situate: Provided that if such ecclesiastical parish is situate in more than one county the property shall be transferred to such one or more of those councils, or be divided between them as the Welsh Commissioners may think fit;

(e) they shall transfer ail other property vested in them to the University of Wales.

(2) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto, and all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which may at the date of transfer be subsisting therein, and in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests.

(3) Where property of any such class as aforesaid has before the date of Disestablishment been sold, redeemed, or otherwise converted, or where any moneys are at that date held upon trust to be applied in the building, purchase, or repair of, or to make good dilapidations in, property of any such class as aforesaid, the proceeds of sale, redemption, or other conversion, and such moneys as aforesaid or the securities in which such proceeds or moneys are for the time being invested, shall be dealt with in like manner as if they were property of that class:

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to money (not being a private benefaction) which is the proceeds of sale or is held on trust to be applied in the purchase of glebe or to the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested.

4.0 P.M.

The CHAIRMAN

I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate now in what order I propose to call upon the principal Amendments to this Clause. I find that there are five main proposals for adding to the property or funds which under the Bill are to be transferred by the Commissioners to the representative body. Those five main proposed additions I think of taking in the following order: The first is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), which proposes that all property derived from Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of moneys provided by Parliament, should be transferred to the representative body. The second is the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley Jones), which deals with the Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund The third is the Amendment proposing that all glebes should be transferred, whiah stand in the name of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). The fourth is the one dealing with burial grounds in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock), and the fifth is the Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), dealing with tithe rent-charge. There are one or two subsidiary Amendments on these points, particularly those dealing with glebe, but perhaps it is not necessary for me to indicate them at the present moment. In front of that group of five questions there is one Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Home), dealing with Cathedral Churches, which I do not think will take up much time, and which I think I ought to call upon before taking the group of five Amendments which I have referred to.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I do not take any exception, Mr. Chairman, to the order which you have stated, and it may be the best way to proceed, but as it is an unusual course, I think it would be to the advantage of the House that you should give your reason, because this may be made a precedent in future cases.

The CHAIRMAN

Under the Order of the House I have the duty of selecting the Amendments to be proposed, and where Amendments are offered at the same place I have the power, under the ordinary rules of the House, to decide in what order they should be taken. The earlier of these Amendments, that is to say, the first two of the group, come in the same place, that is, after line forty, and I have chosen to reverse the order in which they appear on the Paper because it seemed to me that they come better in that order. That is in accordance with the ordinary rules of the House. The next one dealing with glebes follows in order on the Paper and then comes the one dealing with burial grounds. The one which I propose to take out of its order is that dealing with tithe rent-charge because it is in the wrong place on the Paper. Thus we shall approach the questions in a logical order.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

May I point out that there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston and the hon. Member for Ripon which seems to me to deal with exactly the same subject as the Amendment you propose to take second in the group. May I ask why you think it right to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham and not the one in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave).

The CHAIRMAN

Because the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston and the hon. Member for Ripon mixes up two subjects in one Amendment, and it seems to me better to have a clear issue in each case. The whole subject is covered without any mixed issue in the method I propose.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

It only deals with grants out of the Royal Bounty Fund. The hon. Member for Kingston only proposes to deal with that one subject.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment introduces the words "Other than glebes," and those words do not occur in the Amendment I propose to take.

Lord BALCARRES

Without asking you to alter your ruling, is it not extremely difficult—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up, we cannot hear a word"]—for the Opposition at a few moments' notice before the Debate begins to know how to make their arrangements among their own Members, the assumption having been that the Amendments would be taken roughly in the order in which they appear on the Paper?

The CHAIRMAN

This is a very difficult Clause, and the Amendments are scattered some in the right and some in the wrong place, pretty well all over the Clause. I did indicate to the Noble Lord's colleagues two days ago the method in which I proposed to approach this question, and yesterday, after further consideration, I again communicated with the Noble Lord's colleagues.

Lord BALCARRES

My point is that it is impossible through the usual channels of communication to make our arrangements if we do not know in what order the Chairman proposes to rearrange the Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN

I am sorry if my communications did not reach the Noble Lord.

Mr. SILVESTER HORNE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), to insert at the end the words "Not being Cathedral Churches." This Amendment was inserted in the Bill of 1895, but it was subject to a Clause which I have put down later on upon the Order Paper, and which reads as follows:—

"(4) The Welsh Commissioners shall, out of moneys in their hands, in pursuance of this Act, maintain and keep in proper repair and condition all Cathedral Churches transferred to them by this Act, and all such Churches shall continue to be subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto, and it shall be incumbent on the Commissioners to permit them to be used for the same purposes as heretofore."

The proposal is that the Cathedral Churches should be vested in the State, and that their maintenance, repair, and restoration should be a charge upon the funds that will be available on Disendowment, that they shall be subject to all the present existing rights, and that it shall be possible for the representative body on application to secure that they shall be used for the purposes they are at present employed. That, of course, does not prevent the Commissioners using them, or permitting them to be used, for other purposes. It was interesting yesterday to hear from various Members the deference they paid to the authority of the Prime Minister as an authority on ecclesiastical matters, therefore I am sanguine enough to expect that they will agree with me when I appeal to his authority on this subject, and quote what he said in the discussion of 1S95. In that year the right hon. Gentleman said:— Cathedrals cannot be regarded as being in the same position as the other Churches, and we believe that they ought to be treated as national monuments. What does the Bill propose to do as it stands? It proposes to make the Cathedral Churches for all future time the exclusive property and monopoly of one denomination, and many of us who sit upon this side of the House believe that with the present reconstruction and redistribution that is taking place there ought to be some security, at any rate, that these buildings will continue to be regarded as national property, and as being definitely in charge and in the keeping of the State. In the first place we think, and we hold very strongly, that the repair of these buildings ought to be a charge upon the State funds so that there shall be no danger of them falling into disrepair, and in order that they shall always be maintained, to quote the words of the Prime Minister, as "national monuments" in the fullest sense of the words. We believe these Cathedrals will become invaluable in regard to the religious future of the people in Wales. Everybody recognises that the repair, maintenance, and occasionally the restoration of Cathedrals is an exceedingly heavy charge upon any religious community, and to the very great credit of this particular community, enormous sums of money have been spent in comparatively recent years upon these Cathedrals. Hon. Members opposite tell us from time to time that the Church of England is a very poor Church, and I am quite willing to accept what they say, but if that is so, it must be all the more clear to the House that there is a constant danger, of which architects tell us, of subsidence of the foundations of these fabrics, and for this purpose enormous sums of money have to be found. Very often really necessary work in regard to these fabrics has to be postponed because there are not sufficient funds at the disposal of the Church for this purpose.

We think strongly on this subject, and I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that, however much we are divided from them over other matters in this Bill, we are all with them in our admiration of the great National Cathedrals, and we are all desirous of maintaining them in the highest degree of efficiency. If it is necessary that the State should take over and maintain such places as the beautiful Abbey of Tin-tern, it is even more indispensable that the State should see that the fabric of St. David's Cathedral docs not fall into ruin. Therefore, we submit, especially having regard to the fact that as many of us believe tithe always had a reference to the repair of the fabric, it would be very proper to make the maintenance, repair, and restoration of the cathedrals, so far as the external fabric is concerned, a charge upon the commuted tithe rent-charge. I take it the House wall agree that, if the State did accept this obligation and responsibility, there must be a certain condition attached. I know it is difficult to argue this question without wounding susceptibilities and prejudices which are very strong with hon. Members on the other side of the House, and which all of us on this side would willingly, if we could, respect, but is it not possible, and may it not enter into the vision of the Church as it will be in Wales to-morrow, to make these cathedrals once again central to the religious life of the whole of the people of Wales? Surely no one will consider we are saying anything which can be construed as offensive if we can show this has proved to be a possibility in the history of other countries. Anyone who has travelled in South Germany has seen buildings just as noble as the Welsh cathedrals used alternatively for Lutheran and Roman Catholic services, and, so far as I know, no one was any the worse. They may not have led to any religious or ecclesiastical agreement, but the mere fact that they came together under the same roof did make for a measure of appreciation and agreement among the different religious communities which met in those buildings.

Personally, I have no doubt whatever, if this concession were made to the national spirit in Wales, these buildings would from time to time be used for purposes which are general to the religious life of Wales. I do not believe anyone would be any the worse for it, and I am perfectly sure a certain measure of unity and agreement would be arrived at which it would be difficult to arrive at in any other way. We are making this Church free; we are setting it free to shape its own destiny, to manage its own affairs, and to go, in short, where it likes. Let me ask hon. Members opposite to consider this point: Supposing, for a moment, the movement which has been so strong in the Anglican Church in this country towards corporate union with the Church of Rome associated with the name of Lord Halifax were to capture to a degree that it has not yet captured the bishops, the priests, and the clergy of the Church of England in Wales, so as to become dominant and all-powerful, it would be possible—I do not say it is probable—to carry over to the Church of Rome not only every parish church and parsonage and every schoolhouse, but every cathedral, and it would be possible also to carry over those ancient Endowments, all of which I understand, with the single exception of globe and tithe, are to be made over to the freed Church as it is to be. Meanwhile the people of Wales are, perhaps with the exception of the people in Scotland, the most uncompromisingly Protestant and unsacerdotal of all the people in the British Isles, and they would be left there with all the cathedrals and churches used by a Church with which they had no sympathy and which misrepresented the general religious sentiment of Wales. We submit that the cathedrals form only a small portion of what ought to be regarded in a national sense, but at the same time they would be very symbolical and typical, and they could be held by the State for purposes germane to the religious life of the generality of the people of Wales.

I venture to suggest that, in accepting this Amendment, the Government would at any rate be doing a modicum of justice in regard to that part of the Endowments of the Church which consist in the fabrics of the buildings, both parish churches and Cathedrals. With these few words, I submit this proposition to the House. I do not really think anyone opposite can say that in the form in which it is presented it is an attempt to do something which is making a serious inroad upon Church property. I remember on one occasion my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Birrell) was trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) exactly what a Nonconformist was. He said that the general impression of a Nonconformist among hon. Members opposite was that he was a person constantly trying to thrust somebody else's corpse into a churchyard that did not belong to him. This has been the sort of impression that has grown up among Nonconformists themselves. Nothing has belonged to us. I am not saying who is responsible, but by a series of conditions and circumstances, well known to every Member of this Committee, we have been outside a great many national institutions. We have not only been outside, but some of those institutions that stand for most, not only in the history of our country, but in the history of the world, have been institutions in which we have had no part. I think it has had a very mischievous effect upon Nonconformity. I think that lack of the historic sense with which we are frequently accused by members of the Church of England is an accusation that has a certain amount of point, but, if so, I put it whether their refusal to share with us even to a moderate extent like this what should be ecclesiastical property open to the uses, I think, of all religious people in a great community like that of Wales, has not been responsible for some of that which they deplore on our part. If it were possible for us to enter into a certain new measure of agreement and take a new step which would make for ultimate unity, I do not believe they would deplore it, and I believe the general body of Nonconformists in Wales would be grateful.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)

I venture to say one or two words on this point, because when I was in charge, not of this Bill, but of another and much less generous Bill, this was one of the matters which gave us a great deal of anxiety. In the Bill of 1895, for which I was responsible, we did propose to adopt the view which has just been so well put by my hon. Friend—that is to say, to exempt the Cathedrals from the transfer to the representative body of the Welsh Church. An Amendment was moved by a very distinguished Member of this House in those days, a man whose loss we all deplore, Sir Richard Jebb, who represented the University of Cambridge, to make the Cathedrals part of the transferred property to the representative body, and, after listening to his arguments, I acceded to that Amendment on behalf of the Government. I wish now, in answer to what my hon. Friend has said, and I admit the force of it, once more, after an interval of nearly twenty years, to reiterate and endorse the position which, on behalf of the then Government, I took up on that occasion. I said, and I think with truth, that the Cathedrals of Wales should never be regarded from any point of view as sectarian. They were associated with some of the most cherished and hallowed memories of the Welsh people, and from time to time all sections of religious opinion in Wales found themselves able to assemble in them and join in common worship. It was from that point of view that in framing the Bill of that day the Government proposed the Cathedrals should be maintained by the Welsh Commissioners for the Welsh people, subject to the condition that they should not be capable of being secularised or applied to any other purpose than that to which they had been applied. Subject to that, their upkeep and maintenance was imposed upon the Welsh Commissioners, as my hon. Friend now suggests they should be. We thought and hoped that would be a settlement of the matter that would be in accordance with the opinion of both Churchmen and Nonconformists in Wales, but it was not so, and I yielded not "without reluctance to the argument which was then offered by Sir Richard Jebb on grounds which I should like, in answer to my hon. Friend, to repeat to the House. I said, on 18th July, 1895, and I think it is equally true now— It was impossible to ignore the peculiar position of the Welsh Cathedrals which distinguished them in some respects from the English Cathedrals. In the first place, three out of four of them were used as parish churches. That is not an unimportant consideration— Arid in the next place two of them, possibly three, had within the lifetime of living people, been restored and largely embellished, and in one case, if not in two, entirely reconstructed by private benefactions. I went on to say I did not wish to inquire too curiously from what sources those benefactions were received. I have no doubt some substantial portion of them may have come from pious Nonconformists. That does not matter. If they did, they were creditable alike to those who gave and those who received, but, having regard to the peculiar position of the Welsh Cathedrals indicated in the sentence I have quoted, the associations which attach to them, and to the feelings which I think we must all have, it is very difficult to distinguish them in principle from parish churches in the Principality which everybody agrees ought to be handed over to the new representative body. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend it is not worth while to press the point he has raised, but, in deference both to the sentiment of the Church people and, I think, of a large number of Nonconformists, and, still more, having regard to the particular circumstances in which these Cathedrals have been used, restored, embellished, and preserved for the benefit of the Welsh Church, it would not be generous, but just, that they should be transferred to the representative body. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with that view and will not press his Amendment.

Mr. A. LYTTELTON

It is scarcely necessary for me to add a word to the admirable arguments just given to the House by the Prime Minister. The single point I wish to make in order to emphasise the Prime Minister's appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment is this: I think, if the Amendment were carried, it would not promote but impair good feeling between Churchmen and Nonconformists. At present there are cathedrals in this country which have of late been used on several great occasions by Nonconformists and Churchmen together. I would remind the hon. Member of an occasion quite recently in Westminster Abbey—possibly he was present—it was the occasion of a celebration in memory of John Bunyan—which the Dean and Chapter of Westminster invited leading Nonconformists to take part in, and I remember that Dr. Clifford was one of those who was present on that occasion. Then I need hardly remind the hon. Member that the Investiture of the Prince of Wales in Carnarvon Castle was accompanied by a common service, thus showing the disposition on a great historical occasion for Nonconformists and Churchmen to unite in such celebrations. I hope that tendency will increase, and the hospitaliy of these great national buildings will, if the Church is wise, be extended on such occasions to their Nonconformist brethren. It is for this reason and for the reasons given by the Prime Minister, which I need not recapitulate, that I join in asking the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and to allow us to proceed with other business of a very important character.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I do wish to trespass on the time of the Committee after the appeal of the Prime Minister, joined in as it was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, but the observations of the hon. Member for Ipswich were so interesting in themselves that perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two upon them. I never hear the hon. Member address the House on this subject without feeling great sympathy with his point of view. Yesterday I was reproved by the Under-Secretary, and charged with hatred and contempt for all Nonconformists. That is really an entire misapprehension. I would venture to describe myself as, in a large measure, Nonconfomist by temperament. I have no sympathy with those Churchmen who despise Nonconformity, and who do not recognise the enormous value of the religious work which Nonconformity has achieved during the last century, and particularly its enormous value to the Church of England itself. I, therefore, listened to the hon. Member's speech with great interest. I felt that after all, ho was only trying to apply the principles of the Bill in a logical form. There is a great deal to be said for the view that if tithe is national property so are the Cathedrals, and if it was right to alienate tithe, why should it not be equally right to alienate the Cathedrals? But it is clearly against common feeling and against the common sense of the nation to alienate the Cathedrals, and that feeling should also be borne in mind by hon. Gentlemen opposite when they propose to alienate tithe. There were two observations of the hon. Member which struck me as most interesting. He, said, with admirable candour, that there was undoubtedly a certain weakness in Nonconformity because it is divorced from the historical associations connected with the Church. I believe that is quite true. I think that is the great merit of the Establishment. I believe if the hon. Member would only give himself a chance he would come before this House not as an advocate of this Rill at all, but as the advocate of a measure for the joint recognition by the State of all sections of religious opinion. I believe there is a great deal to be said—and I have said it over and over again—for a proposal of that kind.

What I dislike, and I dislike it as much as the hon. Member does, is the divorce of religion from the historical associations with which it is at present connected. The hon. Member pictured, taking an extreme case, the possibility of the Church in Wales suddenly becoming absorbed in the doctrines or school of the most extreme High Church, and desirous practically of reunion, or, at any rate, abjuration, in favour of Roman Catholicism. He said, therefore, it would be very desirable to retain in the State some measure of control by reason of its ownership of the Cathedrals. Really, the hon. Member can not have it both ways. He wants to Disestablish the Church and cut off all connection with the State. The other day we were told that we must not even allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to subscribe to the funds of the Church, because it might give them control over the full freedom of the Church in Wales. Now he wishes, in spite of Disestablishment, to retain a measure of control over the action of the Church—to keep some kind of garrison in the Cathedrals, at any rate, to represent the general feeling of the nation as against the feeling of the members of that particular Church. If that is not what he meant, I really do not understand what his argument amounted to. I agree, personally, that there is some steadying advantage in the connection between the Church and the State, some advantage for tin Church, and a still much greater advantage for the State. If you decide to separate Church and State, you cannot both do it and not do it. You must set the Church entirely free, and you must allow Church and State each to pursue its own way, unassisted and uncontrolled by the other. I cannot think that that argument is one which the hon. Gentleman will feel to be consistent when he comes to think it over. I agree that the acceptance of this Amendment would really tend to create a bitterness of feeling, partly reasonable and partly unreasonable, which is realty impossible to estimate. There is a feeling associated with bricks and mortar. When a Churchman looks at a Cathedral he looks at the whole history of his Church embodied in that building, and to say that it should no longer belong to him but that it should belong to the State, to be dealt with by the State as its will, subject to allowing people to hold their services therein, would be regarded as the greatest possible outrage on his religious feeling. I am quite satisfied that such an Amendment as this would be disastrous to the whole policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that respect, and it would be equally disastrous to the religious feeling of this country.

Sir NORVAL HELME

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, alluded to the growing feeling of sympathy between the several branches of the Church. Many of us would be glad to do anything possible to develop that feeling, and I should like to ask if it is possible, in accepting this Amendment, to hope that on future occasions there will be an understanding that some such facilities as those alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman will be given. May we hope for further developments in that direction. Some time ago I was at Glarus, in Switzerland, one Sunday morning, and I found the Protestants and Roman Catholics using the same parish church for their ordinary worship. Without going so far as that, I would ask whether we really may in accepting—I should say rejecting—this Amendment, anticipate, under the new conditions, a growth of that generous feeling of sympathy?

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I cannot imagine anything less calculated to produce greater sympathy between the Church and Nonconformity than the acceptance of this Amendment.

Sir NORVAL HELME

I unfortunately used the word "acceptance" when I should have used the word "rejection." I am prepared to support the rejection of this Amendment, and in doing so I was making an appeal in favour of a growth of that consideration to which allusion has been made.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I fully accept the correction of the hon. Member. It shows that he meant exactly the opposite to what we understood him to say.

Sir NORVAL HELME

I used the wrong word.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

At the same time I must say I do not think it is a very hopeful sign of that growing sympathy to have an Amendment like this moved. When this Bill was before the House a few years ago an Amendment was moved, as the Prime Minister has just stated, to carry out precisely what is now in the Bill, and it was accepted by the Government, because it was felt that if it were wished to offend the Church in its tenderest point it could not be done better than by taking away the Cathedrals. Under these circumstances we thought that no Member of this House would desire to go back upon the concession then made. But what do we find? The hon. Member for Ipswich, who is generally moderate in his speech, comes forward with a proposal that would hurt Churchmen in their tenderest point. We entirely repudiate the statement made by the hon. Member. We deny absolutely that the Cathedrals are or ever were national property. They are the original buildings established by Churchmen in the early ages, when Christianity was first preached by the Church in this country. We have a feeling for the Cathedrals of the tenderest kind, and we can under no circumstances agree to allow them to be alienated. But what does the hon. Member propose? That they should be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners, who are to give a right to the Church to use them if it wishes, but who are also to give a right for them to be used for other purposes. We object to that altogether. I must say I am astonished that the Amendment was moved at all. I agree entirely with my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) that in a sense the Amendment is logically consistent, and that if you take away one form of property from the Church it is logical to take away all its property. With that I entirely agree, but at the same time we are prepared naturally to accept what concessions are made. We are not, however, prepared to go back upon the concessions which were made the last time this Bill was before Parliament. I earnestly hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn for the reasons stated by the Prime Minister. If there is any doubt as to what has been the character of the Cathedrals in the past, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to what the Church has done in recent years is absolutely true. The Cathedrals at Llandaff and Bangor have not been merely restored, but practically rebuilt by Churchmen in the last century. Under these circumstances, to suggest that they should be taken away from the Church and alienated and given to a non-Church body is a suggestion we cannot accept, and it certainly would not contribute to a better feeling between the various religious bodies in Wales.

Mr. PRINGLE

The speech to which we have just listened seems not to have been a speech directed against the Amendment. It was based upon the assumption, which ran right through the whole speech, that this Amendment is intended to drive the Episcopal Church out of the Welsh Cathedrals altogether. [HON. MEMBER: No, no."] If that was not the meaning of the hon. Member's arguments, they had no meaning whatever. There can be no ground for bitterness on the part of the Episcopal Church if they are asked to share in common their Cathedrals with their fellow Christians who belong to other religious denominations. I would remind the Committee that only during the last two days we have had constant advocacy on the other side of proposals for concurrent Endowment. The Noble Lord, the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), in an extremely able and temperate speech yesterday, advocated that policy for the first time here in relation to one form of Church property. His proposal was one of concurrent Endowment. We are now told that this policy of concurrent Endowment will result in far greater bitterness on the part of the Anglican Church in Wales than any proposal in this Bill. There appears to be some inconsistency, on the part of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, which leads me to have some doubt as to their sincerity in regard to concurrent Endowment. They object to the use of the alienated funds for museums, wash houses and so on, but if the proposal of my hon. Friend is adopted at least some part of the funds alienated from the Welsh Church will be used for the preservation of the Cathedrals, which is a purely ecclesiastical and religious object, and to that extent the alienated funds will not be secularised. That is another reason why they should support the proposal of my hon. Friend.

With all deference to the Prime Minister, I think that a number of hon. Members sitting here cannot follow him in the arguments he put forward to-day. After all, on this proposal we have the Prime Minister on both sides, and, if we are prepared to follow him in his earlier and better mind, I think he cannot refuse to us the liberty which, in reply to a question to-day, he has given to unpaid private secretaries. I do not know whether on the 18th June, 1895, the right hon. Gentleman was entirely persuaded by the eloquent and able arguments of the late Sir Richard Jebb. On the 18th June, 1895, the Government of that day was already under the shadow of the end, and I have no doubt that that fact had much greater weight with them than any of the arguments which were adduced. In these circumstances we in this part of the Committee prefer the original proposal of the Prime Minister and his original arguments, and will support the hon. Member for Ipswich if he goes to a Division.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

There is certainly an interesting history in connection with this Amendment. It is, I believe, on public record that when this Clause was discussed before, the Bishop of St. Asaph went to Mr. Gladstone, who was not then in this House, and Mr. Gladstone exercised his influence with the result that the Government gave way.

The PRIME MINISTER

Not at all.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I believe Mr. Gladstone's influence was a very significant factor. At that time there was no Clause in the Bill which created greater distrust and resentment in Wales than the Clause which proposed to secularise the Cathedrals. That is what it comes to. It is a proposal to take the Cathedrals from a religious body and to vest them in the State Commissioners, and although the State Commissioners may allow the Church to hold her services there, nevertheless the Cathedrals will be under the control of the secular body. That would create great indignation amongst a great number of Churchmen in Wales. Although this Amendment in its bare outline would create that indignation, I quite readily respond to the generous way in which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Horne) approached this question. His whole argument in support of the Amendment was one which appeared to me to be more than anything else in favour of the national recognition of religion and national religion. The whole principle of the Establishment is bound up with the idea that the Cathedrals are the mother Churches of the Welsh people. Whenever we have had opportunities, and Nonconformists have been willing to co-operate with us, the Cathedrals have been open and Nonconformists have come into them and joined in the services. A notable instance was the great ceremony in connection with the memorial to the translator of the Bible into Welsh, when the Nonconformists joined with the Church in St. Asaph's Cathedral in the memorial ceremonies. We have been most anxious to co-operate.

Does the hon. Gentleman say it is possible, if this Bill ever goes through, when you will have a cleavage right through the nation, setting at enmity one class of religious feeling against the other and creating this running sore for ever, that it will be possible to have in one part of the chancel a Church of England service, in one part of the nave a Calvinistic Methodist service, and in another part of the nave the service of some other denomination? Is that a practical policy if this Bill goes through? As long as there is an Established Church and the Cathedrals, as the mother Churches, are held by a religious body which claims to be national, then, of course, we shall be only too anxious to further that co-operation which many of us have earnestly desired. But if this measure proceeds and these methods are adopted, then there must be an end to all that kind of thing. These Cathedrals have been rebuilt very largely, as the Prime Minister said, in the last few years of the last century by money voluntarily subscribed by Churchmen. [HON. Members: "And Nonconformists."] I am assured by the Bishop of St. Asaph that not a single penny was subscribed by other than Churchmen to the rebuilding of the Cathedral of St. Asaph. Do Nonconformists really wish to hold services in the Cathedral Churches? [HON. Members: "Yes."] Is it not against all their traditions? If they go into St. Asaph Cathedral they will see a cross on the altar, which is wholly against the Puritan tradition, and the embellishments are contrary to the whole spirit and organisation of Welsh Nonconformists. I say that there are grave practical difficulties in the way of working proposals of this sort. It was clearly shown that there was a very strong feeling against a proposal of this kind when the last Bill was before Parliament, and as it is again proposed to take the Cathedral Churches from the Church and vest them in this secular body, and to use them for we do not know what purposes, friction is bound to arise. I therefore hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pringle) completely overlooks the dread which Churchmen must have of their churches being used for semi-secular or secular purposes. If ever there was an occasion on which that dread was accentuated it would be now, because it is really the use of Free Churches for semi-secular and wholly secular arguments and propaganda which has led to the Bill now before the Committee being introduced. I will not dwell upon that point because I see you, Sir, do not think it would be relevant. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Home) said that one of the reasons for the Amendment was that he looked forward to a time when the Church in Wales might possibly become extremely ritualistic and High Church—in fact, almost a part of the Roman Catholic Church. I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the tendencies of the Church in Wales are to be distinctly Low Church. If they did develop in the direction he fears, that would not in any way bring them more nearly into communion with the Roman Catholic Church, who, so far from being in sympathy with High Churchmen, are probably more in sympathy with the Low Churchmen in Wales. The fact is that the time is now approaching when there would be, but for this Bill, a general disposition on the part of Churches who differ in no way upon dogma to become one Church. I know of cases where the Roman Catholic burial service is held in a Protestant church. This Bill is likely to retard that happy consummation. I believe this Amendment is typical of what must be the effect of the whole Bill, namely, to accentuate differences where at present differences do not exist, and to postpone the day when all Christian differences will disappear.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 335.

Division No. 466]	AYES.	[5.1 p.m.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Goldstone, Frank	Kellaway, Frederick George
Adamson, William	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	King, J. (Somerset, North)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Greig, Colonel J. W.	Leach, Charles
Barnes, G. N.	Hardie, J. Keir	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Brace, William	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Bryce, J. Annan	Hinds, John	Neilson, Francis
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Hogge, James Myles	Outhwaite, R. L.
Chancellor, Henry George	Holt, Richard Durning	Parker, James {Halifax)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen	Hudson, Walter	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Clynes, John R.	Hughes, S. L.	Primrose, Hon. Neil James
Crooks, William	John, Edward Thomas	Radford, G. H.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Kendall, Athelstan
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Richards, Thomas
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Thomas, James Henry	Winfrey, Richard
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Watt, Henry Anderson	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.	Wedgwood, Josiah
Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Silvester Horne and Mr. Pringle.
Sutton, John E.	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Dalrymple, Viscount	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Addison, Dr. C.	Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.
Agnew, Sir George William	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Higham, John Sharp
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dawes, J. A.	Hoare, S. J. G.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Devlin, Joseph	Hodge, John
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Dickinson, W. H.	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Armitage, Robert	Donelan, Captain A.	Holmes, Daniel Turner
Arnold, Sydney	Doris, William	Hope, John Deans (Haddington)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry	Duffy, William J.	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Baird, John Lawrence	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnar)	Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury)	Elverston, Sir Harold	Horner, Andrew Long
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Baldwin, Stanley	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Essex, Richard Walter	Hunt, Rowland
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Barrie, H. T.	Falconer, James	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Barton, William	Falle, Bertram Godfray	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Farrell, James Patrick	Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fell, Arthur	Joyce, Michael
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Joynson-Hicks, William
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Keating, Matthew
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Ffrench, Peter	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Bentham, G. J.	Field, William	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Fitzgibbon, John	Kilbride, Denis
Beresford, Lord Charles	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Melton)
Black, Arthur W.	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Boland, John Pius	France, Gerald Ashburner	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Gardner, Ernest	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Booth, Frederick Handel	Gastrell, Major W. Houghton	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	George, Rt. Hon D. Lloyd	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Gibbs, George Abraham	Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)	Gilhooly, James	Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Gill, A. H.	Lewis, John Herbert
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell	Gilmour, Captain John	Lewisham, Viscount
Bridgeman, w. Clive	Ginnell, Laurence	Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Bull, Sir William James	Glanville, H. J.	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Goldsmith, Frank	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Lundon, Thomas
Butcher, John George	Grant, J. A.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Lynch, A. A.
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)	Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)
Campion, W. R.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C (Droitwich)
Carille, Sir Hildred	Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Cassel, Felix	Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)	McGhee, Richard
Castlereagh, Viscount	Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)	Maclean, Donald
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hackett, John	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)	Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.	Hamilton, Marwuess of (Londonderry)	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)	M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Clancy, John Joseph	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Clough, William	Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence	Malcolm, Ian
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Harris, Henry Percy	Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Cotton, William Francis	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Courthope, George Loyd	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Meagher, Michael
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Hayden, John Patrick	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hazleton, Richard	Millar, James Duncan
Craik, Sir Henry	Helme, Sir Nerval Watson	Molloy, Michael
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Helmsley, Viscount	Molteno, Percy Alport
Crean, Eugene	Hemmerde, Edward George	Mooney, John J.
Cripps, Sir Charges Alfred	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morgan, George Hay
Croft, H. P.	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Morrell, Philip
Crumley, Patrick	Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Cullinan, John	Henry, Sir Charles	Morison, Hector

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Muldoon, John	Randies, Sir John S.	Talbot, Lord E.
Munro, R.	Raphael, Sir Herbert H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Nannetti, Joseph	Reddy, M.	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Needham, Christopher T.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Toulmin, Sir George
Nolan, Joseph	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Tryon, Captain George Clement
Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Rees, Sir J. D.	Valentia, Viscount
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Verney, Sir Harry
Nuttall, Harry	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
O'Brien, William (Cork)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Wardle, George J.
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Robinson, Sidney	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
O'Doherty, Philip	Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Donnell, Thomas	Rowlands, James	Weigall, Captain A. G.
O'Dowd, John	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wheler, Granville C. H.
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Malley, William	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)	Whitehouse, John Howard
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Wilkie, Alexander
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Sanders, Robert Arthur	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Scanlan, Thomas	Wills, Sir Gilbert
O'Shee, James John	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Wilson, Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
O'Sullivan, Timothy	Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Sheehy, David	Winterton, Earl
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Wolmer, Viscount
Parkes, Ebenezer	Smith, Harold (Warrington)	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.	Smith, H. B. L. (Normanton)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rothsrham)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)	Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Younger, Sir George
Pointer, Joseph	Stanler, Beville	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Staveley-Hill, Henry	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)	Stewart, Gershom
Pryce-Jones, Col. E.	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Sir RYLAND ADKINS

I beg to move, after the word "attached" ["to which the residence is attached"], to insert the words "(iv.) all property which consists of or is the produce of or is or has been derived from Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of moneys provided by Parliament."

I move this Amendment as a supporter of the Bill because I believe that the acceptance or carrying of it is entirely consistent with the principles of the Bill as regards Disestablishment and as regards Disendowment. I am one of those who agree with Members of the Welsh party and with the Government that Disestablishment in a case like Wales involves, inevitably and properly, Disendowment. I bring the Amendment before the Committee for the reason that it appears to me that these Parliamentary Grants are on an entirely different footing and raise entirely different issues from those with which the House has been concerned when in the past, and again in the future, it is dealing with matters like tithe. These Parliamentary Grants represent the share of Wales in eleven votes by Parliament from 1809 to 1821, in each of which years the sum of £100,000 was voted by Parliament for the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to be used for the benefit of poor clergymen in England and in Wales in accordance with the rules by which the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty carry on their duties. In the first place, it is surely important and quite germane to this issue to remember what the position of the Church in Wales was at that period. Those were the days, some of us think the evil days, of Eldon and Castlereagh, and Liverpool. This was the policy of assisting from public funds certain classes of the community in a way in which no Parliament has done to that extent ever since, and in a way which appears on the programme of no party or of even those who adorn the outskirts of a party like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). They were granted, no doubt, with the honest intention of benefiting the persons mentioned in the vote and in pursuance of a distinct policy of helping one class of the community and one form of religious society.

The arguments all through the Debates in Committee have, from both sides of the House, naturally turned mainly on the point as to whether the Endowments of the English Church in Wales do or do not represent national funds, and were or were not intended, when given, for national use under conditions which made national use possible. What ever may be said of the Welsh Church at an earlier period, it is perfectly clear that from 1809 to 1820 the Welsh Church was not what it had been before the Reformation—the Welsh nation on its religious side. It was not what it was from the Reformation to 1662, a religious organisation which might still entertain hopes of being co-extensive with the nation. It was not even what it was immediately after 1062, one among many denominations standing head and shoulders above all the others. It was in 1809 as it is to-day, one religious denomination among many, one denomination almost rivalled in numbers by others, and in itself a large minority of the nation which, for good or evil, was then as it is to-day, predominantly Nonconformist. Therefore this Grant made by Parliament a hundred years ago was not made to a Church which represented the nation, or was co-extensive with the nation, or was in a position even of serving the uses of the nation, but was made to a specific denomination which, as regards Wales, was a minority of the community. Therefore those of us who have supported the Bill, and will continue to support it in dealing with funds which we believe to be national not only in origin but usage, feel there is a great distinction when we come to deal with the fund which is the subject of this Amendment.

In the next place, although as a matter of fact the Welsh share of this Grant has been treated and preserved as capital, and only the interest of it has been used from year to year, I am unable to discover anything which would have prevented the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty from actually using the money in each of the years up to the full extent of the Grant. Therefore this Grant, capable of being used up, not for a National Church, but for a denomination, is far more analagous to such Grants as were made for training colleges and privately managed schools in recent years by Conservative Governments, and which are open to be stopped in so far as they are annual Grants, but I know of no precedent which would seek to recover Grants made in previous years, even if they do not happen to be expended in those years. Although I regret the Grants having been made, although I believe they were made in pursuance of a mistaken policy of patronage and Endowment of a particular form of religion, and although they are Grants of a kind which this House would not make again, and which this House would, as a matter of course, put an end to if they were annual Grants, is it right or fair, or in the public interest, or in the interest of good government, that these Grants so made, which might have been entirely spent at the time they were received, should be sought to be recovered for the whole community? I think there is a distinction of a fundamental character which ought to be drawn between these Parliamentary Grants and any of the other categories of Endowments with which the Committee has to deal.

There are members of this Committee, and I dare say there are many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Wales, who do not admit this argument as absolutely conclusive and who lay stress on the fact that the Grants were given to the Church then Established. I venture to say two things in regard to that. In the first place, can they be sure that they were given to the Church because it was an Established Church? Are they not much more analogous to the Regium Donum in this country and the Maynooth Grant in Ireland, all of which ceased, and properly ceased, when the Irish Protestant Church was Disestablished? The Regium Donum in this country ceased when the growing feeling against Endowments impressed itself on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1851. If those Grants are more analogous to the Grants I have mentioned, there would be all the reason in the world for abolishing them if they were now going on, but there is no precedent in any of these analogous cases for seeking to recover Grants once given to particular societies. Even if hon. Members do not entirely agree that these Grants ought not to be asked for or pressed for on behalf of the Welsh nation, they will surely agree that the difference between these Grants and other types of Endowments is so great that if they are retained by the Church the general position of Wales in this matter is not prejudiced or injured. I hope those who represent Wales in this House, hon. Friends with whom I have constantly associated in these Debates and with whom I intend still to associate in the remaining stages of the Bill, will agree that there is so much difference that it is legitimate for them, with their great personal knowledge of their own country, with their Welsh point of view and their measure of proportion and perspective in this matter, to at any rate allow that there is special ground for the strong currents of opinion and the points of view regarding this matter which are held by those who are in the warmest sympathy with their general position, and who, not being Welsh, look at this question from a more detached point of view, and, while losing a great deal through want of detailed knowledge, may gain something because they are in a position to look at the question from a detached point of view. It seems to me that both with regard to this measure and the measure affecting Ireland this House is brought face to face with one of the greatest difficulties of democratic government. When democracy through Parliamentary machinery has to settle local problems, it is a far more difficult thing for democracy than for other forms of government. Bureaucracy can deal with certain parts of the Empire, but here we are dealing with something that concerns one part of the United Kingdom only, and we are bound to get some adjustment of the ideas and aims of the part affected with the general feeling.

I do assure the Government and my hon. Friends in Wales that the acceptance of this Amendment and the relinquishment for the Welsh nation of the £6,000 of Grants will really be appreciated by many, in England particularly, who warmly approve of Welsh Disestablishment, and who are prepared to support Disendowment as it applies to tithe and glebe, but who feel, in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the Church years ago obtained the Grants, that the Church may claim, not as a National Church, but as a religious denomination, to retain now and for ever Grants which were, mistakenly it may be, given by Parliament within the last century. I am convinced that it is, in the long run, for the public good that one Parliament should not reverse the action of another, when the action has regard to the same people under conditions as nearly identical as those of the Welsh Church in the first twenty years of last century and at the present time. I move this Amendment as a friend of the Bill. I hope the remarks made by the Homo Secretary yesterday will be exemplified now by his accepting the Amendment. I assure him and my hon. Friends in Wales, with whom I am in most substantial agreement, that I am convinced the acceptance of this Amendment would not weaken but strengthen the forces in all parts of the United Kingdom which are working together to bring to an end this long and difficult controversy.

Mr. BECK

Perhaps I may be allowed to second this Amendment, I would like at once with great sincerity and heartiness to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the Government, for the intimation they made last night that they proposed to accept this Amendment and the Amendments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones). I do not propose to dwell at all upon the substantial arguments in favour of differentiating between these funds and tithe and glebe. I think the ground has been very fully covered by my hon. and learned Friend, but perhaps without infringing on the rules of order, I may make a few remarks as this is the first time I have addressed the House on this Bill, and very probably may be the last, because I frankly confess it is difficult for me to overcome the diffidence with which I address the House. There is so much eloquence among my fellow Members that I feel there is no necessity for any further voices to be raised. I do most heartily associate myself with my hon. Friend as a, supporter of this Bill. As a Liberal Churchman I naturally desire to see the Church to which I belong possessed of all to which she is lawfully entitled, but the attitude which Liberal Churchmen take up on such a Bill as this is entirely opposed to that taken up by hon. Members on the other side of the House. Their view is that it is good for the nation and good for the Church to be knit together by Establishment and Endowment. Our view is that it is bad for both. We believe, those of us who hold these convictions, that the Church loses both in England and in Wales from the fact that she is an Established Church. We believe that the very spots where the Establishment is most strongly entrenched, the villages of this country, are the very spots where the spiritual life of the Church is, comparatively speaking, stagnant. We believe that the great life of the Church is in the slums.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)

The remarks of the hon. Member are more relevant to the Second or Third Reading of the Bill than to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. BECK

I was trying to prove why I support this particular Amendment, while I am on the whole in favour of Disendowment, but, of course, I do not wish in any way to infringe your ruling. I agree that we should not keep covering the same ground over and over again. Since the noble speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone) comparatively few Liberal Churchmen have addressed the Committee, and perhaps I infringed the strict rules of order. What I was really trying to point out to the Committee was that we support this Amendment, and others which stand in the names of myself and some hon. Friends, because we do believe you can prove that the particular funds we are dealing with to-day are funds which were given to the Church as a separate religious organisation, and we do think we cannot bring forward those arguments which we have heard from so many hon. Members as to these particular funds being given, not to one particular Church, but to the whole community for religious and charitable purposes. What we who are Liberal Churchmen believe is this: It is not right for the great Church to which we belong to stand as a beggar where funds are concerned. If I may be pardoned a personal reference, my earliest recollections of the Church to which I belong were gathered in South Africa, where my father was a very ardent and very eager Churchman, and I have never forgotten, young as I was when first I came to this country, what seemed to me the different atmosphere of the two Churches, the Church of England in South Africa and the Church as established in this country; and I believe it is only right that those of us who belong to the Church of England should be prepared, both in this country and in Wales, to put our hands in our pockets to supply the place of any funds which can be rightfully held to belong not to our Church, but to the nation at large, the Welsh or the English nation. That is why, personally, I found myself quite unable to vote for the Amendment moved last week by the hon. Member for Morley.

I say quite frankly that the easy benevolence which he and the hon. Member for North-West Manchester displayed was not to my taste as a member of the Church of England. I prefer that the Church should show greater sensitiveness on these matters, a sensitiveness greater and more delicate than that of the most honourable man in dealing with money matters. For that reason I support this Bill. But it does appear to me that this particular fund which we are asking for now does not stand in the same category. It is legally, as I think, the property of the Church, and that is why I support this Amendment. Now just one word to my Welsh friends. Those of us who support this Amendment do not do so as enemies of the Welsh people. We have not forgotten their long struggle to attain what they believe to be religious liberty and equality. We have not forgotten the fact that they have stood by us in forwarding old Liberal beliefs, in fair weather and in foul, and in assisting us to bring forward measures which we believe to be for the welfare of the country, and it is because we believe that generosity and justice on their part, call it which you like, will help to make this Bill a lasting peace, that I appeal to them not to take this Amendment and other Amendments to-day as a sign of hostility. I believe that when this Bill has become law it will not be long before there will not be a man who will desire to see the Church in Wales again Established, and it is concessions such as this that enable us to look forward to the future with confidence. Those of us who are Churchmen do not desire to see the Church of England associated in the minds of the Welsh people with old injustices and old dominion long passed away. We desire to see this Church, first, we hope, among equals, standing side by side with the other religious denominations in that country, fighting the never-ending fight against evil, poverty, and injustice. For these reasons, very ruggedly and very hurriedly expressed—and I entirely bow to your ruling in the matter, which was perfectly right, if I may respectfully say so—I support this Amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends from Wales, even if they vote or speak against this particular Amendment, to believe that we who represent the great majority of Liberal Churchmen are not hostile to them, and that we believe it is for the good of the Church to be associated with them in their great struggle.

Sir A. CRIPPS

I am sure that I should not be allowed to go into the general reasons as regards Disestablishment and Disendowment with which the hon. Member who has just sat down dealt. I am afraid that, as a Churchman, not to say as a Liberal Churchman, he would know that we do not agree with those views, nor do we understand how any Liberal Churchman, whatever his views may be on Disestablishment or Disendowment, can be a supporter of a Bill which for the first time proposes compulsory dismemberment of a religious community. That is a point which I cannot understand how a Liberal Churchman can deal with. It. appears to me inconsistent with every doctrine of religious freedom hitherto held by Liberal Churchmen. I have digressed to that extent, and I will now deal with the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Sir Ryland Adkins) who moved this Amendment. There are three points in it to which I will call attention. First of all, on wide ground, he drew what he called a distinction in matters of this kind, which are local in their character so far as Wales is concerned, between a bureaucratic and a democratic method, and seemed to point out that the democratic method was the more difficult. May I say, in answer to him, that there never was a time in the history of this country when a purely bureaucratic system was being pressed further than at the present moment. The whole conception of this Bill appears to me to be bureaucratic. The whole way it is being pushed on is bureaucratic in tendency and method, and we cannot get back—I agree with what the hon. and learned Member said—to a democratic basis without the Government saying once for all before passing a Bill of this kind, that they will allow the democracy of this country to say whether they want it or not. I come to the other two points made by the hon. and learned Member. As a Churchman, naturally I desire that the Disendowment proposals, which I care less about myself than about the Disestablishment proposals, should not be made harsher than is necessary, and to that extent, of course, I agree with what the hon. and learned Member has said. Let me come to his reason to see what the logical result is. I can quite understand the argument put forward by hon. Members on the other side, and put forward by the Solicitor-General on several occasions, that you ought not to allow an Endowment given to an Established Church to continue to belong to that Church when it is Disestablished. That is a point of view which anyone can understand, but how is that consistent with what is said by the hon. and learned Member opposite?

He is seeking to do the very thing which is anathema to a very large number of hon. Members opposite. In other words, he is seeking to reserve—it is not contrary to my view, but it is contrary to the theory which is being propounded, the entire Disendowment of the Church—funds which were only given to it in its Established capacity. These funds were only given to the Church as an Estab- lished Church. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member. Of course, I do not agree with the deduction drawn from that, as he knows perfectly well. I think that Disendowment ought to be quite independent of Establishment or Disestablishment, but I would like to ask and I would like to have an answer from hon. Members opposite if they adopt that theory which has been put forward as a matter of broad doctrine by the Solicitor-General, how can they say that there ought to be any exceptions as regards these particular funds which were certainly given to an Established Church which is now to be Disestablished. I want to use the argument which has been used by the hon. and learned Member. Endowments have passed, and whether the Church is Established or Disestablished you have got to say in each case what is the origin and source, and subsequently what is the use to which the Endowments are put, and I cannot imagine the hon. and learned Member being in favour of the general principle of this Bill, and then bringing forward an Amendment of this kind. The two positions are wholly inconsistent. He said very truly that we approach a matter of this kind from different points of view on the two different sides of the House. Of course we do. If this Amendment is just none of the funds which we have as an Established Church ought to be taken away from us on the ground of Disestablishment. That is the only logical result of every word which the hon. and learned Member said on this point. It is all very well to say in a sort of eleemosynary way "we are going to dole out a small portion of your Endowments in order to temper the wind to the shorn lamb." The only reason of that is that you may in some way smooth down the prejudice which is undoubtedly felt by a large number of Churchmen at this act of what we call spoliation. I say I would rather be despoiled logically, than illogically, and every argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member in support of this Amendment is inconsistent with the true basis on which the whole Bill is brought forward.

I will deal now with tithes. It is said that it is a Parliamentary Grant. Up and down the country we have been told that anything in the nature of a Parliamentary Grant, which is called a tax or contribution coming from the State, ought, under all conditions, be taken away so far as the Church is concerned. What has been the great discussion about tithe? The hon. and learned Member opposite knows perfectly well what I mean. We have had these discussions about the origin of tithe in order to show that it is in the nature of a Parliamentary Grant, and not in the nature of a free gift, and the whole argument about spoliation and tithe has been placed on that very footing. The older the origin the more obscure the title. Therefore, if it was a Parliamentary Grant in the old days as regards tithe 500 or 600 years ago, a fortiori we ought to have the whole of that tithe, if we are to have a Parliamentary Grant which was only given about a hundred years ago; and what becomes of all this doctrine which we have been told about private benefactions which are to remain in the Church? I should think that the hon. and learned Member had hardly been in the House or else surely he cannot support the argument put forward as regards the principles of this Bill after the speech which he has just made. We have said over and over again we are entitled to tithe as private benefaction. It has been said over and over again against us that we are not entitled to it because it is in the nature of a Parliamentary Grant. If a Parliamentary Grant a hundred years old ought to be reserved to the Church, what does the hon. and learned Gentleman say when a Parliamentary Grant is a thousand years old, and not only a thousand years old but admittedly properly used and wanted for these purposes at the present moment? These are the considerations which come to the mind of a Churchman, who does not want to be unduly antagonistic, when he sees the two principles on which he rests the case of the Church being whittled away by casuistical suggestions of this kind.

I beg to say to the hon. and learned Member let us meet in the gate and on logical arguments upon question of this kind. Do not let us go into the by-paths which give up the whole principle of Disendowment. Because of a sort of notion that generosity sounds a good term, and justice is a sort of idea that ought to come home to a person's mind, you are going to give us back £6,000, whereas you are taking from us £150,000 a year, a sum to which we hold a better title. The hon. Member who seconded this Amendment talked about the sensitiveness of Churchmen in matters of money. I believe that Churchmen are very sensitive upon points of that kind. We find about £9,000,000 a year out of our private pockets at the present time, and that is no inconsiderable donation towards Church purposes. Let me ask the hon. Member if, as a Churchman, he is so sensitive, how can he support this Amendment? Surely we should be more sensitive about keeping in our own pocket a Parliamentary Grant of yesterday than we should be in keeping tithe or private donations given centuries ago. I hope he will give me full credit for what I am saying to him, because when we are dealing with a matter of principle, a matter which, in my view, affects the very foundation of future religious life in this country, do not let us be led astray by mere casuistical arguments. If the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment are actuated by a sense of justice and fairness—and I do not deny that they are for a moment—do let them carry it out in the only logical way they can, and let them realise that if we are entitled to this £6,000—ten times more, on every ground of principle and equity, are we entitled to our Endowments generally. I hope I have made my attitude clear as regards this Amendment. I dislike more than I can say these doles, under the guise of generosity and justice. If hon. Members opposite have really generosity and justice, they would not put their hands into our pockets or take a farthing of these Endowments which the Church now enjoys.

The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a speech which I respectfully submit to him he would not have made at this stage unless I had announced on the part of the Government the acceptance of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member concluded by observing that he trusted he had made his position perfectly clear on this Amendment, but I can assure him that I am in complete doubt as to whether he intends to vote for the Amendment or against it.

Sir A. CRIPPS

I will remove the right hon. Gentleman's doubt by saying that I am not going to vote against another £6,000 for the Church; I am not going to do anything so quixotic as that; but at the same time I say that the Movers of the Amendment, if they were logical, should give us the whole of our Endowments.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. and learned Gentleman did not confine what is logical to the Mover of the Amendment; he claimed logic for himself, and he stated that he had rather be logically despoiled than illegally receive doles and Grants under the guise of generosity. Therefore, I was in genuine doubt as to what the hon. and learned Member intended. I am assured now that he intends to vote for the Amendment. I really think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not done justice to the case put forward by my hon. Friend. I recognise, we all recognise, the feeling which prompts the hon. and learned Gentleman, and we respect him for it on this side of the House. We all appreciate that he is an earnest defender of his Church, and that he really and genuinely feels that we are doing him an injustice. We recognise, on the other hand, I think, that the hon. and learned Member ought to do a little more justice than he does to the arguments that we endeavour to adduce. He said, in the first place, that if we accept this Amendment, inasmuch as the Parliamentary Grants were made to the Established Church, the case for alienating other Endowments of the Established Church has gone. We have been challenged whether it was necessary that Disestablishment and Disendowment should be conjoined. There have been several cases of Disestablishment without Disendowment, and there have been cases of Disestablishment with Disendowment. It has never been put forward on this side of the House by the Solicitor-General, as the hon. and learned Member stated, nor by anybody else, that the gift to the Established Church of itself would deprive the Church of the right to retain it upon becoming Disestablished. It was a gift to the Established Church, which was co-extensive with the nation and an Established Church which was regarded and held to be the trustees for the nation.

It is in that sense that the gift to the Established Church has been regarded—a gift to the nation. The hon. and learned Gentleman really has not proved his case, that if we accept this Amendment we are bound to abandon all claim to restore to the nation what was given to the Established Church, when that Established Church represented the nation. So much for the first part of his argument. He said, secondly, that our case with regard to tithe has been founded upon the fact that tithe in Wales had its origin in a payment which could be legally enforced, and if that is so, it is in the nature of a tax, and, as Parliamentary Grants are derived from taxes, if you claim to alienate the tithe from the Church, you must on the same principle claim to alienate the Parliamentary Grants. There is much to be said for that argument, and, unless there was a great deal to show in favour of alienating the Parliamentary Grants from the Disestablished Church, I can assure hon. Friends opposite and hon. Friends on my own side, that I should never have been responsible for putting this into the Bill. But I have been impressed by an argument of quite a different kind with regard to these Parliamentary Grants—very strongly impressed. I have felt that these Parliamentary Grants were given out of the national money to the Established Church, and devoted to the erection of Church buildings. I have been impressed by the argument that to take these Parliamentary Grants would be rather like calling upon the Church for the tithe which the Church had spent in the past. I look upon those Grants as upon tithe paid in past years and has been accumulating. Secondly, I think, those Grants stand on quite a different footing from the payment of tithe hereafter, which alone we propose to alienate from the Church. Supposing the case for the Parliamentary Grants were this: supposing instead of Parliamentary Grants which were paid once for all for years and years, we had Parliamentary Grants continuing now and paid next year and the year after. I should unhesitatingly say that those Grants must be stopped. But the Grants are not of that kind and being impressed by the argument and not as the hon. and learned Getleman implied by any desire to claim a character for generosity in any sort of way, but with the sole and earnest desire to do justice, we believe that the balance of the scale is in favour of the Church and not in favour of the State.

6.0 P.M.

Colonel WILLIAMS

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman used one phrase about tithe being enforceable by law and was therefore a tax. There are many obligations enforceable by law, although undertaken for something else than the purposes of the State. Tithe is enforceable by law because it is an obligation under which certain people have acquired certain property, and there being an obligation in that sense to pay, it is enforceable by law just as any other contract. But if a man has contracted to build a dock for £100,000 and the amount is not paid, he goes to law and he gets his claim enforced. The speech of the Mover of the Amendment was one, the tone, restraint, and deep sense of feeling of which every one in the House who heard it very fully appreciated. But he did use one phrase, that these particular Grants to the Church were legally hers and therefore ought to be paid back to her because she was legally entitled to them. I should like to carry that a little further. The argument of the Home Secretary is that tithe is a tax because the Church can enforce it by law, and that therefore the Church is legally entitled to tithe. If tithe can be enforced legally, then the Church is entitled to exercise the power legally too. I wish to draw attention to another thing which was brought to my mind by the very courageous and pathetic speech of the hon Member for Stoke yesterday. That has been enforced by the two speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment to-day. It is an interesting, if pathetic, spectacle to see men who are conscious of what is right fighting against the inexorable logic of the course on which they have embarked and being drawn down along a stream and touching something on the bank as they go along to get out of it. The hon. Member for Stoke said that it was borne in upon himself that to take money which has been given for religious purposes and apply it for secular purposes is wrong. We have heard a great deal about generosity, but it is not a question of generosity. It is not anybody's money to give away in a generous way. We are talking about justice, and the speeches of the two hon. Members to-day prove that the hon. Member for Stoke was right about the feeling that has been getting up in the country that it is not right to take religious money and devote it to secular purposes. We are trying to whittle this Grant in this way, and the other Grant in another way, and tithe and glebe will come on later, but I think we shall find out that the sense of justice which is ingrained in this country, and the sense of right-doing which is shared by every class and community, will inevitably drive the Government out of the position they have taken up and wreck this Bill at last, because the feeling will grow, and is growing, and will become overwhelming, that it is absolutely wrong, and, to use a stronger word, absolutely wicked to take money which is given for religious purposes and apply it purely to secular purposes.

Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES

Seeing that the Home Secretary has definitely accepted the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), I do not propose to attempt to combat the arguments which he urged in a singularly able and temperate speech. The announcement made by the Home Secretary last night, I said at once would create in the minds of the Welsh people not only grave disappointment but feelings of indignation, and already I have received messages from all parts of the Principality signifying the dissatisfaction with which the great majority of the Liberals and Nonconformists in that part of the country have received the announcement of those proposed concessions. Under those circumstances I and the hon. Members from Wales who habitually act with me are placed in a position of very considerable difficulty in regard to these Amendments. Now, what is our position? I am unmoved by the speeches of both the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, and I am unmoved, I am bound to say, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I still think that the concessions which my right hon. Friend proposes to make as to the apportionment of the property of these dissolved corporations is unfair to the Welsh people considered as a whole. We have deemed that the division of that property as made in the Bill as it stands is not only just but even generous in this sense, just because we are not attempting to give away money that belongs to the nation, but generous in the sense that it is more favourable to that section of the Welsh people which adheres to the Church of England than the strict application of equitable rules would suggest, and we have supported this Bill without criticism upon the understanding that the Government were going to stand by those proposals.

If these concessions, or similar concessions of a reasonable character, have been asked for by the opponents of the Bill, the matter would have been in quite a different position, but the Opposition in this House has met the Bill with uncompromising hostility. If the Archbishop of Canterbury, and if the Welsh Bishops, and if the hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the other side representing Welsh constituencies, had come to us and suggested that more liberal terms should be offered, we should have been quite prepared to listen to compromise upon financial questions with a view to a lasting settlement of this con- troversy. But, it appears to me, that the Government have yielded to the representations of Liberal Churchmen and Liberal Nonconformists sitting on this side of the House. I am not going to question the sincerity of the action taken by my hon. Friends, nor am I going to express any adverse criticism on the action of the Government, in which on the whole we have confidence, but we have to determine what our action in regard to these Amendments and on the subsequent stages of the Bill have to be. We have considered the matter, and we have to say that we cannot associate ourselves with the acceptance of these Amendments, and that we, as representatives of the Welsh people, must disclaim responsibility in regard to them. But, having regard to the fact that what Wales demands, above all, is religious equality, and that any financial question must be subordinate and in a secondary place, we have come to the conclusion, and I think I am speaking for all my hon. Friends, that it is our duty to our constituents to support this Bill in regard to subsequent stages. I am sure hon. Members on the other side of the House will appreciate the difficulty that I have had. I wish it to be understood that I am not attempting to bind in regard to any particular Amendment any of the hon. Members who habitually act with me, but I am perfectly convinced that I am expressing the general sense of the party to which I belong, and what will be the general sense of the whole of Wales, when the matter comes to be further examined.

Mr. BONAR LAW

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down was, as he told us, in a difficult position, and I think he has got out of it with as much facility and dignity as the circumstances permitted. What is the net result of the speech to which we have just listened? It comes to this. In the earlier stages of the discussion to-day we listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. S. Horne), which dealt in a spirit with which we on this side of the House are always ready to sympathise with, a desire to be free from religious differences and religious bitterness. But it comes to this, when it comes down to any question, however small, of leaving to the Church of England and Wales any part of the Endowments which the opponents of that Church desire to take away, when it comes to that, though they may talk of the desire of avoiding differences, and though they may talk of generosity with money which is not theirs to be generous with, yet whenever it comes down to any substantive proposal the Gentlemen who are pressing forward this Bill are dead against any concession of this kind. But as regards the position of the Welsh Members it is very plain, and we see many examples of it in this House. They are going to make a protest. What is the meaning of it? The protest is towards their constituents in Wales whom they think wish this Bill and wish them to be unreasonable about it, but, having made that protest, they are going to become, as before, the most docile followers of the Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. I am bound to say that there is extreme difficulty in the position of the Welsh Members. It is quite impossible to see any ground on which they could agree to this concession which would not apply to the position of all the other Endowments. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that what the people in Wales wish is religious equality, and since they are going to get that he will support the Bill. But that applies to tithes and everything else just as much as it does to this, and if that is, as I believe it to be, the real motive of all fairminded men in Wales who desire this Bill, then why in the world can they not go the whole step at once, and say, "We do wish religious equality, we do wish to Disestablish the Church, but we are not jealous of the Church of England in Wales, and we do not desire to weaken it, and we will leave it all the Endowments of which it is making such good use." Why can they not do that?

I cannot speak for the Church of England either in Wales or in England, but I say this, though I myself believe connection between the Church and State is desirable both for the Church and State, and though I believe the people in Wales, though they have strong religious sentiments and even their prejudices against particular denominations, would desire to see some connection between Church and State, though I believe all that is true, so far as I am concerned, my feeling of opposition and hostility to this Bill would be immensely removed, and I believe this is true of all my Friends, if the meanness of this proposal, the meanness of robbing a poor Church which is poorer than the Church of Ireland was on its Disestablishment, were done away with, and that we could feel it was not jealousy of the Church but a real desire for religious equality that was animating people. I must say this further about the speech of the hon. Member. He said to us if we had demanded this concession there would he more to be said for it. The other day, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was trying to win the support of hon. Gentlemen behind him who thought this Bill was not fair, he said if we had asked for it and would accept it in a spirit which showed we were not so hostile to the Bill, they would consider it. What did we find the very same day? The Home Secretary, before a word had been said, declared he would make no such concession. An hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite, and who has spoken often on this measure, said that if such concessions were made he would have nothing further to do with the Bill, and I think he went so far as to say that he would not support the Government. What, then, is the use of talking on that line? Do not hon. Members from Wales consider that they themselves have a responsibility in the matter? Do they think that a thing which is just and right in itself is to be done by them not because it is just and right, but only in answer to some proposal made to them?

On this subject I am not prejudiced. When any Member talks about the desire to get rid of religious differences I am reminded of what has happened in Scotland, my own country. Twenty or twenty-five years ago there was there a demand for Disestablishment, perhaps not a keen as there is to-day in Wales—I do not know about that—but certainly far keener than in England. It has died down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] When hon. Members from Scotland pretend that it has not died down, let me say that I know more about that than they do. It has absolutely died down. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has died down for this reason. The people who really desire that the nation should be influenced by religious organisations feel that the way to obtain that result is not by magnifying differences between different bodies, but by realising that, after all, though there are differences, and they feel them keenly, they are fighting the same battle, and it is not for the advantage of any religious body to weaken any other religious body engaged in the same work. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Home) spoke this afternoon about the possibility of different denominations working together. I for one should be very glad to see that. But how is it to be brought about Do you think it is going to be brought about by bringing in a Bill which to anyone who is not influenced by party or other kind of prejudice, shows clearly that the motive at the back of the minds of those who are pressing it most strongly is not a desire for religious equality, but that, like little petty traders who are jealous of rivals, they are trying to weaken a Church engaged in the same work? An hon. Member opposite, speaking earlier this afternoon, said that what was influencing the Government was not the reason given by supporters in favour of these concessions, but the Division which took place last Friday. I think that is true. But it is not merely the Division. It is the knowledge which every man on that bench has in his heart, that throughout the length and breadth of England and Scotland there is the feeling that this Bill is being pushed forward for a mean motive and against the best interests of religion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that there is that feeling, and the only way to get rid of it is to adopt the spirit of the concluding words of the hon. Member opposite, and say, "What we want is religious equality; we do not want your money; we are willing to leave the money for you to make the best use of it you can."

Sir HERBERT ROBERTS

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to express my view on the present situation, as I happen to be one of those who took some part in the Debates upon this question in 1894–5. The right hon. Gentleman opposite concluded his speech by saying that if we really wished for religious equality, we Nonconformists in Wales should not take up the attitude that we do upon the Financial Clauses of the Bill. We do want religious equality. The difference between the two sides of the House is as to the meaning to be attached to that phrase. I desire to associate myself with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), who very ably leads Welsh Members in regard to all matters connected with this Bill. It would be idle for me, knowing, as I do, the feeling of Welsh Nonconformists, to disguise from the Committee the very great disappointment that will be caused in Wales by the announcement made by the Home Secretary in regard to these important concessions. Everything depends upon the Committee's recognising the fact of Welsh Nonconformity; what it means in the history of Wales; what lies behind it, and the spirit which justifies our support of the Bill now under consideration. I was sorry to hear the Leader of the Opposition again describe it as a mean Bill, although I was glad to hear him say that he desired to promote in every way any movement making for greater union arid more co-operation between religious bodies in the country. I know that he feels that. So do we. The whole point is that we have a different conviction as to the only way of achieving that goal.

On the question immediately before the Committee, I feel that what, from our standpoint, is all-important is to achieve the passing of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite cannot take the same view. I look upon this Bill as an instrument which, in my judgment, will in time be the means of alleviating the present discord in religious matters in Wales, and of laying the foundation of a better day in the history of our people. That is my belief. Believing that conscientiously, we are bound to support the Bill. Although I regret that it has been found necessary to make these concessions, I do not regret it from the money aspect at all. Personally, I do not place very much weight upon the money as an attribute of religious organisation. But our opinion was that the financial Clauses of the Bill were just and, in our judgment, generous, and we regret that it has been found necessary to alter them. At the same time the Government are responsible for the passage of the Bill, and, speaking for myself, I have full confidence in them.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I must congratulate the Welsh party on the very heroic determination to which they have come. In view of the great indignation which they tell us is excited throughout Wales by the announcement of the Home Secretary, we might have expected a different decision from that which the hon. Member has announced. We find it difficult to understand at what exact point their indignation becomes operative. However reluctant they may be, it evidently allows them to swallow a matter of £14,000. We were told the other day, when it was a question of £47,000, that the Bill would have to be dropped, and that the proposal was absolutely impossible. It would be interesting to know where the actual breaking point comes, and at what stage the indignation of the Welsh people will rise to a level which the Welsh Members can no longer restrain. There is a very general feeling amongst a certain section of the more Liberal population of this country that the Church of England is State-paid. I have always felt that the only possible justification for that assertion lay in these Parliamentary Grants, which seem to be the only instance of money having been actually given by the State. The fact that this is a widespread belief among those who attend Liberal meetings is a very poor testimony to the powers of exposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am certain that they do not deliberately tell the people that the Church is State-paid—at all events, I hope not. But that is the impression left on the minds of the people. Therefore, I am exceedingly glad that it has now been recognised by the Home Secretary that in this matter the Church has an absolute right to what has been granted to her, and I hope that these Grants will not be used as the foundation of any such argument in the future.

Hon. Members opposite apparently cannot understand how extremely offensive it is to those who believe as sincerely as they do in the opposite direction that every time any sort of so-called concession is made they should stand up and, with unctuous superiority, describe the generosity with which we are acting and the gratitude which we ought to express to them for it. We look upon this money as a trust given to us which we are bound to administer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Given by whom?"] Churchmen consider that these, are funds which have been given to them to administer, and as such they have no right to give them away or to allow them to be devoted to secular objects. Therefore, when hon. Members talk about generosity, they cannot expect us to respond. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment (Mr. Beck) used a very curious argument. He said that he was very sensitive on the matter of the Church making money. Why should he be sensitive about the Church holding funds which have been given to her to administer? He ought to be more sensitive about devoting those funds to secular and absolutely irreligious purposes.

Mr. BECK

My point was that the Church, as a religious foundation, should be more sensitive about holding funds in regard to which there was the least doubt than even an ordinary individual would be.

Mr. LANE-FOX

I think that anybody who holds funds to which ho has no right ought to be very sensitive. That does not seem to me to be a very original observation. Obviously a religious body ought to have at least as high a standard as an ordinary individual.

Mr. BECK

That is not my point.

Mr. LANE-FOX

That sort of argument does not appeal to us who feel so strongly that the Church has a perfect right to hold these funds, and that it is her absolute duty to administer them according to the lines on which they were given. This is supposed to be a generous concession. All I can say is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it will make the Bill anymore palatable to us, they must believe that the convictions of those who are opposing the Bill are very much less definite and less well-founded than in fact they are.

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS

I find myself in a very peculiar position. I listened with great sympathy to the speech made earlier in the afternoon of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks. I thought it was one of the most excellent speeches in favour of Disendowment that I have ever heard. I could not help but hope that some day or other I might have the privilege of hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman, either in the Law Courts or elsewhere, arguing in favour of the views of hon. Members on this side of the House. The arguments which he adduced against the acceptance of this Amendment were, I thought, extremely good and, indeed, conclusive for anyone who believes at all in Disestablishment or Disendowment. At the same time, I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the tone and temper of the speeches that were delivered by the two hon. Members on this side. I would especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, who is a Liberal Churchman, for his sympathetic references to the Welsh attitude in this matter. But it is no good in indulging in words now. We are face to face with this situation: Here is a Bill which has been produced. So far as the Disendowment proposals are concerned, they were produced in 1895. They were reintroduced in 1909. Disendowment has been a subject of discussion in this House and in the country ever since. We Welsh Members and a great number of Liberal Members have been advocating the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Wales on the lines of this Bill, and on no other! As the Prime Minister said earlier in the afternoon, this Bill is far more generous to the Church than either of the two preceding Bills. Therefore we Welsh Members find ourselves in a most difficult position. After having advocated and defended these proposals, as we thought, the sanction of the Government up to last night, we suddenly find ourselves deserted by the very people whom we thought we were supporting. Why?

What is the meaning of this extraordinary somersault that the Government have turned? I could quite understand if hon. Members of long standing in this House and of great weight in the counsels of our party had asked for concessions. I can understand that the Government would have lent sympathetic ears to those representations. So far as I know, that has not been the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said last night, before hearing this Debate and the very excellent arguments which have been adduced by my hon. Friends on this side—before hearing anything—the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept the Amendment. Why? Because he had been impressed by the arguments which had been already addressed to him. When? I suppose last Friday. Therefore the origin of the surrender of the Government is not the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, but what happened last Friday. What happened last Friday? We saw a revolt of private secretaries and the Ecclesiastical Commissioner. We who are interested in this Bill have noticed what has been going on for the last two or three weeks. We have seen little men scurrying along the corridors big with fate, with satchels bulging out with the destinies of peoples, buzzing about like excited gadflies, whispering in odd corners in the corridors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] When they heard a footstep near they stole away behind the Speaker's Chair, or to some other convenient retiring room which would be more appropriate to the task they had in hand. Those hon. Members, four private secretaries, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and a few pious Nonconformists and broad-minded Churchmen, are the people who have brought the Government down. Those are the people who have left us, the Welsh Members, without justification for speeches which we have been addressing to the people.

Wales, like a good many small countries with a long history, has gone down before many a foe in the past, but never before so ignominious a foe as this! She went down before Edward I.—who has been called the greatest of the Plantagenets. She went down before Henry V.—who was described as the greatest captain that ever sat on the English Throne. She went down before Cromwell, a man descended like the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, from Welsh stock, though, like the Noble Lord, he always forgot it. Cromwell, with his invincible troops, was the only man who ever succeeded in crushing and trampling under foot every nationality in the British Isles Though we are sorry, in a way, looking back on our long history at these defeats, we felt no humiliation, because we felt we had been defeated by great men. What now is the position? Wales has gone down; Wales, this old and haughty nation, "Proud in arms," as Milton called her, has gone down before the charge of as ragged a regiment as ever marched to Coventry—and may they long remain there—a party of young men and old women! That is why we Welsh Members feel, as I say, humiliated to-day. I have no doubt that the Government have received from these private secretaries and the Ecclesiastical Commissioner and those other people plenty of inducement to do what they have. Some of the private secretaries in the course of this discussion have addressed the House in their best and most superior Parliamentary manner, a manner which made us all surprised that they were not long ago sitting as Under-Secretaries on the Front Treasury Bench. If my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, had been here, humble and obscure Member of his party though I am, I would have dared to address a word not of warning, but of encouragement to him. Next time when one of these pious Nonconformists or broadminded Churchmen fly the flag of revolt—because it is a revolt against the Government, and not against the Welsh party—let him offer him, not an Under-Secretary-ship—because that would not entail a by-election—let him offer him a Junior Lordship of the Treasury (unpaid), because by a paradox of our Constitution an unpaid Lord of the Treasury holds an office of profit under the Crown. Then what shall we see? The hon. Gentlemen who have been engineering this cave are very brave men. They will dare to meet the frowns of the Welsh Members and the scowls of the Chief Whip. There is one thing they will not dare to do, that is to meet their constituents.

My hon. Friend, the Member for Morley, went down to his constituents with his honours thick upon him last Saturday night. He was described by an enthusiastic admirer—so I read in one of the Yorkshire newspapers—as a man who had conferred new fame upon Morley. Morley had until then been known only as the birthplace of the Prime Minister. I remember Morley, not only as the birthplace of the Prime Minister, but as a seat also which in 1906, and the previous Parliament, was represented in this House by Mr. Hutton. I knew him well. A stronger Liberal, a more robust Nonconformist, or a truer friend to Wales and religious equality never sat in this House. But I suppose he would be misrepresenting the Morley Division of Yorkshire, because my hon. Friend, who succeeded him, was a man who was willing to bring the Government to its knees last Friday, not in order to give this concession or any concession, but to give away the whole of the Endowments with the exception of tithes. The hon. Member went down on Saturday night to Morley, and though his enthusiastic admirers started in the way I have described, before the end of the meeting a very different state of things prevailed. The vote of confidence that was passed in the hon. Member was a very conditional one indeed. I would like to ask where we stand to-day? There are rumours going round. I do not know, therefore, whether I can endorse in full the very admirable statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea District. Where do we stand? Is this the limit of concession? Or is the Government going to stand on this slippery slope, dragging their followers still lower into the valley of humiliation? What is the hon. Member for Morley going to do? Is he going to stand out for glebe to-morrow?

The CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that I have allowed him a good deal of latitude, but he cannot go so far as he is going now.

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS

I apologise, Mr. Whitley. I have no doubt I was led away more than I ought to have been in speaking to this Amendment. I will reserve what I have to say till to-morrow to that part of the Bill. All I would say now is this: that this question of Parliamentary Grants, to my mind, is not a big thing. I quite appreciate that it does not stand exactly on the same basis as other Endowments. I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who made so excellent a contribution to the Disendowment argument earlier in the afternoon, when he said that it stands exactly on the same basis. I agree with my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment that there are arguments which may be addressed to the House of Commons. There is doubt as to the destination of these Grants. If there be such doubt, the benefit of that doubt ought to be given to the Church. That was the proposition laid down by Mr. Gladstone in 1869. That is the proposition in which I think every fair-minded man will agree. But I bow to your ruling, Mr. Whitley. I do not wish to pursue any further the remarks that I meant to have made. Still I cannot in my own mind dissociate what it is proposed to do, with what may be done to-morrow. Until I know what is going to happen to-morrow, I propose to take no further part one way or another in these Debates.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

It is idle for the hon. Member to attack one of his own side for acting according to his judgment, because, after all, what the hon. Member for Morley has done is to act according to his conscience and to decline to accept a machine-made position from the Party Whips. The hon. and learned Member himself showed in the latter part of his speech some indication of the same independent spirit which he decried in the case of the hon. Member for Morley. When we consider the whole question of these Amendments and the concession the Government has made, and the suggestion of generosity, I want to make it clear in the first place that we feel that these concessions are made, not from a spirit of generosity, but because, it is impossible to argue to the contrary. The Government have accepted this proposal to continue to the Church a Parliamentary Grant which was made nearly 200 years ago, because they cannot adduce one single argument in favour of confiscating it. I object in the strongest manner to the suggestion made, not merely by hon. Members in this House, but by hon. Members on public platforms up and down the country, that this Bill is a generous measure to the English Church in Wales. We decline to believe that the Government is allowing to remain to the Disestablished Church in Wales one single item of property that they could possibly take away from that Church with any shadow of reason whatever. I want to go a little further with regard to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea. He told us he put religious equality first, and that financial questions were subordinate to great questions of religious equality.

In the earlier part of the Bill you have got religious equality, you have got Disestablishment, and now for the first time—I do not like to use the word concession—the Government have admitted arguments put forward on this side of the House and upon their own side in regard to some particular form of Endowment, but the Welsh party decline to accept religious equality unless it is accompanied by financial inequality to the Church. I cannot help feeling that they are thereby showing the real position which Welsh Members have taken up, outside the House at all events, and gradually taken up inside this House, with regard to this question of Disendowment. It is not Disestablishment they want. It is not religious equality they are after. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department knows perfectly well that that famous quotation of his is as appropriate to-day as when he uttered it, "That Disendowment is a programme with money in it"; and because it is a programme with money in it the Welsh Party desire to proceed with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), in a piece of brilliant invective and eloquence which will no doubt greatly add to his Parliamentary reputation, has, I think, shown that their real object is not to be found in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, and that the right hon. Gentleman's speech does not express the real feelings of Welsh Members sitting below the Gangway. He has chosen to attack not Members on this side of the House, but Members of his own side, because, in spite of knowing that it would affect them and their constituencies, they have dared to do what they believe to be right in this matter; they have dared to come down to this House, and, at the risk of their own position, have told the Government that they are not prepared to vote for this particular portion of this Clause. I say far more honour is due to those Members than to a large number of Members opposite, who do not listen to the Debates, but who come in when the Division bells ring and vote exactly as the Government Whips tell them to vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about yourself."] I tried to pick up the purport of three or four interruptions hurled at me in the one moment. I think we do our best to attend and to listen to the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, it cannot be alleged against me that I am an irregular attendant, for I have done my best, but I do not speak unduly often. I congratulate the Government on having among their supporters the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea Boroughs, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I ask the Government to take courage from this afternoon's Debate. They now know, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, that they have nothing to fear from the Welsh Members in this House. They now know, or rather they did know on Friday night, what they have to fear from Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman asks what took place on Friday night. What took place on Friday night is this: That the Bill was saved by the Irish Members. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I want the Government to realise once and for all, and I think it is not an unfair deduction from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea and from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Government need not fear to make concessions. I do not ask for concessions, but rather that they need not fear to do what they believe to be right on this question of Disendowments. The Welsh party, both inside and outside this House, have been very truculent before this afternoon. I do not know whether hon. Members remember a speech made at Carnarvon, in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in May last, which dealt with this very question as to whether any concessions should be made in the course of these Debates on the Bill. It was a speech made by the Rev. Evan Jones, a Calvinistie minister. This is what he said upon a public platform, and I think his utterances had a considerable effect in stiffening the backs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. I am going to ask them now to no longer regard what the rev. gentleman said in his speech. He said:— I tell you, sir, that we want more iron in the veins of English Liberalism. There are rumours that further concessions to the Church are contemplated when the Bill goes into Committee. I tell you, sir, we will not permit the Welsh Members to compromise for the purpose of securing the passage of this Bill. We should prefer to lose the Bill altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sat and listened to that, and the rev. gentleman went on to say:— Rather than submit to that, sir, we will wreck the Government. Remember, we will rend the Liberal Party itself, from top to bottom, rather than permit lukewarm English Liberals to override the will of Wales. And it is these Gentlemen who direct a good deal of public opinion in Wales. Now, however, we know the value of these threats. If these threats are disregarded, the Welsh party will still support the Government as the Irish party does, in order to prevent the forcing of an appeal to the constituencies.

The CHAIRMAN

Members on both sides have strayed rather a long way from the immediate Amendment before the Chair. I must now ask them to come back to it.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

During the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I was beginning to feel that Queen Anne was dead. We have not heard from any of the Welsh Members opposite one single word against the acceptance of this Amendment. We have had not a single defence of the proposals for taking away those Grants. We have nothing to answer in that way, and therefore I do not propose beyond a single sentence to waste the time of the Committee in discussing that point. I do want in one sentence to appeal to all hon. Members to support this so-called concession, because of the injustice of the proposals of the Clause. It is not dignified for the British Parliament, to give a thing definitely by Act of Parliament in 1802 and to take it away in 1912. It was definitely given by an Act of Parliament of this country, and you could not have a stronger title or a better title than that given by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, and I ask every Member, and I would almost appeal to Welsh Members themselves, not to press this matter to a Division, in order to preserve Parliamentary continuity, and in order that Parliamentary legislation may be continued, and in order that property which came into possession by a Parliamentary title, given by a solemn decision of this House, should never be interfered with.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I hardly think that the course of this Debate can encourage the Government in making concessions. I think the reception the proposal has met with on all sides should make the Government realise the danger of the course they are embarking upon when they begin to whittle away the financial framework of their Bill. I do not say that merely in regard to the natural disappointment fell by the Welsh Members. It is not an easy thing, after you have defended the scheme of a Bill as a right and just scheme, suddenly to find that a new scheme is presented to you, and that the very arguments you have been using are turned against you. But I refer more to the speeches made by the other side in receiving this concession. My right hon. Friend drew a very careful distinction between Parliamentary Grants and other Endowments to the Welsh Church. The right hon. Gentleman, from my point of view, made a very strong point when he said that this was money which had been saved by the Welsh Church which they might have spent when it was originally given them. I think that was a very strong point, and differentiates this from other Endowments. But apart from that single argument, the position which the hon. Member for South Bucks and others took up was that there is no difference between the title the Church of England in Wales possesses to the Parliamentary Grant, and the title by which it has held the other Endowments. I am on the whole inclined to believe that the Opposition is on a great deal stronger ground there than the Government and those supporting this Amendment. I do not think you can really draw this acute distinction in the origin of Endowments which in my view the Church holds as trustees, but which it certainly hold for many centuries in the past. Unless we can prove our title to deal with the Endowments of the Church and any other public Endowments in the country apart from their origin, I think we shall be landed in endless controversy, and shall never get to the end of that controversy. I rest my defence of the proposals of the Bill, not upon any ground as to the origin of the Endowments, but rather on the right of Parliament to deal with Endowments to-day in the interests of the community living around us. All the arguments of the Opposition have been directed to that one point. There has been a great deal of talk about founders and donors and their intentions, whether they gave for the advantage of the nation or the Church, whether it was for prayers for the dead or for the benefit of the community, but those are irrelevant to the questions we have to decide under the present Bill. What are our rights in dealing with the funds we are now considering in which Parliamentary Grants form one portion. There is no moral hindrance to Parliament dealing with all public Endowments as Parliament in its wisdom may determine. So long as you respect the rights of the living, I believe there is no moral hindrance to doing what we will with all public Endowments. It is important to decide that point before we talk about this particular Amendment. I heard it stated last night that Henry VIII. stole the Endowments of the Church. I do not know whether that view is really held by hon. Members opposite.

Viscount WOLMER

He had no moral right to take them.

Mr. LEIF JONES

At any rate, he acted through Parliament. I admit that if Parliament had not adopted his wishes something was likely to happen to Parliament; but I submit that he had a legal and moral right to deal with the Endowments of the Church just as we have a legal and moral right to deal with these funds. If I thought this was stealing, I should not be arguing whether we should give £5,000 or not to the Church in Wales. If it is stealing the Endowments, no honest man can get up to defend it, and it is utterly irrelevant in that case whether the Church made good or bad use of the money, because we should have no right to deal with any part of it. I maintain that we have a perfect right to deal with the Endowments of the Church and with all public Endowments provided that you so much respect the Endowments as will not destroy security and prevent people giving Endowments. How much security do you require to give before people will make Endowments for public purposes?

The CHAIRMAN

We have had two long days for the general discussion, covering practically the whole question of Endowments, and I think the whole Committee will desire that this opportunity should be devoted to each question as it arises. The question before us is that of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Bounty Grant. If we discuss all the five questions on each of these points we shall never reach the end. I think we ought to confine the Debate more strictly to this one question.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I will try to conform to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have been answering arguments all of which have been used in the Debate. I was going on to deal with the difference between religious and secular Endowments which has been urged from the other side. Naturally, I do not accept the distinction drawn by hon. Members between religious and secular uses. I cannot see how you can say that to spend money on the maintenance of a rectory is a religious use and to spend it on the maintenance of a hospital is an irreligious use. We are now discussing whether this £5,000 should be given for the use of the Church in Wales or reserved for other purposes.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now bringing in the provisions of Clause 18, and we must confine our discussion to Clause 8.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I wish to refer to a phrase used this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, who, not for the first time, described the financial proposals of this Bill as mean. My hon. Friend behind me talked of £5,000 as a little concession, and I remember that the hon. Member for Morley the other day spoke of the £47,000 we were discussing as a small matter, and it was called a beggarly concession by one speaker. May I point out that the whole sum is not a large one. The whole revenue of the Church in Wales is not a very large revenue, and we are dealing only with a sum of £260,000 a year. Of that our Bill in the first place reserves £87,000 for the Church, leaving £170,000 for the nation. You have to deduct from that £170,000, the life interest of the clergy of Wales, and other income amounting to £62,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN

That argument would obviously entail a reply from those who do not agree with the figures, and as we have already spent two whole days discussing these questions, we must now keep to this particular Amendment.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I was only showing that this sum was not a very large one. We are starting with a sum of £111,000. The Amendment before the Committee proposes to take out of that a sum of between £5,000 and £6,000. Another Amendment accepted by the Government takes £9,000, so that £15,000 will have to come out of the total sum, and there will be left to the nation in this mean Bill £96,000 out of the total revenue of £260,000.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Does that not show that it is mean?

Mr. LEIF JONES

I submit that proposals that will leave to the nation, most of whose people are not members of the Church of England, only £96,000, are not mean. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not worth taking."] When we are distributing to the majority of the people of Wales £96,000, and at the same time leaving to the Church the balance of the income of about £170,000 and the Church fabrics, it seems to me that no one can urge that that is dealing ungenerously with the Church. I submit that it is strictly relevant to the Amendment we are dealing with when you are giving concessions to show what is left to the nation when those concessions are made. If you accept our view that we are dealing with national funds, I do not think it can be urged that we are acting ungenerously towards the Church in Wales. I have no desire to deal ungenerously with that Church. I do not oppose the concessions which are being made by the Government, but I say that they have gone far enough, and if you go any further in the way of being generous to the Church you become ungenerous to the Welsh people.

Mr. LEACH rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I will attempt to keep my remarks to the particular Amendment before the Committee. It is unfortunate for the Committee that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) was not allowed to give the answer to the conundrum as to what security is required to induce people to give to the Church in future. The answer to that conundrum is not this Bill, and not this Amendment either. I do not think there will be very much security in the future, even if this Amendment is carried.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I was quite ready to answer that conundrum, but the Chairman intervened at that point.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Then we need not go further into that point. I sympathise very much with the Welsh Liberal Members, because they seem to be in a very unhappy condition. They have been given away by the Government and they are not going to get the big Disendowments they expected. I am really very sorry for them; but the action they have taken is not likely to frighten the Government very much in the future. They are making a very mild protest, but they are going to support the Government for the rest of the year. The real point about their position is that they are absolutely illogical. If you grant that there is to be Disendowment, I cannot understand why this concession is made. What is it that differentiates this particular part of the Church's property from the rest of the Church property? For my part I contest the right of the Government to take away a single penny of the property of the Church and secularise it in this way. I regard this concession as a very trumpery and a very small one. I believe it amounts to £5,000 a year. We are told that the Government are going to make a further concession, but I do not know what the effect of that will be on the Welsh Members. Whether it will induce them to pluck up courage and vote against the Government making a further concession I do not know.

We are told that there is to be another concession of about £10,000 on the Royal Bounty Fund. Therefore the whole concession is £15,000 a year when you are proposing to take away from the Church something like £170,000 a year. That is a wonderful piece of finance. The Government's proposal was to take away from the poorest part of the Church of England £170,000 a year, and now you are making this wonderfully generous concession of £15,000. You said you were going to leave the Church 6s. 8d. in the £ of its property. It was originally 1s. 6d. in the £, but what it is now after these concessions I do not know, but I suppose it is 7s. 2d. in the £. It is a very poor thing at the best. For my part, I shall support the Amendment, because it is better than nothing at all. I certainly do not think much of it as a concession, and it is utterly inconsistent with all the rest of the Bill. What I want to know is, what is going to be the action not of the Welsh Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed."] No, we are not agreed, and if hon. Members think we are, then they are entirely mistaken. I want to know what is going to be the action of Liberal Churchmen and their friends in relation to this concession. Is it a full satisfaction of their demands? They asked the Government the other day for £47,000 a year. The Government have apparently estimated them at about one-third of what they demanded, and they are giving them £15,000 a year. Is this a final satisfaction of their demands? If so, I think it is a very poor and miserable satisfaction. I earnestly hope hon. Members opposite will not be satisfied with this trumpery twopenny-halfpenny concession, but will continue their opposition to the general principle of Disendowing the Church of funds which rightly belong to her and which are going to be taken away and devoted to secular purposes. The Home Secretary, in order to try and get some reason for differentiating between this particular Queen Anne's Bounty and the other Endowments which it is not proposed to give back to the Church, said this money was not spent but saved. That, he said, made a difference between it and all the other Endowments, and that was the reason why the Government should give this to the Church and not the rest.

May I put it to the Under-Secretary that precisely the same argument applies to the Grants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? What has been their practice? They, in order to meet gifts made in the way of private benefactions, have made gifts out of their common funds consisting of income which might have been spent, but which, applied in this way, becomes capital, or, in other words, is money which has been saved precisely the same as the Royal Bounty Fund, the Parliamentary Grant with which we are dealing, and Queen Anne's Bounty, has been saved. In that, way poor livings have been augmented, churches have been built, and new residences have been provided. What do the Government propose to do? They propose to secularise the whole of these Grants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, though they stand in precisely the same category as Queen Anne's Bounty. Where, then, is the differentiation? Does not the Government, see that if on these grounds they give us Queen Anne's Bounty they are bound on similar grounds to give us the funds which belong to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and which are used to augment livings in Wales. The two things stand absolutely on the same basis, and I can see no reason whatever for differentiating between this class of Endowments and any other Endowments. The Welsh Members are really absolutely logical and right. They say, granting the principle of the Bill, there should be no exceptions. I agree. The only difference between us is that I do not grant the principle of the Bill. I say there ought to be no Disendowment at all. That is the broad question at issue. It is the one thing we are fighting. We are glad, of course, to have this concession, but it is a very small and trumpery matter. It is a concession which is illogical and inconsistent with the rest of the Bill, and I and my Friends will continue to press the Government and to get, if possible, concession after concession from them. We will never cease our opposition until we have destroyed the Disendowment part of the Bill altogether.

Mr. FRANCE

May I claim the indulgence of the Committee whilst I make two or three observations on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams)? In so far as they were humorous, I enjoyed them; but in so far as they were unfair to myself and others, I ignore them. I only rise because he referred to my Constituents and my Constituency, and, as I am here by the pleasure and by the support of my Constituents, I think I am bound in justice to them——

Mr. E. JONES

On a point of Order, Sir. I observed you called my hon. and learned Friend——[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am entitled to put a point of Order, in spite of the Under-Secretary——

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member will put his point of Order.

Mr. E. JONES

You called my hon. and learned Friend to order when he was going into these personal questions, and I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Member to go into a matter which has nothing whatever to do with the specific Amendment before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France) came and asked me if I would call upon him in order that he might make a personal explanation arising out of what had been said about him, and it is the invariable custom in such a case that an hon. Member should be allowed to do so.

Mr. FRANCE

I do not intend to detain the Committee more than three minutes. Perhaps I may be allowed to say again in the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in so far as his remarks about myself and others were humorous, I enjoyed them; but in so far as they were unfair, I ignore them. He referred to my Constituency, and he seemed to have some complaint that I went down to meet my Constituents on Saturday after the action which I felt it my duty to take in this House on Friday. I went down in fulfilment of an engagement to attend my annual meeting on that day. I had in the afternoon a meeting of delegates and in the evening a public meeting. The account which the hon. Member gave of that meeting is not quite an accurate one. A vote of confidence was moved and seconded. I then asked permission to make a statement with regard to the position I had taken up the day before. It is quite true that one gentleman, whose opinions I respect, openly stated that, although he had no less confidence in me as a Member, he did not agree with the views I had expressed. I have every reason to respect the opinion of any man who openly states his view in that way in contradiction of my own. A vote of confidence was passed at the end of the meeting without a dissentient, and I shall take very many and early opportunities of ascertaining what view my Constituents take of the attitude I took in this House on Friday. I only say, in conclusion, that although I respect the opinions of others, I claim respect for my opinions too. I would utter this complains, which I think I am entitled to do. While I will meet any charges directed against myself in this House, I have reason to complain that those associated with the Welsh Committee have been by subterranean and secret methods, trying to move my Constituents against me since last Friday. I ask that charges should be made here, and I will answer them, and I will be responsible to this House and to my Constituents.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I am anxious, before the Committee comes to a decision, to say why I think it is desirable this Amendment should be adopted, though I cannot assent to the position the Government are taking up. I think this Amendment ought to be accepted for the simple and conclusive reason that the State made certain gifts out and out to the Church a hundred years ago, and to take back gifts once given is not a defensible action on the part of the State. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Leif Jones), in an interesting speech—I hope he will not keep to the rule he has hitherto practised of not taking part in these Debates—developed an argument with which I do not propose to deal, except in so far as it relates to this particular Amendment. His proposition is that you are entitled to take Endowments which are public in origin whenever you think it is desirable to do so. It is quite true the State has always exercised, and will no doubt continue to exercise, a certain control over Endowments for public purposes, and they no doubt may exercise such control over these Parliamentary gifts; but in order to justify that control the hon. Member must show in this particular case that these Parliamentary Grants are being misused, or are being used for purposes other than those for which they were originally intended, or that they have ceased to be valuable for the purposes for which they were originally intended. Nothing of the kind can be shown. The great difficulty of hon. Members who are opposed to this Amendment, is that they have to say the Church in Wales is not rightly using the Endowments it possesses, and that is a proposition which has not been maintained by any hon. Member. I do not think therefore the hon. Member's theory, whatever maybe said for and against it, can possibly justify him in opposing this Amendment or in supporting this Bill. His theory is only relevant where the body possessing the funds is not using them rightly.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Or where the funds were intended for beneficiaries other than those for whom they are being used.

Lord HUGH CECIL

That amounts to the same thing. That is a case of the misuse of Endowments. You certainly cannot maintain in respect of these Parliamentary Grants that the Church is using Endowments given it in 1809 for purposes different from those contemplated when the Grants were made.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I endeavoured to show that the Church was using for Church purposes funds which were intended for all, and that, therefore, it could not properly be said the Church was using them for the purposes intended.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The hon. Member's theory is interesting. His theory is that the Church in Wales would be entitled to these funds and other funds supposing the Church comprised the whole of the Welsh people. The Home Secretary, in a very interesting speech, developed precisely the contrary theory. He said the great distinction between the Endowments made between 1809–20 and the earlier Endowments was that in 1809–20 the Church only represented a minority of the Welsh people, whereas at an earlier period it comprised the whole. I confess I thought that an absurd argument, which would not convince me in voting for this Amendment unless I had other grounds for doing so. You cannot judge these Amendments on the basis at all of concessions or of generosity. You cannot judge them as a matter of concessions, concessions perhaps from one side of the House to the other. We should all agree that is a very unworthy way of looking at a great question. It is not because the Government want to concede something to this side or to their own supporters that they ought to make an important modification in their proposals. They ought not to concede things where great questions of justice are concerned quâ concessions unless they are convinced of their justice. Nor is it right to speak of generosity. These funds either belong to the Church or they do not. If they do, it is not generosity, but justice, to leave them to the Church. We may, therefore, sweep away as foolish all talk of generosity and concessions. The proposition is to be decided on the merits of the case. If this is a right thing, if it is just and fair these Grants should be retained by the Church, then they ought to be retained. I say it is fair, because the State gave the money out and out. It would be just as unfair and absurd for hon. Members in January to reclaim the Christmas presents which they no doubt are going to bestow on their friends in a few days as it would be for the State to take back gifts it made out and out a hundred years ago. If you do, you will have to take back a great many other gifts, gifts to Nonconformists, gifts to Maynooth College, and others. You will have to reclaim a sum of over £2,000,000 which, in the course of the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries has been bestowed on various religious denominations other than the Church of England. Therefore to adopt, the theory of reclaiming gifts will land you in great difficulty.

I am not going to comment on the animated speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, but I cannot help protesting against the doctrine that the House of Commons, as a body, is to be held responsible because changes are introduced in the course of our deliberations. Hon. Members described as private secretaries and gadflies may deserve what was said of them, but, at any rate, they are Members of Parliament, a comparatively humble function, and as Members of Parliament they are entitled to try and shape legislation as they think it ought to be shaped. I energetically protest against appeals to constituents, because that means an appeal to the most violent and therefore the least reasonable members of the constituency. As a fact we have no means at getting at the view of the great mass of the constituents. No one, for instance, knows what the electors for the Morley Division may think, although we can find out easily enough what are the views of the most violent amongst them. I protest against the doctrine that the most violent and combative Radicals of the country are to determine, without appeal, what legislation shall be submitted to this House. Hon. Members opposite say they speak in the name of the Welsh nation; they speak in the name of nothing of the kind; they speak in the name of the Welsh Liberals who are in a majority in the constituencies which they represent; they represent the most active and unhappily the least reasonable of the constituents, and they seek to use the party mechanism of representative government as if it represents the true mind of the whole constituency.

Mr. RICHARDS

For whom does the Noble Lord speak?

Lord HUGH CECIL

I speak for the Commons of England. The hon. Member will find that Members of this House represent not a particular constituency, but the whole Commons of England, and, in their interest, we take counsel together as to what is best to be done for the country which we are appointed to govern. My only excuse for dealing with this matter is that it is one of great public importance. It is desirable that this House should retain some measure of liberty and freedom, and should decide questions on their merits. I am quite persuaded that the distinction drawn by the Home Secretary between tithe and the Endowments we are now considering cannot be maintained. Nothing could be more untrue than to say that the early ancient Endowments of the Church were more given to that Church as associated with the nation than those Grants we are now discussing. Those Grants were made at what is said to be a very Erastian period. They were made to the Church largely because it was the Established Church; the earlier Grants were made to the Church—and I should think this is indisputable—because it was a religious organism. If you think these grants should be left to the Church a fortiori, you ought to leave to it the other Endowments. The Government policy partakes of the character partly of a chimera and partly of a chameleon. We can deal with the chimera consistently, but we cannot deal with the chameleon character of the Government, and we shall, at any rate, give a consistent vote in supporting this Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE

I should like to say a few words to the House from a purely Scottish point of view. The Noble Lord has stated that he speaks for the Commons of England; I speak for the Commons of Scotland. There has been in the course of these Debates certain action, and there also has been certain speeches made which seem to indicate that the opinion of Scotland is not behind this Bill for the Disendowment and Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. The Leader of the Opposition, in making his speech earlier this, afternoon, referred to the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment for Scotland. He first told us that he himself believed very firmly in the relationship of the State to the Church. I always understood that he was a Nonconformist, and I should like him to tell me how he squares that belief with his position as a Nonconformist. I agree with the Noble Lord who last spoke in the distinction he draws with regard to the making of this concession or making no concession at all. I hope the Government are pleased with the way in which their concession has been received by the other side. They received it perfectly consistently on the ground that they should take everything they can get, because they believe they ought to have the whole. There are many of us who represent Scottish Divisions who believe that no Endowment at all should attach to the Church. With us it is a question not of money, but of principle, and it is a question upon which we are prepared to fight, whether the amount, of money involved is large or small. I should like to remind this House there have been many fights on questions of principle involving, very small sums of money. We may recall the fact in connection with this House that John Hampden made a spirited protest in this House over a very small sum of money, but a very large principle; so, too, did the American Colonists in resisting the imposition of a tax upon a commodity; that was not a great thing in itself, but it was standing for a principle. For my part, I would take away all Endowments from the Welsh Church. We do so on the principle that there is a wide distinction between material concerns and spiritual concerns. I want to make it quite plain that, so far as I know at the moment, any Scottish Members who have intervened certainly have not represented the feeling of the great public of Scotland with regard to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition said he knew Scotland better than some of us, and, he added, that in Scotland this question was not a live one at the moment. I should like to point out why this question is not in the forefront of our political programme in Scotland at the moment. The reason is that there have been certain negotiations going on between the Churches in Scotland for a closer union, and, so far, those negotiations have been successful, because they have managed to ignore the very difficulties which have been brought up here in this particular Debate. The moment they touch the Endowments they will discover that the Church in Scotland, which covered Scotland with glory at the time of the Disruption, will not go back on the Established Church and cover Scotland with shame in order to save the Endowments. I want to make it perfectly plain to my Welsh colleagues that there is another small country which is disappointed with the concessions that have been made, and, if the opportunity is given to us of going into the Division Lobby against the Government, we shall willingly do so. Hon. Members opposite who have secured this concession have gained a victory, and one may congratulate them on the success of their opposition. But what I object to is the method in which the Front Bench contrive to accomplish these things. I suppose, through what are known as the usual channels of information, this decision has been formed. Probably it has been come to outside the House by consultation with "The Twenty-seven," but I know of no other Members, either above or below the Gangway, who was consulted by any Member of the Government with regard to these concessions before they were made. I object to the Front Bench making these concessions in the name of the party without the party being consulted, and I am confident there are a great many Members on this side who are opposed to this concession and will be willing to divide against it.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL

I am at a loss to understand the position of the hon. Mem- ber who has just sat down. He tells us he disapproves of Endowments, and apparently he does so as the representative of a Scottish constituency. But at the same time every denomination in Scotland has Endowments, and I do not know whether he is prepared to agree that those Endowments should be taken away in the same way as he seems to be prepared to take away the Endowments of the Church of England in Wales. I very much doubt whether the opinion of Scotchmen generally is in favour of this Bill, and I should like to know if Scotchmen are prepared to give up their Endowments in the way it is proposed to take these away from the Church in Wales? The hon. Member did not tell us that; he did not ever refer to the Endowments of the different Scottish denominations, and the value of his speech, as a representative of Scotland, is very much diminished by his failure to deal with the question of Scottish Endowments. There is another question I should like to ask before the Debate comes to an end. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), in the course of his speech, as I understood it, said that if we on this side of the House had come to him and his Committee, or his party, at an earlier stage, they would have considered any financial compromise we might have been prepared to make. But that certainly is not borne out by the tone of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of his Committee. I have never, till this moment, had the slightest idea that the Members of the Committee were prepared to accept anything we might hold out by way of compromise. Indeed, all the speeches made in this House have been violently hostile to the slightest compromise, and only last night one or two hon. Gentlemen showed indignation lest the Government should give in in the smallest degree. That, I presume, is an effort to compromise. It would have been an effort to compromise if they had come with the offer, but they certainly have not done so.

When we hold the view so strongly as we do that they are most unjustly taking property which belongs to the Church h Wales, it is hardly for us to go on our knees and beg that we should be allowed to give up the principle we hold so dear. This is not, in our view, a matter of generosity or concession. We look upon it as a matter of simple justice. We have the deepest conviction that all this property docs belong to the Church in Wales, just as much as any property belongs to any private individual. If this property is going to be attacked by a Bill of this kind, no other property belonging to any other denomination or to any private individual will be safe from having hands laid upon it by this House. If this Amendment is approved all that we feel regarding it is not that it is a concession but mere justice. No doubt it is a very small modicum of justice out of the total to be taken from us, but as a modicum of justice we are prepared to accept it. The hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Sir J. H. Roberts) said that he wanted complete religious equality. If he wants complete religious equality let him give up the Endowments that belong to his own denomination to the public purse, just as he is asking for ours. The same thing applies to gifts which have been made to other denominations. There are many of them, and I should urge that they should be returned also. The hon. Member said that if this concession were made it would help, in time, to alleviate discord in Wales. I am afraid this is a very small concession. If it were a substantial one perhaps it might make some difference to the future, but my view of this policy of taking away the property of the Church in Wales is that it will prolong the bitterness and resentment which is felt, and will by no means alleviate the discord. Although I accept what the Home Secretary has offered as a matter of justice, it is hardly a matter for gratitude, because, holding the view that it is our own property, I can hardly feel any real gratitude for our own being given back to us.

Mr. McKENNA

May I appeal to hon. Members on both sides—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—allow me to state the reasons—to come to a conclusion now on this subject. We had two days in which to discuss Clause 8. We have had a very long Debate on this point, and we have still to discuss some very important points, namely, glebe, burial grounds, and tithe. In view of the hard work to which hon. Members have been subjected, it would be intolerable for us to have to continue the Debate to a very late hour to-night. It is only in those circumstances that we shall be able, if this Debate is continued, to dispose of such important subjects as glebe and tithe by 10.30 to-morrow night. Therefore I appeal to hon. Members to come to a decision immediately.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Nonsense.

Mr. McKENNA

That is the way in which the Noble Lord receives every appeal that is made to him. At any rate, I appeal to my hon. Friends to conclude this subject now, and to proceed to the kindred subject raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones). Having disposed of that we can proceed to the other matters.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

I have listened with the deepest interest——

Mr. KING rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

I should not have risen, but for the flagrant misrepresentation of the views of Scotland made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) a few moments ago. The hon. Member professed a great knowledge of ecclesiastical matters in Scotland. I do not think his knowledge is greater than my own. I am as anxious as he is to do nothing which would prevent the coming together of the two great Presbyterian Churches, or which would in any way conflict with the possibility of union, but I cannot allow a perversion of history which would misrepresent ecclesisatical history in Scotland. He spoke of the growth of the Church in Scotland since 1843, and said it had covered itself with glory because of its feeling in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment. Is it possible that anyone who knows anything of the history of Scotland could be guilty of such a flagrant misrepresentation? Does the hon. Member not know perfectly well that when the Free Church broke off from the Church in Scotland in 1843, it did so on the basis of Establishment and Endowment. Dr. Chalmers, the prime leader in that movement, said, "We go out not as voluntaries——"

The CHAIRMAN

This is a case where a single sentence uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, illustrating a point, is taken up by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and now another Member leads the Debate off on that tack. I really cannot permit that. We shall never get to the end of our Debate if we follow this course. The hon. Member is entitled to say he disagrees with what was said, but not to debate the matter.

Sir H. CRAIK

It is an important thing that the position of Scotland should be stated, and that the attitude of Scotland towards this Bill, and the Endowments of the Church should be stated on both sides.

The CHAIRMAN

The Committee will no doubt be glad to hear that on some other occasion. It does not arise here.

Mr. WHYTE

I have only one word to say in regard to the Amendment. We have had a speech from the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who claims that the Government have made a mistake in adopting this Amendment and the policy represented by the Amendment. He suggests that the feeling of the party generally is against it. He quotes the opinion of Scotland. I have only to say that since I found occasion to intervene in the Debate on a question relating to this two nights ago, I have had considerable correspondence with those who I think I am entitled to regard as the leaders of Disestablishment in Scotland, and the note of that correspondence from beginning to end is that they hope the Government will be prepared to show a certain measure of generosity in their treatment of the Church in Wales. I am perfectly certain there will be a good deal of regret in Scotland to-morrow that once again the Church question in Scotland has been dragged

into the House of Commons, either by the Leader of the Opposition or by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, for both sides in Scotland have devoted themselves most earnestly and, so far, successfully to a discussion of this question.

Mr. McKENNA

Question!

Mr. WHYTE

The Home Secretary says "Question."

Mr. McKENNA

We are discussing Queen Anne's Bounty.

Mr. WHYTE

The question was dragged into the Debate, and I wish to raise my protest against it. I will content myself with saying that it is extremely to be regretted that the question has been brought in at all. It is only on that ground that I rose to say anything.

Mr. KING rose——

Sir A. MARKHAM rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be how put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 117.

Division No. 467.]	AYES.	[7.58 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Clancy, John Joseph	Gill, A. H.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)	Clough, William	Ginnell, Laurence
Acland, Francis Dyke	Clynes, John R.	Gladstone, W. G. C.
Adamson, William	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Glanville, H. J.
Addison, Dr. C.	Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Goldstone, Frank
Agnew, Sir George William	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)	Cotton, William Francis	Greig, Col. J. W.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Griffith, Ellis J.
Armitage, Robert	Crean, Eugene	Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Arnold, Sydney	Crooks, William	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	Crumley, Patrick	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Cullinan, John	Hackett, John
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Barnes, G. N.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hancock, J. G.
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)	Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Dawes, J. A.	Hardie, J. Keir
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Devlin, Joseph	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)	Dickinson, W. H.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Bentham, G. J.	Donelan, Captain A.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Black, Arthur W.	Doris, William	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Boland, John Pius	Duffy, William J.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Booth, Frederick Handel	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hayden, John Patrick
Bowerman, C. W.	Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Hayward, Evan
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Elverston, Sir Harold	Hazleton, Richard
Brace, William	Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Holme, Sir Norval Watson
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Hemmerde, Edward George
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Essex, Richard Walter	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Brunner, John F. L.	Falconer, James	Henry, sir Charles
Bryce, J. Annan	Farrell, James Patrick	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Higham, John Sharp
Burke, E. Haviland-	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Ffrench, Peter	Hodge, John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Field, William	Holmes, Daniel Turner
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Fitzgibbon, John	Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)
Byles, Sir William Pollard	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	France, Gerald Ashburner	Hudson, Walter
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	Hughes, S. L.
Illingworth, Percy H.	Norton, Captain Cecil W.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard	Rowlands, James
Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)	Nuttall, Harry	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Scanlan, Thomas
Joyce, Michael	O'Doherty, Philip	Sheehy, David
Keating, Matthew	O'Donnell, Thomas	Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Kellaway, Frederick George	O'Dowd, John	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	O'Grady, James	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Kilbride, Denis	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)	Snowden, Philip
King, J. (Somerset, North)	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)	Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)	O'Malley, William	Sutton, John E.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)	Taylor, John W, (Durham)
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)	O'Shee, James John	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Leach, Charles	O'Sullivan, Timothy	Thomas, J. H.
Lewis, John Herbert	Parker, James (Halifax)	Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)
Lundon, Thomas	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Toulmin, Sir George
Lynch, A. A.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)	Verney, Sir Harry
McGhee, Richard	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)	Wadsworth, J.
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)	Pointer, Joseph	Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
M'Callum, Sir John M.	Power, Patrick Joseph	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wardle, George J.
Manfield, Harry	Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Marshall, Arthur Harold	Pringle, William M. R.	Watt, Henry Anderson
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.	Radford, G. H.	Webb, H.
Meagher, Michael	Raffan, Peter Wilson	White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Millar, James Duncan	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Molloy, Michael	Reddy, M.	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Molteno, Percy Alport	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Mond, Sir Alfred M.	Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Wiles, Thomas
Mooney, John J.	Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Morgan, George Hay	Rendall, Athelstan	Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Morrell, Philip	Richards, Thomas	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Morison, Hector	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Williamson, Sir Archibald
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Muldoon, John	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Munro, R.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Winfrey, Richard
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Needham, Christopher T.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Neilson, Francis	Robinson, Sidney	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Markham and Sir J. Yoxall.
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Nolan, Joseph
NOES.
Aitken, Sir William Max	Dalrymple, Viscount	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)
Anstruther-Gray, Major William	Doughty, Sir George	Jessel, Captain H. M.
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Joynson-Hicks, William
Baird, John Lawrence	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Balcarres, Lord	Falle, Bertram Godfray	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Fell, Arthur	Larmor, Sir J.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert	Lewisham, Viscount
Barrie, H. T.	Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.	Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Gardner, Ernest	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bigland, Alfred	Gibbs, George Abraham	Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Blair, Reginald	Gilmour, Captain John	Mount, William Arthur
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Boyton, James	Grant, J. A.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Greene, Walter Raymond	Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)
Butcher, John George	Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)	Peel, Captain R. F.
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Campion, W. R.	Haddock, George Bahr	Pretyman, Ernest George
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Randies, Sir John S.
Cassel, Felix	Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cave, George	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Rolleston, Sir John
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)	Hickman, Col. Thomas E.	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Hoare, S. J. G.	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Hogge, James Myles	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Courthope, George Loyd	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)	Sanderson, Lancelot
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)	Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)	Stanler, Beville
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Horner, Andrew Long	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Croft, H. P.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Starkey, John Ralph

Steel-Maitland, A. D.	Tryon, Captain George Clement	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Stewart, Gershom	Valentia, Viscount	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Swift, Rigby	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)	Wills, Sir Gilbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir J. D. Rees and Mr. E. Wood.
Touche, George Alexander	Wolmer, Viscount

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES

I beg to move, after the word "benefactions" ["does not consist of private benefactions"], to insert the words "and is not the produce of Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund."

I move this Amendment in a spirit of the most complete friendliness for the Bill for Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in Wales, and the action of myself and those who are associated with me is entirely directed towards securing the passage of this measure through Parliament with as little friction as possible. I can quite understand the attitude of some of my hon. Friends who are members of the Welsh nationality. A considerable strain has been put upon what I think I may without injustice describe as the generous attitude which they have assumed towards the Church in Wales. I do not know, in looking back upon the history of Disestablishment, whether there could ever be conceived and carried into effect on more generous lines a measure for Disestablishment and Disendowment than that which the Home Secretary has produced. I think—and I Say this, though a lifelong members of the Church of England, as an advocate, in the interests of the Church, of Disestablishment, and, correlatively, Disendowment—I can say that you cannot by any possible means, or rather on any possible principle, dissociate Disestablishment from, at any rate, partial Disendowment, and I have listened with great interest and respect to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friends opposite, including the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps), than whom no greater authority upon matters of this kind is in this House, and I have utterly failed to discover from him any justification for a measure of Disestablishment which was not also associated with a measure of partial Disendowment, and I think the Home Secretary has been amply justified, because we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there was a considerable movement. I believe those Gentlemen who took up that attitude among Liberal Churchmen and Nonconformists in this House, however much we may differ from them, were actuated by a spirit of generosity and sympathy to the Church of England. But there is no doubt that the Government, as represented by the Home Secretary, was actuated by strict regard for the performance of their duty in making the concessions they have made and are now making.

Neither do I think that the Welsh Members will have failed to bear testimony to the fact that these concessions do not as a matter of fact go to any question of principle. If they went to any question of principle, I am bound to say I should dissociate myself from the Amendment to which the Government are giving their support. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis Griffith) stated in a former Debate, in laconic, businesslike phrase, but none the less perfectly lucid, that this was not a question of £ s. and d. The real question was the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church, so far as Disendowment was absolutely necessary and ancillary to Disestablishment. I have taken this view as a Disestablisher all through, that it is quite impossible to leave a Disestablished Church in the possession of funds or property which involve a recurring annual charge upon the population of that country which is adverse or segregated from association with the religion of that Church. In other words, I hold that it is absolutely untenable and absolutely impossible from any point of view—economic, religious, or politic—to leave in possession of the Church of England, after Disestablishment, tithes. I am not prepared to argue or discuss, nor would it be germane to this Amendment to discuss, whether tithes are a charge, a due, or a tax. It all comes to the same thing. They are a burden upon the fruits of land which is tilled by the Nonconformist farmers of Wales, and to some extent owned by Nonconformist freeholders. Therefore, they would be an. intolerable burden which must be swept away. Then, again, let hon. Members opposite take note of this conspicuous fact-, that in dealing with Disendowment we are now, although that was not the original conception of the measure, only taking away from the Church ancient Endowments which are earmarked as having been given to the Church either when the religion of the whole community was identical, or when the Church was an entirely different religious organisation. We are simply confining ourselves to Endowments of that class and we are leaving to the Church, whatever the numerical figure may be, all Endowments which have come to them in modern times within the definition which we give or which, even if they have not come in modern times, have been earmarked as being intended for the Church.

Let us for a moment glance at the particular subject with which we are dealing to-day. We are dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty. It was the original intention of the measure that Queen Anne's Bounty, so far as it was derived from Welsh sources, should be handed over for national purposes. I say it is perfectly just that Queen Anne's Bounty should be allowed to remain part of the property of the Church in Wales. Queen Anne's Bounty was originally, and is now, as a matter of fact, largely, except in so far as it consists in accumulations, constructed of the first fruits, and it is now partially constructed of the first fruits and tenths. These were originally appropriated, and, indeed, created by the See of Borne, and on the reformation of that Church they passed entirely, but they did not pass to the Crown in the sense of becoming Crown property, or Crown estate. They went to the Privy Purse of the Sovereign, and, therefore, were peculiar to the Sovereign for his or her personal use for the time being. Being a woman of pious sentiments, Queen Anne intimated to her Ministers of the day that it was desirable that Queen Anne's Bounty—these first fruits and tenths—should no longer be the private property of the Sovereign for the time being, but should be devoted to the very beneficient object of improving the value of benefices which were underpaid. Thereupon Parliament—and here the analogy of the Parliamentary Grant comes in—passed an Act at the instance of her then Majesty by which it granted this Fund the first fruits and tenths as they had already partially accumulated, to a body of Commissioners to be applied to the advantage of underpaid benefices in England and in Wales. That was a Grant by Parliament in the same way as other Parliamentary Grants which form the subject of the last Amendment. Both in sub- stance and technically they are precisely the same as Parliamentary Grants.

It must be remembered, with reference to the Parliamentary Grants, as my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said in the course of this Debate, that they were made indiscriminately, and that they were not merely given in those days, or at a later period, in any narrow secretarian spirit. A large number of Grants were made to Nonconformists in England, and even to professed Protestants in France, and I think also they were given to the four Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, and, of course, it is only reasonable to say that these Parliamentary Grants, if made to the Established Church, were also made to Nonconformist bodies. With regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, first fruits and tenths, the case stands upon the Act of 1703. They stand on precisely the same footing, and, therefore, that relieves me of what otherwise might be a somewhat harder task in the way of argument, or at any rate advocacy, in support of the Amendment I now move. I would like to say one word with regard to the general aspect of this question. Let me beseech hon. Members opposite to give us credit, we who are Liberal Churchmen, for desiring the well-being of the Church of England in Wales as well as in England. We believe, and we have many notable instances in support of our view—especially the Disendowment of the Protestant Church in France and the Disendowment of the Episcopal Church in Ireland—we firmly believe, rightly or wrongly, that the liberation of the Church from the State, although it may be effected for political purposes, can never be wholly effective unless you relieve the Church of the funds it derives, or has derived, by means of its connection with Establishment. We believe that the severance of the political and economic ties gives greater vitality and energy to the Church, and surely one of the greatest testimonies to the truth of that observation is to be found in the extraordinary and marvellous energy and enthusiasm which has characterised the Nonconformist Church in Wales. And so in the part of the country I represent, in the humblest pit villages, you see the conventicles of the Primitive Methodists and other Nonconformist religious bodies—places which the Church itself does not always succeed in reaching. It is inspired by that ideal, believing honestly and not as a matter of political expediency, that the Disendowment of the Church asso- ciated with Disestablishment will contribute to its greater efficiency among the people of Wales that we support this Amendment.

Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT

I desire, as a Liberal Churchman, heartily to support the Amendment. I want to explain the position which I and many others, who, like myself are Churchmen, on this side of the House, take up on this question. Of all people in the world, I am the very last to desire to do an injury to the English Church. Born and brought up in a country vicarage, son of a country parson, grandson of an archdeacon, all my associations from my earliest childhood and upwards have been with the English Church. I have an affection for the English Church which, I think, is not exceeded by any Member sitting on that side of the House; but at the same time I am a Liberal. I cannot disguise from myself the burning enthusiasm and repeated demands of the Welsh people for Disestablishment. I realise that they regard it as something much more than a matter of mere politics, as a matter which goes to the very root of their national history. Therefore, as a Liberal, I am bound to support Disestablishment. When we come to the question of Disendowment which goes with it, I am bound also to agree that if you Disestablish you are also bound in some measure, at all events, to Disendow. I agree that Disendowment should not be carried to the extent of taking from the Church anything of the money which legitimately would be said to belong to the Church. I desire to be absolutely just. I desire also to be, as I am bound to say that, in my opinion, this Bill is thoroughly generous. Why do I say that this question of Queen Anne's Bounty stands on a different footing from the question of tithe? I know very well that hon. Members opposite disagree with the view which I and others hold that tithe is in the nature of a tax, but we, at all events, do believe that tithe is a tax upon the produce of the land of the people. We believe that it is paid and has been paid by the people, and that it belongs, and only belongs, to the nation. But we say that this Queen Anne's Bounty stands upon a totally different footing. The money with which we are dealing now is derived from first fruits and tenths, money which comes from the very clergy themselves, from whom you are going to take it, and, therefore, I do think that if you can say, as I believe you can, that tithe is a tax upon the produce of the land, you may equally say that this money is a tax upon the clergy themselves. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to accept this proposal. I believe that it is a generous principle as well as a just one. I do not know quite whether I come within the category of the broad-minded Churchmen of whom we heard just now. Certainly I was not one of those who voted against the Government or opposed them last night? I frankly say that I should not in the present instance vote against the Government even if they had found themselves unable to accept this Amendment, but, holding the views that I do, I believe that the action which the Government have taken will, at all events, be received with a warm welcome by Liberal Churchmen outside this House, many of whom hold as strongly as I do that this is a just and great measure, but who at the same time are glad to see such moneys left to the Church to which they belong as are consistent with justice and generosity.

Viscount WOLMER

With all deference and respect to the hon. and learned Mover and to the Seconder of this Amendment, I think that the case presented in favour of it is the most muddle-headed that could conceivably be put forward in this House. I do not say so in any spirit of disrespect, but I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the conclusions to which they are led by their remarks. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment explained at the outset that he desired that the Church when Disestablished should be deprived of all the funds which she owes to her former connection with the State.

Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES

made an observation which was inaudible.

Viscount WOLMER

I think that the hon. and learned Member will not deny that he used this phrase, "When the Church ceases to be connected with the State she should not continue to use those funds which she came by through her connection with the State." I think I appreciate the argument of the hon. and learned Member. Then he went on to explain that this source of money which he proposes to hand back to the Church owes its origin to an Act of Parliament that was passed specially on behalf of the Church in the time of Queen Anne. When we take that in connection with the attitude taken up by the hon. and learned Member and his Friends in regard to Parliamentary Grants we are led to this amazing conclusion, that they propose to take away from the Church, because she is Disestablished, all those funds which they say she enjoys through her connection with the State, but which she came into possession of long before the Church was by law Established at the Reformation; but they are going to leave the Church all those funds which were specially paid over to the Church by Act of Parliament after the Reformation settlement, and because she was the Established Church of the country. I do think that the arguments of the hon. and learned Member constitute a position which is most untenable, whether you approach it from this side of the House or the much more consistent position of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs. To argue that the Church is not entitled to tithe because it is a tax, and then to say you simply reserve to the Church this money which was voted by Act of Parliament, and which is a tax——

Mr. McKENNA

We are not on the Parliamentary Grants.

Viscount WOLMER

The hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress on the fact that this was voted by Act of Parliament. It is money voted by the Lords and Commons of this country, and was a tax on the resources of the country. Therefore, as has already been pointed out in this Debate, it follows that if tithe really was a tax, tithe ought also to be included in the category of the hon. and learned Member. But that is a point which comes up for discussion to-morrow. Our reasons for supporting this Amendment are entirely different from those of the hon. and learned Member. We support this Amendment because we object to Disendowment in any shape or form. We regard it as a moral wrong to take away any money from the Church as long as the Church is using it in the best possible manner. If the hon. Member would come forward and prove that the Church is not making the best use of the money, then there would be something to be said.

Mr. E. JONES

The Noble Lord used the phrase, "best possible manner," but the evidence given before the Royal Commission showed that there were complaints that in certain parishes the money is not wanted.

Viscount WOLMER

That, of course, is an entirely different question. But if the hon. Member's only grievance against the Church is that she is not given sufficient freedom to use her own funds, and therefore cannot do as much work for the money as she would otherwise be able to do, then the proper course for the hon. Member to pursue is not to thwart and hinder the Church in her work by Bills of this nature, but to support Church reform, and such measures as will enable the Church to use her funds in a more businesslike manner than at present. The point I was making is that the object for which the Church is using this money is the best of all possible objects, and although hon. Members may say that there is too much money in this parish, and too-little money in that parish, yet, taken as a whole, I think it can be said that, despite the antiquated organisation of the Church, there is no other organisation in the country, of equal antiquity and equal extensiveness, that is using its money in anything like such an economical or efficient manner.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)

The Noble Lord is rather addressing himself to the general question.

Viscount WOLMER

I will not go into the larger question to-night, but my point is that I object to money being taken away from the Church in any shape or form, because I believe that the money is being put to the best of all possible uses, and I was tempted to answer the interruption of the hon. Member on that point. That is the reason for our supporting that Amendment. We regard it as a wicked and a wrong thing to take away from the Church money which the Church is now using for the service of God and to put that money to secular uses. That is why we support this Amendment. We are not supporting it because we are grateful for the so-called generosity of the Government or of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I hope that the Government will propose what they think is right, and if they thought that this was right before and that it is wrong now, they are not entitled to our thanks for having come to a different conclusion. The merits of the Government proposals must be judged by the proposals themselves. We vote for this Amendment without a word of thanks to the Government, without a single spark or feeling of gratitude to the Government, and without diminishing by one iota our hostility to the Bill in this House and in the country. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment made one assertion of which I would like to have an explanation. He treated the Queen Anne's Bounty throughout as if it were a sum of money voted by Parliament. Personally, I entirely repudiate such an interpretation of Queen Anne's gift. I believe that the Queen Anne's Bounty was a private gift by Queen Anne, and that she thought, in regard to anything that might be done by her successors, it desirable to have that gift confirmed by the sanction of Parliament, and it was simply the confirmation of a private benefaction by Queen Anne. Therefore Queen Anne's Bounty ought really to come under the head of private benefactions given since 1662. I believe that it would be a purely artificial interpretation that would take the Bounty out of that category.

We feel that Queen Anne's Bounty Fund is, if anything, a great deal too small; and of course it will be one of the hardships brought about by this Bill that the augmentation of that fund will be diminished by the action of this Bill, if it becomes law. We feel that the work done by Queen Anne's Bounty is a very desirable one, which ought to commend itself to hon. Members opposite, especially hon. Members like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. E. Jones), who is so much disconcerted because the Church cannot use her money in the best possible manner. The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty play a very important part in the finance of the Church in that respect, insomuch as they are ever assisting poor parishes and poor parsons of the Church where their assistance is needed. Therefore we regard what has been done by Queen Anne's Bounty as an Endowment of special value in the good work of the Church. We are extremely glad that that, at any rate, will be saved out of the general wreck. It is because we believe that this money is necessary, or at all events very helpful to the good work which the Church is carrying on, that we desire to preserve this Endowment. Hon. Members opposite, and I think the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, sometimes have taunted us with a lack of faith because we desire to preserve the Endowments to the Church. That is neither a just, a generous, nor a wise accusation to make. We feel that the Church ought to be ready with her ministrations and offices everywhere, at every time, and to every person, and that the Church cannot have too much money when the Church's duty extends all over the world, and when in every slum, and on every mountain top, there is a call coming to the Church for more work, more labourers, and more churches to be built. Therefore we say that to cast away the results of the generosity and the piety of bygone generations is to be entirely quixotic. One generation alone cannot possibly expect to build up an organisation such as has been built up by centuries of Endowment. Therefore we feel that it is important to the work of the Church that Endowments such as Queen Anne's Bounty and other Endowments should be preserved to the Church. We feel that although the spirit of giving by Churchmen is kept up, that however much Churchmen may give, they cannot give too much, and they already give about £9,000,000 a year, for the great work which the Church is carrying on. Therefore we think that the funds and Endowments like Queen Anne's Bounty are of the greatest possible value for the Church, and that to take away that money from the Church would be to that extent hindering the work she is carrying on, and to that extent doing an act which would be both unjust and morally wicked.

Mr. M. BARLOW

There are two points to which I should like to draw attention, and one is this. It strikes one as a slightly humorous incident, and I do not think we have had very many humorous incidents in the course of this Debate, when one contrasts the attitude taken by the Government towards this proposal when it was first mooted in this House with their attitude now when this proposal is to be accepted, and this retained to the Church. I remember quite well we were treated with considerable opposition, and I think firm opposition by the Government. Then came a certain significant event on Friday evening last, and we now find that the Government have changed their minds on the subject. Either I should have thought their action was right before and wrong now, or vice versa. They cannot, at any rate, be right both times. If the arguments on this side of the House have induced that change of mind, I can congratulate the Government, but if the change is only induced by certain events in the Division Lobby, then I cannot congratulate the Government on the course they have chosen now. They profess all the time to be influenced by motives of justice to the Church, not only as between the position of the Church in Wales, but as between the various religious bodies in Wales. If that is true I fail to understand how they adopted the course they first adopted. Mention has been made in the course of this Debate of the position with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty.

I do not wish to repeat what I said previously on the matter, but something has been said from the other side about the position of Queen Anne in the matter. I should have thought it obvious to anyone knowing anything about constitutional history that the gift from the Queen was a private gift, and as much a private gift as any gifts which are given to Nonconformist chapels in Wales by the parishioners and through the piety of private donors of this day. It is true, of course, that the Queen acted as she would be bound to act under those circumstances in order to bind her successors by Act of Parliament, but before the Act of Parliament was brought in the Queen signified her private wish in the matter, and that was done by Charter, and Queen Anne's Bounty was incorporated by Charter. It has been suggested that the Crown then had a Civil List. That is true enough, but in order to prove their case hon. Gentleman opposite must show that as a result of the Queen giving up this Amendment the taxes of the country were thereby increased, or, in other words, that, there was a Grant to the Civil List to make the amount good. If they could show me anything of that kind I would be very glad to listen to their arguments. I have looked into the matter, and I can find no trace of that whatever. Therefore, it is quite clear that though she had to go through certain formalities which no ordinary private donor would be liable to, Queen Anne in this matter was acting just as much as a private donor as, for instance, those who subscribed to that great Wesleyan building opposite this House. I hope, therefore, we shall hear no more about that ludicrous argument that this money is not private money and does not come within the category of private benefaction. If that is so, and the Government appear to have accepted that position in the attitude which they have assured us they are going to adopt, then it will carry us a good deal further when we come to deal with other points in this Section. It will carry us a great deal further with regard to glebes, in my view, and also with regard to tithes. It certainly will carry us a great deal further with regard to glebe, and of that there can be no possible question.

I am only just entering this caveat now that we shall be prepared to argue a little later on, with a force which seems to me almost unanswerable, that if you are prepared to adopt this attitude on the grounds of justice and common fairness, which must be the grounds on which the Government have accepted it, then those grounds must be pressed when we come to the question of glebe, because for certain purposes that stands on the same, if not on a stronger footing. We have heard a good deal about this question of justice and fair treatment, and something was said quite recently about a certain amount of strong language being used on this side of the House. It was suggested that perhaps rather stronger language had been used on this side than the other. May I just suggest that we are on the defensive and that Gentlemen opposite are on the attack. It does not lie in their mouths when they are attacking us to challenge us because we resent it. If we turned round and brought in Bills for Disendowing the Nonconformist chapels in Wales, I can imagine the outcry there would be. I can imagine the bad language that would be used. I can imagine the curses that would be hurled at us, and the awful imprecations that would be called down upon us, by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs perhaps more than by anyone. We are not doing that, but when you come forward and attack us in this way and take away property to which, whatever the original claim may be, the Church has got the great prescriptive claim of hundreds of years of peaceful occupation; when you come forward and attack us and take away our property in that kind of way, you must not be surprised that we resent it strongly.

Mr. E. WOOD

I desire to refer to what I conceive to be the rather remarkable difference between the way in which this question has been treated by those who sit here and by those Gentlemen who represent Wales. In one sense I agree that what we have been discussing this afternoon is a matter of detail. It is a comparatively unimportant sum. I have never felt, as a matter of principle, in one sense from the point of view of the Church, that the question of Endowment is of the first importance, as I have always had sufficient faith to suppose that, whatever steps were taken, in course of time she would recover. If you admit that, you must also admit that whatever course you follow with regard to Disendowment, you are bound to do the Church an injury. With us Endowment is tot, as apparently it is with the Welsh Members, a matter of quantity; it is a matter of principle.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is dealing with the general question and not with this particular Amendment. I hope that hon. Members who desire to continue the discussion will confine their remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. WOOD

I was trying to make clear the point of view of some of us with regard to this so-called concession of £9,000. While it appears to evoke considerable opposition from Welsh Members, we, on the other hand, have no considerable cause for gratitude. It is most significant that the support of Welsh Members to this Bill appears to vary inversely with the extent of the so-called generosity exhibited in it. The more generosity the Home Secretary, for whatever reason, attempts to show, the less the Welsh Members care for their Bill. I was immensely struck by one remark of the Seconder of the Amendment. He stated that he had been profoundly impressed, keen Churchman as he was, by the intense feeling that existed in all parts of Wales for this measure, and he felt that it went to the root of national existence. If that is true, is it conceivable that a measure which professes to satisfy the root demand of national existence can really not be worth more than £9,000, £14,000, or £47,000 a year? The two statements that this is a national foundation demand and that it all depends on the precise amount of money you get, are not consistent.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MOUNT

It is somewhat extraordinary that nobody on the Treasury Bench has stated what attitude the Government are going to adopt with regard to this Amendment or what their reason is for accepting it. No one who remembers the attitude adopted by the Government on the whole of this question when the Bill was first introduced can help asking themselves why it is the Government have changed their ground on this and the previous Amendment. While I shall support the Amendment if it goes to a Division, I cannot pretend that I am in the least grateful for it. We believe that we are not getting as much as we ought to get, and we cannot be expected to show any gratitude for the small concession made by the Government. The Mover of the Amendment said that he was in favour of some measure of Disendowment of the Church, but that he was prepared to leave to the Church any money, wherever it came from, which had been earmarked for the purposes of the Church. The Seconder of the Amendment went so far as to say that he was not prepared to take from the Church anything that legitimately belonged to her. Those two statements concede the whole of our position. It would not be in order for me to go into the reasons which make me believe that the Endowments to be taken away by this Bill legitimately belong to the Church or have been ear-marked for the services of the Church. It is only some twenty-four hours ago that an Amendment was moved by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil), which would have enabled a panel of juries to decide whether or not this property legitimately belonged to the Church; but I do not think that either the Mover or the Seconder of the Amendment was found in our Lobby supporting the principle they are now advocating. With regard to this particular Amendment, let me point out what it is that differentiates the property from Queen Anne's Bounty from some of the other property which we say rightly be longs to the Church. This money from the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, we submit, is doubly ours. It not only came originally from money which belonged to the Church, but it is the accumulation of money given to the Church in recent times, since 1703, which, instead of being spent as it might have been by the Church, has been saved and now forms part of the property of the Church.

That gives us a double claim to this property. If the Government accept this Amendment partly on the ground that this money is the accumulated savings of the Church, why do they refuse to give us the money which, on practically the same lines, has been accumulated and saved by the Church from Grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? I wonder whether it is that the sum of money now being given back in so-called generosity amounts only to something under £10,000, while the money from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would amount to £4,000 more? We have heard a good deal in this and other Debates about the generosity of Nonconformists in the matter of Endowments. We have also heard a great deal with regard to the Irish Church Act. I remember that the Prime Minister, on the very first day on which we were discussing the question of the allocation of time to be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, remarked upon the precedent of the Irish Church Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I think I can show that I am perfectly in order, and, besides, I would suggest that the Chairman will stop me if I am out of order. I have no wish to go beyond——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The reason that I did not stop the hon. Member was that I thought he was going to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. MOUNT

I was going to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I was only dealing with this question of generosity because so much has been made of it by speakers on the other side in regard to the last Amendment and in regard to the present Amendment. I was only going to remind hon. Members opposite of the Irish Church Bill. I was going to quote words used in connection with that Act—which was, so far as money was concerned, a far more generous Act than this Act—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said—and his words, I venture to say, are equally appropriate now:— There is no pretence that we are being generous in framing this measure. I cannot understand being generous with other people's money. We must, however, try to be just. We have laid" down a principle. … We must Disestablish and Disendow the Church, and we will make a great and important organic change by which no single man shall suffer injustice. Those words are equally appropriate here, and I am afraid they are not being carried out. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs made a striking speech the other day. He appealed to the Government Benches not to think so much of what was expedient as of what was right. It is because we believe that this concession, though a small one, is a right one, that I shall support the hon. Member if he goes to a Division.

Mr. McKENNA

The hon. Member has appealed to me for a reply, and I can only remind him that I stated last night that I proposed to accept this Amendment, and that I state now that I do so, for precisely the same reasons as those which I gave in accepting the previous Amendment. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he will allow me, that the Debate on Clause 8, under the Resolution, will be brought to a conclusion to-morrow at 10.30; and I am particularly anxious, as I am sure hon. Members are, that we should include a discussion on tithe. The present Amendment is an Amendment which is favourable to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Several hon. Members have risen to continue the Debate. I would suggest to lion. Members that it would be far more in their interest, while perhaps in ours, that we should bring this discussion to a close, and go at once to the Debate on glebe, on which we hold divergent views, in order that we may have ample time both to discuss glebe and tithe. It is not really desirable to continue arguments upon which everything that can be said has been said on both sides, and very well said. We might therefore bring this discussion to a close and get at once to the subject of glebe.

Mr. WYNDHAM

I fully recognise the spirit which underlay the observations of the Home Secretary on tithe. I agree with him that there ought to be—certainly we think that there ought to be—a very full discussion on glebe. But it is very difficult for us to discuss glebe and tithe unless we know what is the attitude of the Government generally towards the whole of problem 4. It is quite true that on this Amendment we cannot go into the question of glebe or tithe except for a moment by way of illustration. It is within the rights of the Opposition in this case to know why the Government accept one Amendment, and reject another which is really very important. I think I can show that our position is not at all an extraordinary one to take up. There are, as is well known in this House, a party—a large party—to which I belong which takes the view that it is unjust and unwise to take Endowments away from the Church. There is a party—and a smaller party—who hold strongly and uniformly that it is right to take away all the Endowments of the Church. But events of the last few days have shown that between these two parties, whose views seem to be rigid, there is a good deal of opinion in a state of flux; and there is a considerable number of Members of this House who take different views on this question from what they take on the tithe question and so forth. Under the circumstances I think the Home Secretary owes the Committee some elucidation of what I may call the philosophy of the Government——

Mr. McKENNA

I gave it.

Mr. KING

Is this in order, Mr. Maclean?

Mr. WYNDHAM

I think the Committee will see that the remarks I am making I am not only entitled to make, but bound to make. Whoever occupies this position on this Front Bench is bound to do what he can to elicit from the Government what he considers reasonable information for this side of the House. No Government should in Committee seek to do anything but to elucidate the whole of the position so that we may know where we are. We do not. I am not going to make any controversial or dialectical point, but there are two theories which have been put before the Committee. These I may call the "origin" theory and the "date" theory. I understand this concession is made under the "date" theory; that because the Grants came after the year 1662 therefore the Government excepts them. That, I think, was the reason which unfortunately I did not hear.

Mr. McKENNA

was understood to dissent.

Mr. WYNDHAM

Every hon. Member who has preceded me has asked the same question as I am asking: Why do the Government accept this Amendments? It is useless to say that it is ungracious of us to ask this question. This is not a question of courtesy, of taking off your hat to a person. It is a question of the House of Commons sitting in Committee on a very important subject, and we wish to know why that Committee are asked to do one thing and told they are not to do another? We do not know and we ought to know. We cannot enter into the Debate on glebe unless we know why the Government concede on one point and not on the other?

Mr. McKENNA

The right hon. Gentleman was not here. I replied at once. I stated at full length and quite specifically the reason for accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend in the last case.

Mr. WYNDHAM

This is another Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA

Precisely the same reasons apply in this case. Had the right hon. Gentleman been present he would have seen that their relevance was obvious. Both depend upon Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. In one case it comes out of the Parliamentary Grant; it is derived from Parliament, and in the other case it is derived from an accumulation of the first fruits and tenths. In both cases it represents the accumulation of income which might have been spent. I invite hon. Members to come to a conclusion on a subject which was an agreed subject—it was not divided upon in the last case—in order that we may have a full time for discussing glebe and tithe.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Perhaps I might say a word or two from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to subsequent discussion. There was a very full discussion upon the first Amendment, which dealt with Queen Anne's Bounty and the moneys provided by Parliament. Now we are dealing with the Royal Bounty Fund. There has been considerable latitude allowed in discussion, and since 8.15 a large portion of the discussion has been as relevant to the Parliamentary Grant as it was to the question of Queen Anne's Bounty. Many arguments were indeed directed rather to the Parliamentary Grant than to the one now being discussed. If the discussion is proceeded with I must ask hon. Members to confine themselves very strictly to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Sir ALFRED CRIPPS

It is my intention to confine myself wholly to this particular Amendment, and I am glad the Home Secretary is here, because I want to point out to him the distinction between this Amendment and the last. I think it is extremely important and directly relevant to what the Chairman has said that the distinction should be pointed out. As regards the last Amendment, the exact amount came out of moneys provided by Parliament. To that, of course, I have nothing to say. It was discussed on the form of Amendment, but this Amendment has to do with a totally different matter. So far as these moneys are concerned they come out of a Royal Bounty Fund, and I think it is very material to point out the difference, because it is a very important difference when dealing with Church Endowments. It has been argued, I admit, from the other side that there was little difference, because in both cases you have to go back to an Act of Parliament. I pointed out to the Committee that it is absolutely unsound when we talk about an Act of Parliament in connection with the gift of Queen Anne. An Act of Parliament is not a gift at all. The Act of Parliament merely constituted the body for carrying out the gift of Queen Anne in order that the money given as a private benefaction might be Parliamentarily administered. That is an entirely different thing altogether. What I want to ask the Home Secretary is this—I do not want to cross-examine him—Does he think, as he said, that the same principle applies as regards Endowments, whether they come from an Act of Parliament or from a private donation? That is a very important point, and it is the sole point that involves the difference in the two Amendments. I want to know what his view is on this matter. He said it is a stored-up fund. I agree with what he said about that, but although we are coming to glebes presently. I am not going to discuss that matter now.

If you are going to keep for the Church money on the ground that it comes from private benefaction and is not a charge upon the community, what is the difference between it and glebe? I want to ascertain that before we come to the new discussion. In both cases you have what I might call the storing up of private donations. I think the Home Secretary will not differ from that opinion.

Mr. McKENNA

dissented.

Sir A. CRIPPS

What is the difference? I am not going to discuss the new point now, but I put it to any hon. Gentleman on the ether side, who follow this matter with an impartial mind, can he suggest, if this part of Queen Anne's Bounty comes from private donation and not a Parliamentary Grant which has already been dealt with, how there is any distinction in principle between what is now allowed as part of the Church property and glebe? I agree we are going to discuss glebe by and by, but I am in order in asking whether there is any principle in dealing with this extremely important matter of Endowments to religious institutions like the Church, and what are the grounds upon which this special differentiation is made. I say quite frankly, from some study of this question of Endowment, that I differ altogether from hon. Members on the other side. I say these matters of outside Parliamentary Grants cannot be differentiated on any principle known to the law from a large number of other benefactions to the Church to be taken away. I want to know as regards this Amendment why the Government assent to this Proposition, at the same time that they dissent from others. That is the point on which we differ from the Home Secretary. It is no answer to say that in an earlier portion of the evening, when he was dealing with money founded upon a Parliamentary Grant, he gave information covering a fund purely derived from private benefaction and coming out of the Bounty Fund of Queen Anne's estate. I say no answer has been given to the question I have put. We are entitled to have a consistent answer from the Government, to show us whether they are dealing with other Grants upon any consistent basis whatever. The Home Secretary will agree with me, I am sure, that it would be a monstrous suggestion that you are going to deal with our Endowments on the principle of a Division, in which the Government got a small majority. I am not going to assume that iniquity, but why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the principle underlying these Endowments which come from the Bounty Fund of Queen Anne that does not equally apply to Parliamentary Endowments of the Church? I am entitled to ask that. I am not going further, because it would be outside this particular Amendment, but I ask the Home Secretary to give some explanation of this extremely important point.

Mr. E. JONES

I think it necessary that some Welsh Member, even though perhaps the most insignificant of them, should say a word with regard to these particular concessions made by the Government. I kept silent upon the previous Amendment, not because I have nothing to say in my own rather loose and clumsy manner, but because I thought it was much better that one or two should speak upon that and some others upon this Amendment. This concession is, in principle, as far as we are concerned, a much more lamentable one than the previous one, and I am going to endeavour, as briefly as I can, to show why we Welsh Members consider this a very vital question, and I do not propose to be silenced by any cynical remarks on the part of any English or Scotch Member. The difficulty of English Members on this side, who have been making concessions, and of all Members opposite, is to understand our point of view upon these two matters and these two branches of Queen Anne's Bounty.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment now before us.

Mr. E. JONES

Certainly; I am talking about this Amendment. It is very difficult to get anyone to understand precisely what our attitude is towards this particular fund, and the manner in which it was granted originally to the Welsh people, and the reasons why Welsh Members protest against this being given away. First of all, let me say that we, as a people, agree with a good deal that has been said on the other side, that, in principle, the giving away of this is just as bad as the giving away of anything else. Our attitude as regards the Amendment is a very clear one. I wish to draw a clear distinction in regard to one matter which has been confusing the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Even after the concession the Welsh people have one big thing they have been working for. Already we have Disendowment in this sense that these funds will not be in the hands of a body in London, administered by a body here, but they will be in the hands of the new Church body in Wales. So far so good. That feature is one upon which we have to put considerable importance, therefore the question resolves itself into this very clear issue. It is no good talking vaguely about Disendowment. I know it is rather awkward to use the word, but these people have been Disendowed as regards their control of the policy which follows with the control of the funds. Having thus Disendowed these various corporations and removed their control from the fund, it would have followed in the Bill that these moneys would have been placed in the hands of the Commissioners. The only question, therefore, that is pertinent to this debate is how much of the moneys were to be given by the Commissioners to the New Church Body.

The Disendowment is complete all round. The various corporations have been Disestablished. All the patrons and the institutions administering these funds and controlling them have been swept away, and the Commissioners were left with a sum to hand to the county council, and the rest was to be handed to the representative body. As the Bill stood before these Bounty Funds were to be handed to the county councils for the numerous objects enumerated in the Bill. The difference this Amendment makes is that the money, instead of being handed to the county councils, will be handed to the Church representative body to be set up. Therefore the issue is narrower than the wide issue over which hon. Members opposite have been roaming in regard to this and the previous Amendment. Hon. Members on this side who have been talking about generosity have not been applying an irrelevant or inapposite adjective. The question is whether when we have finished the arrangements of the Bill we shall give a little more out of the money in the hands of the Commissioners to the new Church or not. When hon. Gentlemen complain about the use of the word generosity by hon. Members here who have been proposing the Amendments there was some meaning in it. I think it is only fair that somebody should attempt to answer it. Why do we object to the taking of this particular sum associated with this particular fund, the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, and giving it to this new Church which will be created in Wales under this Bill?

Sir A. CRIPPS

A new Church?

Mr. E. JONES

I mean the new organisation of the Church in Wales. I was going to say that I, at any rate, from my point of view, object very much to it. We feel very much disappointed and injured at the concession which has been made by the Government. The position is that hon. Members opposite are not conversant with Welsh history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] They must try and understand on the basis of history the position with regard to the initiation of this controversy before they can properly discuss the matter. What strikes me most as a Welshman is that not a single Welshman on the other side has said whether this is regarded by them as being of any use to the new Church in the future, and whether they think the granting of this will help them. Hon. Members who have spoken are Members for English constituencies who are either Englishmen or some nationality other than Welsh. There is a really serious historical point of view which hon. Members ought to respect when we are making our protest. This Bounty Fund came to Wales at a very peculiar time, as did the other section, the Parliamentary Grant, which we have just, been discussing. Hon. Members must try to realise the situation in Wales at that time if they are going to understand why we object so keenly to this concession being given at the present time. Hon. Members opposite say that it is a small amount of £15,000. If it had been a bigger or a smaller amount it would not have made any difference. It is not the amount, but the principle involved and it is the giving up of the principle that will create indignation and astonishment. I know there has been a cheap sneer and retort that we are grumbling because this amount of money has been given tip, but it is nothing of the sort. This fund came about at a very peculiar time in the history of the Principality. Hon. Members who have read the history of this agitation know that Wales at that time from an ecclesiastical point of view was in a condition of neglect that England had not sunk into, and practically the whole of the Churches of the Diocese of St. David's were in ruins. Hon. Members have given us various explanations but that was the situation side by side with the ruined Church in which people could not worship except upon an occasional fine day. The majority of the incumbents living upon those Endowments at that time were absentees——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is an interesting historical survey, but I do not think it is relevant to this point. I have already said that in my opinion the hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. E. JONES

Am I not entitled to deal with the origin of this particular Queen Anne's Bounty?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is going into a long historical survey of Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. I think the hon. Gentleman was in the House during the ruling I gave when the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) was speaking, and I ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment and not deal with the general question.

Mr. E. JONES

Am I not entitled to discuss the origin of this particular fund?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I put it to you that we are dealing now with the allocation of this particular Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, and we are quite as anxious as hon. Members opposite to take up the historical foundation of it, and the reason why the hon. Member does not want it allocated in the way suggested by the Government. I think the inception of the fund and its history are material to the present discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It is not the first time Queen Anne's Bounty Fund has been discussed in Committee, and the general question with regard to the fund has been dealt with at very considerable length already this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am simply, in the interests of the Committee, making a request to the hon. Member at present in possession of the Committee that he should confine his remarks more particularly to the immediate Amendment before the Committee.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

May I point out that what was dealt with this afternoon was the Parliamentary Grant. We are now dealing with the Royal Bounty Fund, and I submit with all deference it is really a perfectly different discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Of course, if the hon. Member is going to open up the whole history of Queen Anne's Bounty, I suppose we might go on debating it for a couple of days. I most distinctly say that to go into a long historical survey of this question is in my opinion not relevant to the immediate Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. E. JONES

I take it your ruling is that it is out of order to discuss the inception of this fund, or what the fund is, and why the Welsh people want to get it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No, that is not my view at all.

Mr. E. JONES

Then probably you will pull me up if you think I am not in order. This particular fund came into Wales about 1703. It came at a peculiar period when the Churches were in a state of decay, and when the bulk of the incumbents, the clergy mentioned in the Act of Parliament setting up the Bounty Fund, were absentees in England. Very shortly afterwards there was the awakening of religion in Wales, carrying us on over about the latter half of that particular century. The societies which were then set up endeavoured to remain within the fold of the Church to whom these Grants were given, and to be ministered to by the incumbents, the poor clergy who were receiving these Grants. Hon. Members will remember the Grants were originally given as annual Grants, and that afterwards they took a capital form, but that makes very little difference to the principle I am endeavouring to express. The Methodist societies which had grown up were refused admission into the Church, and to top all that, in 1801, just as the Welsh people were themselves beginning to build the first chapels on the hillside out of their very scanty savings, there came again from the Parliament of England another huge Grant, the one we discussed this afternoon, to this rump and section, to churches that were empty, to incumbents who were absentees and pluralists, maintaining curates in Wales at £2 and £3 a year. In 110 parishes in the Diocese of St. David's the annual salary of the curate was £6 10s.

Owing to that there sank into the hearts of these early Nonconformists a sense of outrageous grievance and of a great misuse of funds. It does not matter to my argument whether those funds were originally given for direct religious purposes or not. Even if they were given for the service of God they were used for the maintenance of incumbents who had nothing spiritual to do, and not for the maintenance of the parishioners or for scriptural ministrations among them. That same broad fact remained in the Principality of Wales down to the last thirty or forty years. These moneys from these Bounty Funds coming down from the English nation to Wales went to a Church having all the privileges of a National Church, while the great mass of the nation were building their small churches in a time, of course, of bad harvests and of very bad seasons. Those people had to look on at this waste of public money. I am not a very old man, but I remember hearing of incumbents receiving moneys from this Queen Anne's Bounty, and stories were told us as children of old vicars with foxhounds under their pulpits on the Sunday morning. [Laughter.] Can any one dispute that what I am saying is historically a fact?

Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS

Does the hon. Member assert that in those days the ministers of religion of the Church of England in Wales kept foxhounds under their pulpits?

Mr. E. JONES

Yes, they did. There are hon. Members beside me who know stories of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, stories."] There are plenty of cases of incumbents receiving money from Queen Anne's Bounty, and funds of this kind, who on a Sunday morning found no one but the sexton and an old lady in church. There is one well authenticated case within my own knowledge. It is a recollection of my childhood. I just mention these cases in order to bring home to hon. Members the atmosphere in which we have been brought up to regard this particular question, and the reason why we cannot look on it in the same light as hon. Members opposite. I say there is a case within my own knowledge of a vicar who, finding only one old lady in his church on the Sunday morning, gave her the choice of a shilling or a sermon, and she chose the shilling. There is a slightly different theological atmosphere to-day. I do not regret it; I welcome it. I think it augurs well for the new conditions in Wales when this Church is emancipated. I was brought up in South Wales, and, not merely in the rural parts, but also in the industrial districts of South Wales, there were old leaders and maintainers of those churches, men of strong puritanical views, not merely in theory, but in method of life and in their outlook on the conduct of life, who had to look on at this abuse and this waste of moneys given in the name of religion from this Parliament and by the Kings and Queens of England, if you like to put it so, in their capacity as such. Is it any wonder those strong, hard-headed old theologians thought this act of the ruling and sovereign authority of Great Britain an injustice?

It has been my privilege to discuss this question on the country-side. It is very difficult for hon. Members opposite, and for even hon. Members on this side, to understand our position. I have had the fortune, or misfortune, to have had to make my voice heard in nearly every rural village and town in Wales. I have often had to discuss this Bounty Fund with old veterans, really conscientious men, who have lived in their religious atmosphere, not merely on Sundays, but on every day, and in every hour of the day. I have met them on the country-side. They have held my hand and nearly squeezed it into pulp in the passion in which they have said that they wanted to live to see this Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales carried, not in a spirit of revenge, but in a very different spirit. The Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) may smile, but it is easy for us young men in these newer days, with broader interests and greater opportunities, to assume an attitude of superiority of a cynical character. But these men are living. They are living with their sons and daughters, and they are sincerely convinced from the bottom of their hearts that herein lies a matter full of injustice and a travesty of religion. We have to deal with these men.

Hon. Members, when we complain about these concessions, twit us, as Welsh Members, with being in a difficulty. So far as we are concerned here, merely as politicians, our difficulty would be a simple one. But the thing that makes it so difficult for us is not the attitude of our Liberal executives, our Liberal associations, or our Liberal workers, but it is the fact that this whole solid body that is maintaining religion in Wales to-day, has built it up and maintained it, will be convinced, when the English Parliament, as the sovereign authority, by changing these funds, given as they have been given, and as they were given in the time I have ventured to allude to—I hope I am within the limits of order——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will himself agree with me that he has gone beyond the limits of order. I hope he will confine himself more particularly to the Amendment.

Mr. E. JONES

I will endeavour to do that. I will only say, having regard to the origin of this particular fund, we could never reconcile ourselves to its being taken away. English Members, either Nonconformist or Churchmen, may say to us, "It would be a much more generous thing to give this fund to the Church as the Government now propose." We retort, and we say that the Government, in exercising that generosity, are cutting athwart principles held, rightly or wrongly, by the great mass of the religious community in Wales. I think I am entitled to say one word with regard to the attitude taken up by Liberal Churchmen and Nonconformists on this side of the House. They come to us and say, about this Bounty Fund, as they say in reference to the fund taken away earlier in the evening, and as they will probably say about the remainder of these concessions, they say to the Welsh people, "When you complain of the taking away of this fund from the Commissioners and giving it to the Church, you are mean and ungenerous." The Leader of the Opposition said we were mean in our attitude, and Members behind him say we are ungenerous. But we plead that this is a matter of right and justice. I, as an individual, even if I were disposed, which I am not, to agree with the historical theory of hon. Members on both sides, with regard to the Bounty Fund, and with regard to the method in which it has been used up to the present, I say that, as a representative, have to have regard to the fact that there is a judgment, not a temporary, but a considered judgment of the Welsh people for over twenty years, and, therefore, Liberal Members on this side must remember that the attitude we take up is that of the Welsh nation, and that it is the opinion of the Welsh nation that we are expressing. An hon. Member from Yorkshire, or an hon. Member from Scotland, or the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition may tell the nation of Wales that they are mean, ungenerous, wrong and unjust. But I suggest that, while there are particular attitudes that may be taken up towards individuals on this earth, it is very presumptuous for anyone to take up such an attitude in regard to a nation. They might, if this were a burst of passion, if this were a new measure, if this demand had been rushed upon Parliament during the last six months or two years, they might have said, we consider that the Welsh nation has been excited and misled but that they will soon come to their better senses. They cannot say that now, for they are face to face with the considered judgment of a whole people.

Hon. Members do not understand our circumstances. They do not understand our history. They have not been brought up within the living atmosphere in which these things have been administered, and I tell them they are taking up an attitude which is presumptuous in the extreme. I am going to say, in conclusion, that while I am sorry I have to disagree with the historical reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, the application of it is very pertinent to the present position, now that the Government are giving away this particular concession. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs said that the Welsh people had been defeated by great men like Edward I. and Henry V. Edward I. never defeated us; neither did Henry V. We were defeated by the same methods that have defeated us over this, by the same people pressing on the heels of power and place, the same tub-thumpers and courtiers and sycophants who have inveigled themselves into new positions by twisting the tail of those in authority. By those methods we were defeated in the past; by those methods we have been defeated again upon this occasion. In conclusion, I wish to refer to a more serious matter. However much we may seem to be angry at the manner in which these concessions have been pressed upon the Government, I do not blame the Government for this. I say so frankly. The Government have, of course, been pressed by their supporters, and we quite admit that the attitude taken up by certain Members, not exactly always representative of their constituents so far as we can gather, made it necessary for the Government to do some of these things, or to choose the other alternative of dropping the Bill.

10.0 P.M.

The Welsh people have been asking for this for a long time. They have got to take an emasculated measure and a watered-down measure, and we have got to do our best. We recognise that the Government are not to blame; but we, the Welsh people, will not forget for a very long time what has been done. There are Liberal Churchmen to whom we are very grateful, and to whom the Welsh nation will be very grateful for the spirit they have manifested; but, taking this Amendment and the previous one and the other Amendments that are to follow, we say that the thing which the whole of the Welsh people have threshed out on both sides for forty years is a matter that the Welsh people themselves are competent to decide, without imputations of the robbery of God and other outrageous motives of that kind being attributed to us. Liberal Churchmen have taken a liberal attitude and supported us, and I know some of them have done it at great personal sacrifice to themselves in their own constituencies. We shall not forget their attitude. But there are Liberal Nonconformists speaking here, whether with authority we do not yet know, in the name of English Nonconformity, whom we Nonconformists of Wales cannot forget and will not forget. There was a time when the Welsh Nonconformist denominations looked up to the Nonconformists of England, because they felt that there was a mutual sympathy and a common bond between them. To these Nonconformist brethren, be they Mr. Meyer, or whoever they may be, I have to say with regret that we shall as a nation say most emphatically to him and to all the others that we have lost touch with them over this, and that it will be a very long time before we can find again that same bond of sympathy to which we have been accustomed in the past. However, the Government has granted this concession. We have heard a good deal in these Debates about Giraldus Cambrensis—Gerald the Welshman. I am not going back to him. Hon. Members opposite had a good deal to say about him and his particular methods, but we are bound to say, however much the other side may object to the methods of Gerald the Welshman, we shall not forget Gerald the Northman for a very long time.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I have listened to the hon. Member's speech with a great deal of sympathy. I do not propose to follow him in his somewhat comprehensive denunciation of the Government and of certain Liberal Churchmen and of Liberal Nonconformists in and outside the House, and indeed of everybody with whom he happens to disagree. One thing I did notice about his speech, and about the speech of almost every Member on the other side who has not spoken from the Front Bench, is that they are all perfectly convinced that the Government's action is entirely due to the Division of last Friday. It is true that the Home Secretary explained with great emphasis and apparent sincerity that he was moved entirely by devotion to the purest justice, with generosity he had nothing to do. He did not even allude to last Friday's Division. But I do not observe that any one of his followers pays the slightest heed or attaches the slightest credit to that announcement. They are all convinced that the idea that the Home Secretary should yield to justice is so absurd as not to be worth consideration. They know quite well that the only argument by which he is at all likely to be moved is fear of defeat in the Division Lobby; therefore they attribute his action entirely and solely to that motive. If I had said so, I suppose I should be told I was guilty of undue violence and heat. The speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. L. Williams), and that of the last speaker, relieves me from the fear that I should ever exceed them in violent langauge. What was the argument against this Amendment presented by the hon. Gentleman. There was first our old friend the Welsh demand. The hon. Member, with great Parliamentary skill, managed to make a purely Second Reading speech by at intervals saying, "This applies to this Amendment." I am not going to attempt to do that, nor am I going to attempt to answer it because the Welsh demand, for what it is worth, has been dealt with over and over again. The only thing I wish to say about it is that hon. Members from Wales persist in regarding this as solely a Welsh question. That is an entire misapprehension, as we on this side of the Committee think. We regard this as quite as much an English as a Welsh question, and a question we utterly decline to regard as solely concerning those portions of the British race who dwell in the Welsh counties. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with that.

What was the rest of his argument when he said that the funds which arise out of this Bounty were misused? I did not understand him to assert that they were being misused at the present time. Surely the hon. Gentleman must see that to allege, as a ground for taking away funds, that they were misused fifty or forty years ago is really perfectly irrelevant. I cannot help thinking the picture drawn of the Welsh Church was very grossly over-coloured. It may possibly be true for aught I know that in some single parish a clergyman so far forgot his sacred duty as to keep a foxhound under his pulpit, but I utterly refuse to believe that in any living memory that was a common practice among the Welsh clergy. The hon. Gentleman surely does not say it was the general rule to keep foxhounds under the pulpits in Wales on Sunday morning. I do not think that is a kind of argument which the hon. Gentleman thought we should deal with seriously. But, putting aside the colouring added by the hon. Gentleman's vivid imagination and taking the substance of his complaint, what nonsense it is to say that because the clergymen of fifty years ago misused the Endowments we will take it away from the clergyman who admittedly is not misusing it at the present day.

What is the hon. Gentleman's other argument? He said in 1703 this sum was granted. Very shortly afterwards the great religious revival took place, and I suppose about 100 years or rather more after that the great Wesleyan split took place. I think I am right in saying it did not take place until after John Wesley's death, and John Wesley died at the very end of the eighteenth century. He was a very old man when he died—I think eighty-two. It did not take place until three years, or some such time, after Wesley's death. Wesley remained throughout a member of the Church of England, and it is worth noting in passing that the revival from which the whole of our religious revivals, in my judgment, arises—the great Wesleyan revival—came from within the Established Church. So that it was not the Establishment that killed the religious spirit, but the general cosmic causes which depressed religion all over the world during that period. The hon. Gentleman says, as I understand his argument, that there was no secession of Wesleyans from the English Church. The English Church doors were closed to the Wesleyans. That is a matter of history—a matter on which a good deal of argument might take place—but I really do not think it is a fair way of looking at the matter. The secession took place quite deliberately and in defiance of their founder's wishes expressed on his deathbed. It was a deliberate act. It was very likely quite a proper act from their point of view, and, I have no doubt, a most conscientious act, but it is not true to say that the doors were closed and they were driven out. They went out knowing precisely and exactly what was their loss in going out and they went out sacrificing, as I admit entirely to their honour, the advantages and position they then had as members of the Established Church. Therefore it really is not just to say that that is due to any closing of the doors on the part of the English Church. But apart from that, is the hon. Gentleman really going to say that there is anything peculiar about Queen Anne's Bounty in connection with that? It is quite true that the Bounty was granted in 1703 and that the secession took place less than a century afterwards

Mr. E. JONES

In 1735.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

No, the hon. Member is entirely mistaken. John Wesley could only have been in his extreme youth at that time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I was under the impression that we were dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I was pointing out that there was nothing peculiar in the circumstances of the eighteenth century which would make this Bounty different from any other part of the Endowment of the Church in Wales. But I pass from the hon. Gentleman's argument, which really did not seem to me to have had any very great bearing on this particular fund, to the reasons why the Mover and the Seconder and the Government support this particular Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones) said he moved it because in his judgment this fund differed from the tithe in that it was not a recurring charge. That is not accurate. As to part of this Bounty Fund it is a recurring charge. As to so much of it as still consists in first fruits and tenths—and that is a considerable part of it—that is a charge which is exacted every year.

Mr. KING rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not feel justified in taking the Closure during the Noble Lord's speech, but I may have another opinion after he has finished.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I am glad you have given that decision, because I think I was endeavouring very closely to answer the arguments which have been addressed to us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As far as the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones) is concerned, it really is inappropriate to this particular Amendment. What was the argument of the Seconder? He said he was a very affectionate son of the Church. I know something of these affectionate sons of the Church. I confess I prefer the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who did not make any profession or pretence of his affection for the Church. He was a very affectionate son of the Church. He recognised that this was a claim of justice, and therefore he should vote for it. But he would not vote for it if the Government had decided in the opposite direction. We now know exactly the limit of his affection for the Church. It extends to voting for an Amendment if you can do so without offending the Government of the day. What was his argument in favour of the Amendment? He said that this sum of money came from the clergy. But what does that mean? It came from the clergy because the clergy paid it out of their professional income. What does their professional income come from? From tithe and glebe. Therefore it comes indirectly from tithe and glebe. Therefore when the hon. Member says it must not be confiscated because it comes from the clergy, he really is saying, "You must not confiscate it because it is part of tithe and glebe." But, then, what becomes of the national property? Does it become less national property because it has been in the pockets of the clergy for a certain time? Surely that is an absurdity.

The truth is that there is no argument by which you can distinguish this Endowment from the other Endowments. When you come to look at the argument of the Home Secretary, what does it amount to? He says he is going to take this money because it is accumulations. I cannot imagine why you should take money which is accumulations when you do not take money from the sources from which the accumulations are made. As a matter of fact, the observation is not true, because this sum is not only accumulations, but a recurring charge. The truth is that the attempt to distinguish this Disendowment from other Endowments breaks down wherever you test it. There is no real distinction whatever. If there is any distinction it is only one as to date, and what does that amount to? It was a sum of money granted by the Crown and confirmed by Act of Parliament. How do the other Endowments of the Church stand? We heard from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department last night that in his judgment the settlement of 1662 was in effect a confirmation by Act of Parliament of the Endowments of the Church. There is no doubt it was. If you look at what happened in]662, what happened is perfectly clear. After the Commonwealth—the Commonwealth rulers had placed in possession of livings a number of clergy, Presbyterians, and others not holding views in accordance with the views of the Church of England—these clergymen were told that unless they conformed to the views of the Church of England they could not continue to hold these livings. It was confirmed by Act of Parliament that the Endowments belonged to the Church. In what respect does that differ from what was done in 1703? None whatever. The truth is that you cannot do these things as a matter of justice. If you take the view of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that all Endowments are wrong, you are on strong logical ground; but if you make a distinction between one Endowment and the others, you are on no ground at all. You are merely yielding to reasons of party expediency. That is the only ground upon which the Amendment can be defended. I think no part of the Bill can be defended, but I shall certainly not vote against this Amendment. It is a plank out of the wreck, but to say that we ought to be grateful, and that it makes any material difference in the injustice inflicted by this Bill, is to mislead the Committee, and I for my part will be no party to any such deception.

Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. KING

(seated, and covered): On a point of Order. I would like to know, Mr. Maclean, whether you will kindly furnish the House with any precedent for your action just now in indicating that after the speech of the Noble Lord you would accept the Closure at

once? [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say so."]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not know whether there is a precedent or not, but I did it in what I considered, in my discretion, the best interests of the Committee.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 121.

Division No. 468.]	AYES.	[10.20 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)	Keating, Matthew
Acland, Francis Dyke	Essex, Richard Walter	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Adamson, William	Falconer, J.	Kilbride, Denis
Addison, Dr. Christopher	Farrell, James Patrick	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles	Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Agnew, Sir George William	Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Ffrench, Peter	Lewis, John Herbert
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)	Field, William	Lundon, Thomas
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Fitzgibbon, John	Lyell, Charles Henry
Armitage, Robert	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lynch, A. A.
Arnold, Sydney	France, G. A.	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.	George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd	McGhee, Richard
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Gilhooly, James	Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Gill, Alfred Henry	MacNeill. J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)	Gladstone, W. G. C.	Macpherson, James Ian
Barnes, George N.	Glanville, Harold James	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford	M'Callum, Sir John M.
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)	Goldstone, Frank	McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Beale, Sir William Phipson	Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)	Manfield, Harry
Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Greig, Col. J. W.	Marshall, Arthur Harold
Beck, Arthur Cecil	Griffith, Ellis J.	Martin, Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)	Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Bentham, George Jackson	Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)	Meagher, Michael
Black, Arthur W.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Boland, John Pius	Hackett, John	Millar, James Duncan
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)	Molloy, Michael
Bowerman, C. W.	Hancock, John George	Molteno, Percy Alport
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)	Mooney, J. J.
Brace, William	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Morgan, George Hay
Brady, Patrick Joseph	Hardie, J. Kelr	Morison, Hector
Brocklehurst, William B.	Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brunner, John F. L.	Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)	Muldoon, John
Bryce, John Annan	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Munro, Robert
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry	Needham, Christopher
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)	Hayden, John Patrick	Neilson, Francis
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hayward, Evan	Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)	Hazleton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph
Chancellor, H. G.	Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)	Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Clancy, John Joseph	Helme, Sir Norval Watson	Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Clough, William	Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clynes, John R.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O Connor, John (Kildare)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Henry, Sir Charles	O'Doherty, Philip
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Donnell, Thomas
Cotton, William Francis	Higham, John Sharp	O'Dowd, John
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot	Hinds, John	O'Grady, James
Crean, Euqene	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Crooks, William	Hodge, John	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Crumley, Patrick	Holmes, Daniel Turner	O'Malley, William
Cullinan, John	Hope, John Deans (Haddington)	O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Shee, James John
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hudson, Waiter	O'Sullivan, Timothy
Davies, M, Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Hughes, Spencer Leigh	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dawes, J. A.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Devlin, Joseph	John, Edward Thomas	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Doris, W.	Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pirie, Duncan V.
Duffy, William J.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pointer, Joseph
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Elverston, Sir Harold	Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)	Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Joyce, Michael	Radford, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson	Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.	Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.	Watt, Henry A.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Webb, H.
Reddy, M.	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)	White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Scanlan, Thomas	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)	Whitehouse, John Howard
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)	Sheehy, David	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Rendall, Athelstan	Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)	Whyte, Alexander F.
Richards, Thomas	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)	Wiles, Thomas
Richardson, Albion (Peckham)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)	Sutton, John E.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Williamson, Sir A.
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Thomas, James Henry	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)	Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Robinson, Sidney	Toulmin, Sir George	Young, William (Perth, East)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Ure, Rt. Hon Alexander	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Roche, Augustine (Louth)	Verney, Sir Harry
Roe, Sir Thomas	Wadsworth, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Stephen Collins and Mr. King.
Rowlands, James	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
NOES.
Amery, L. C. M. S.	Fletcher, John Samuel	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.	Gardner, Ernest	Parkes, Ebenezer
Archer-Shee, Major Martin	Gilmour, Captain J.	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baird, John Lawrence	Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Pollock, Ernest Murray
Balcarres, Lord	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pringle, William M. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Grant, James Augustus	Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)	Greene, Walter Raymond	Randies, Sir John S.
Barrie, H. T.	Gretton, John	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)	Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	Rees, Sir J. D.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Hamersley, Alfred St. George	Rolleston, Sir John
Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-	Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)	Salter, Arthur Clavel
Beresford, Lord Charles	Hewins, William Albert Samuel	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bigland, Alfred	Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.	Sanders, Robert
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S, T. Griffith-	Hogge, James Myles	Stanier, Beville
Boyton, James	Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bridgeman, William Clive	Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)	Starkey, John Ralph
Burn, Colonel C. R.	Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Butcher, John George	Horner, Andrew Long	Stewart, Gershom
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Swift, Rigby
Campion, W. R.	Hume-Williams, William Ellis	Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred	Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.	Talbot, Lord Edmund
Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edward H.	Joynson-Hicks, William	Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cassel, Felix	Kellaway, Frederick George	Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cave, George	Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr	Touche, George Alexander
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Chapple, Dr. W. A.	Larmor, Sir J.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham	Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Courthope, George Loyd	Lewisham, Viscount	Wills, Sir Gilbert
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)	Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	Worthington-Evans, L.
Croft, Henry Page	Mackinder, Halford J.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dalrymple, Viscount	Malcolm, Ian	Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Doughty, Sir George	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.	Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)
Fell, Arthur	Mount, William Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Wheler.
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert	Newton, Harry Kottingham
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he is willing to move to report Progress? It is now twenty-five minutes to Eleven, and rather late to begin the discussion of my Amendment, which is one that raises two very vital and important points.

Mr. McKENNA

I recognise that the hon. Member is naturally desirous of bringing forward his Amendment at an earlier period, and if he presses me to move to report Progress, I shall certainly agree, but on this side we are quite ready to go on. It is within the knowledge of, I think, everybody who has been present here to-day that we have discussed three Amendments, and only three Amendments, in all of which the Government have taken up an attitude which was agreeable on those particular points.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

There is no question before the Committee.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I do not propose to move my Amendment now, but if it is under the Rules of Order, I will move to report Progress, in order that we can begin the Debate on this subject to-morrow.

Mr. WYNDHAM

On a point of Order. I understood that the Government were prepared to report Progress if the Opposition took the full responsibility upon themselves, and thought that that was the best course in order to secure a good discussion. That is our opinion, and we are prepared to take that responsibility.

Mr. McKENNA

It being understood that the responsibility belongs to the Opposition and not to me, I am happy to move to report Progress.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).