Commons Sitting of 5 February 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock. Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions against the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill were presented by—
Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, (103 petitions) containing 21,676 signatures from the following:—Parliamentary Divisions of Berwick-on-Tweed, Wansbeek, Tyne-mouth, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hexham, and Tyneside.
Major Stanley, (15 petitions) from the Chorley Division of Lancashire containing 5,660 signatures.
Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen (176 petitions) containing 34,452 signatures from various places in England, Wales, Scotland and the Channel Isles, the Isle of Man, and from British residents in Belgium and France: also one from the parish of Llanbadrig, in Anglesey.
I desire to explain that a previous petition presented from this parish was rejected by the Petitions Committee on the ground of certain irregularities. The present petition contains more signatures than the former.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Waterford (East Waterford Division), in the room of Patrick Joseph Power, esquire, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
David Cleghorn Hogg, esquire, for the Borough of Londonderry.
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th July; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SPECIAL ORDER).
Copy presented of the Special Exclusion (Dredgermen, etc.) Order, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
TREATY SERIES (No. 3, 1913).
Copy presented of Parcel Post Agreement between the United Kingdom and Venezuela. Signed at Caracas, 27th April, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHINA (No. 1, 1913).
Copy presented of Despatches from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, transmitting the Russo-Mongolian Agreement and Protocol of the 21st October (3rd November) 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 3rd February, 1913, made under Section 78 of the Act by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Further Payments to Approved Societies) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
Copy presented of Account for the year 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Return of the Alien Passenger Traffic to and from the United Kingdom during the three months ending 31st December, 1912, together with the number of Expulsion Orders made during that period requiring Aliens to leave the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Orders made by the Council of the borough of Deal, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hour on the several days of the week for the same Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE SERVANTS (WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed]. [No. 507.]
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 507.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Sheffield Corporation Bill to which this House has disagreed, but propose a new Amendment in lieu thereof.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT FARM, MIDDELBURG, CAPE COLONY.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what was the final balance credit to the State from the Imperial Government farm at Middleburg, Cape Colony, when the farm was closed down by order of the Army Council; to what fund was the sum credited; and when it was credited to the State?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This farm was not run as a public undertaking, and no balance therefore was due to the State. The credit balance amounting to £244 11s. 8d., when the farm was closed down, being a private fund, was assigned in 1910 to charitable purposes connected with the Army.

    MOUNTED INFANTRY.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked whether the whole of the Mounted Infantry cobs at: Longmoor have been handed over to the 15th Hussars; whether there is any other school for Mounted Infantry in Great Britain or Ireland; whether, in consequence, of these cobs having been taken away, no men can now be trained in Mounted Infantry work; and whether it is intended to abolish Mounted Infantry altogether?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to all the four parts of this question is in the negative.

    SPECIAL RESERVE (BOYS OF 17 YEARS or AGE).
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked what is the number of boys of seventeen years of age and under now serving in the Special Reserve; and how many men are serving in that branch of the Service who have been rejected as medically unfit for ser vice in the Regular Army?
    Colonel SEELY: The latest figures available for ages are those of 1st October, 1912, when there were no men serving under seventeen years of age and there were 3,566 men serving between the ages of seventeen and eighteen. No information is available at the War Office concerning the second part of the question.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for information upon that?
    Colonel SEELY: As I explained to the House on previous occasions it would involve very great labour to obtain this information, and I have suggested to the House that as there is so much clerical work already they should not insist upon it.

    HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREWasked the Secretary for War whether he will consider the, advisability of reducing the number of the Territorial Horse and Field Artillery and of supplying their places with any horse and field batteries of the Regular Army which he may be advised are now in excess of the required establishment?
    Colonel SEELY: As the officers and men now serving in the Horse and Field Artillery are now required for that arm, I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Territorial horse is not as efficient as those of the Regular Army?
    Colonel SEELY: That hardly arises out of this question.

    CAVALRY HORSES.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked how long it takes to train a horse for Cavalry work, and how long, for Mounted Infantry; whether, in the first instance, a horse must be a perfect fighting machine, whereas in the latter he is practically nothing but a means of trans port; and whether he has received any report on the suitability, or the reverse, of the Mounted Infantry cobs for Cavalry?
    Colonel SEELY: It takes a longer time to train a horse for Cavalry work than for Mounted Infantry work, the period varying with the age of the horse, his condition, his previous training, and other factors. I cannot accept the statement in the second part of the question. It has been reported to me that a large number of horses trained for Mounted Infantry are suitable for Cavalry use.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those horses are not suitable, a fact of which I myself have experience?
    Colonel SEELY: I do not know what difficulty the Noble Lord had with those horses.
    Earl WINTERTON: Have any single one of those horses been through the ordinary Cavalry school training?
    Colonel SEELY: I have made most careful inquiry, and my military advisers have been through the matter very carefully, and they are of opinion that those horses are most excellent horses, especially for war purposes.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, Sir. I said, in reply to the last part of the question, "It has been reported to me that a large number of horses trained for Mounted Infantry are suitable for Cavalry use."

    COLONIAL ALLOWANCES.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether the four Indian regiments stationed at Hong Kong and in South China draw
    2172
    Colonial allowance and also the British regiments both in North and South China, but that the one Indian regiment stationed at Tientsin in North China does not get this Colonial allowance; and, if so, what is the reason of it; and whether he will take steps to remedy this difference of treatment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The allowances of the Indian battalion at Tientsin are different from those of the other Indian troops mentioned, but financially they are certainly not less advantageous. The British units are under British regulations.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any reason why this should not be given the same as others in China?
    Mr. BAKER: It receives its allowance. On the whole I satisfied myself these are better off than the others.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (COMPENSATION FOR INJURY).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what compensation a member of the Territorial Force receives for the loss of a limb during his drills; whether he is aware that a man named Gwyther, serving at Portsmouth as a Territorial Royal Engineer sapper, lost a finger whilst carrying out an ordinary night's drill of one hour, as distinct from his fourteen days' annual training; whether he is aware that, as there are no funds available, this man is being maintained by the voluntary contributions of his officers; and whether he can state if this is usual in cases of a similar character?
    Mr. BAKER: If a man of the Territorial Force is disabled by an injury incurred in and by the performance of military duty, whether at authorised drill or camp training, he is entitled either to treatment in military hospital with pay, or, if this is not necessary, to a gratuity not exceeding 3s. 6d. a day while disabled; the pay or gratuity is limited to six months, but in special cases an extension may be approved. If the disability necessitate the man's discharge as medically unfit he is eligible for a pension. Cases of injury are dealt with locally and there is no information at the War Office as to this case, but inquiry will be made and the Noble Lord will be informed of the result in due course. I may say my right hon. Friend is very much obliged to the Noble Lord for drawing his attention to it.

    Anarchists in India.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps are being taken to hunt down anarchists in India, in view of the fact that the Viceroy has publicly stated that the recent outrages are the outcome of organised conspiracy?
    Mr. BAKER: It would not be in the public interest to make a detailed statement on the subject. I hope that the hon. Member will be content with a general assurance that no effort will be spared and no step left untried to unravel the organised conspiracy to which the murderous attack on the Viceroy is ascribed.

    Opium Trade.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether information acquired regarding the recent extension of, and rise in, the cultivation of Chinese opium is compatible with the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Government of China; whether His Majesty's Government has power to ensure the sale of Indian opium in Chinese provinces into which by treaty China is bound to allow its entry; whether His Majesty's Government will permit the ousting of Indian opium in order that the more injurious indigenous product may be substituted therefor; whether His Majesty's Government be lieves that any useful result can be obtained by the execution of innocent persons for using a stimulant; what effect the approaching cessation of the provision of Indian opium for China will have upon Indian finances; and whether the time has arrived to reconsider the arrangements made in 1911?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The information regarding this season's cultivation of opium in China is conflicting, and further inquiries are being made in the several provinces through the Consular officers in co-operation with the local officials. There has been a very large reduction of cultivation in China since the opium agreement with His Majesty's Government was made. In provinces not closed to Indian opium under Article 3 of the agreement of May, 1911, His Majesty's Government are entitled to require that the wholesale trade shall not be interfered with, nor preference shown to native opium. As I have more than once stated, Chinese methods of dealing with their own
    2174
    people are not a matter for His Majesty's Government. The effect of the suspension of the Indo-Chinese opium export trade on the finances of India is engaging the attention of the Government of India. I understand that no statement is at present possible, but the question is one for the India. Office. The last question is, in His Majesty's Government's opinion, premature.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does His Majesty's Government now see any sign or probability that the Chinese Government will be able to carry out their share of the agreement?
    Mr. ACLAND: We hope so. They are carrying it out in certain provinces.

    Midnapur Case.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Rajah of Narajole has admitted that there was a seditious movement at Midnapur and has withdrawn as unfounded the charges he brought against the district magistrate, Mr. Weston, and other officials; whether this further confirms the correctness of the appellate judgment of the High Court of Calcutta reversing the findings of Mr. Justice Fletcher of that Court in almost every particular; whether any appeal against that appellate judgment has been presented to the Judicial Committee; and what steps the Government proposes to take in view of the shock to the confidence in single judgments of the High Court in certain cases, and of the expenditure of public money involved in the hearing from first to last of the Midnapur case?
    Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State has seen an announcement in the general sense referred to. There has been no appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the Under-Secretary mean to allow this matter to pass over seeing that it is only a part of certain unfortunate circumstances, and has he made the inquiries which I asked him to make as to the effect of the repeated reversals of these judgments upon the public in India?
    Mr. BAKER: I have told the hon. Member what the Secretary of State intends to do in this matter, and I cannot add to it.

    Traffic in Minor Girls (India).
    Mr. FERENSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the Viceroy's Legislative Council, on 18th September, 1912, Sir R. Craddock, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that the replies to the latest reference on the subject, that made in 1911, indicated clearly both that the traffic in minor girls was on the increase and also that there was a sensible development of public opinion among the educated classes in favour of fresh legislation; whether he is aware that on the same occasion Sir R. Craddock stated that any required changes in the law ought to find a place in a Government Bill rather than in a private one and enumerated certain specific Amendments which the Government were prepared to endorse, including the raising of the age of consent; and whether he can say how soon the legislation thus foreshadowed is likely to be introduced?
    Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is aware that the language used by Sir R. Craddock was generally as stated, but he made clear that the Government would reserve its final decision, both as to the mode and scope of the legislation to be undertaken, until the opinions of the local governments and the High Court of Calcutta had been received. The views of these authorities were due by the 15th January last.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. FELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the case of John Leverton, who was received in the sanatorium at Nottingham, under the terms of the National Insurance Act, who was discharged after five weeks' treatment as incurable, and who died at the workhouse sanatorium twelve days after admission; whether he is aware that the arrangements made for sanatorium treatment are incomplete in many other places; and if, under the circumstances, he will take steps for their postponement until satisfactory and complete treatment can be assured to patients admitted to the benefits?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have seen a report of this case, and am making further inquiry from the Nottingham Insurance Committee. I am not aware, however, that the arrangements for sanatorium treatment in Nottingham are incomplete.
    2176
    Sixy-nine cases of tuberculosis in Nottingham have received institutional treatment since 15th July last.
    Mr. FELL: As this is only one of many cases which have been brought to my notice, would it not be advantageous and in the interests of sufferers themselves, that these arrangements, which are so unsatisfactory, should be suspended, and some more complete plans made; and will he inform me where these plans can be perfected while these tentative arrangements are in force?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will inquire, but I have no information to suggest that there has been anything unusual in this case. It may be a perfectly normal case.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwlch)asked what was the total amount of the contributions paid by, and on behalf of, Frederick Richard Townsend, of Kennington, an insured person who died recently owing to his being unable to obtain proper medical assistance; and what was the value of the benefits which he had received under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have previously stated, I am unable to make any statement in regard to this case until I have seen the report of the inquiry which has been instituted by the London Insurance Committee.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what arrangements have been made in the case of an insured person who has received medical benefit from a doctor in one locality, and who, having moved to another district within the year, requires a certificate of sick pay?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If an insured person moves from the area of one insurance committee to that of another he can, by giving notice to the second committee, obtain medical attendance, and also such certificates as are required to be furnished in connection with any claim for sickness benefit from a doctor on the panel in the second area.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman see that a circular is issued informing people of that statement?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A circular to the insured persons or to the committees?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: To the insured persons.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will give what publicity I can to this statement, but to issue a circular to 14,000,000 persons is rather a big order.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked (1) why, under the National Insurance Act, only arm splints are scheduled; what happens if an insured person breaks his thigh; and who supplies the thigh splints since chemists are only paid for those articles on the schedule; (2) whether, in view of the fact that medicated wool is not mentioned in the list of appliances to be provided as part of the medical benefits in terms of No. 27 of the Regulations in the Second Schedule to the National Insurance Act, insured persons are expected to pay for this themselves, seeing that medicated wool is almost an essential in most surgical cases; (3) whether, under the National Insurance Act, in the case of gauzes and lints, sal alembroth is scheduled; and, if so, whether regard was had to the fact that owing to the chemical action between the cotton and the alembroth this medication does not last at the outside for more than three months; and (4) whether the usual custom in hospitals and infirmaries is to have white or grey open-wove bandages six yards in length; whether under the National Insurance Act they are required to be only four yards; whether four yards are absolutely useless for binding an arm; whether calico for supporting purposes has always been used six yards in length and is now ordered to be three yards; whether crepe bandages have always formerly been made in five-yard lengths; whether under the National Insurance Act they have to be six yards; and will he state the reason for these changes?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The splints prescribed in the list of appliances are not restricted to arm splints, and the bandages are not restricted as to length, as suggested by the Noble Lord. The gauze and lint referred to were included because some doctors attach importance to their use under certain conditions, but doctors may, of course, use them or not, as they please. I am advised that the surgical dressings included in the list are adequate for the treatment of the surgical cases which fall within the scope of medical benefit.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I to understand that the splints for fractures can be got and are on the schedule?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I understand all splints and apparatus can be got which will be required for these surgical cases, and which fall within the scope of medical benefit.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it the case that a broken arm falls within the scope and a broken leg does not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I said the splints prescribed are not restricted to arm splints.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view- of the fact that no additional Grant is to be made out of public moneys towards medical benefit in respect of the first three months from the 15th January, 1913, but the whole cost of the provision of medical benefit for that period is to be met out of funds available under the National Insurance Act, the Supplementary Estimate for medical benefit relates to the period subsequent to the expiration of such three months; and, if so, why a Supplementary Estimate is being taken for the year ending 31st March, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is proposed to proceed by Supplementary Estimate in order to obtain the sanction of the House at the earliest possible date to the incurring of expenditure upon medical benefit in excess of the amounts available out of contributions under the National Insurance Act. It is very desirable, regard being had to the provisions of Section 61 of the National Insurance Act, and in order that insurance committees may be in a position to enter into contracts for the whole year, that the whole amount available for medical benefit should be credited to the committees as soon as possible after the commencement of the calendar year, as indeed is contemplated by the financial provisions of the Act; and this cannot be done unless the money is issued from the Exchequer before the 31st proximo.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of paying out of this year's money what is properly charged upon next year will be to rob the old Sinking Fund?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: We are adopting a course which no one has pressed more strongly upon us than the hon. and learned Member himself.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is he aware that at the time I pressed that course upon the Government the Prime Minister, in an answer given to me on 9th January, said that no part of this money would be in respect to the first three months after 15th January, and whether in these circumstances it is not the case that the result of taking it out of this year's money will be to rob the old Sinking Fund?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No part. The Act contemplates that the insurance committees shall be credited on 1st January with the whole of the money required for medical benefits during the whole year, and in the present uncertainty that prevails among the medical profession it is essential that they should be able to make these contracts for the whole year and have the money as soon as possible to meet the contracts.

    PANEL DOCTORS.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that panel doctors under the National Insurance Act have so much clerical work to do that they have not much time left to attend to their patients; can he say how many people have died because they were unable to get the services of a doctor under the National Insurance Act till too late; and what steps he proposes to take to alter this state of affairs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that people have died because they were unable to get the service of a doctor under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. I do deny it.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are the verdicts of juries of no avail with the right hon. Gentleman? Does he treat those verdicts as waste paper?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have heard of no verdict of any jury at all except a statement made by a coroner's jury, which is now subject to a judicial judgment by a Committee appointed by the London Insurance Committee.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman not heard of the case of the domestic servant at Enfield?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot accept the newspaper reports of these cases, because the facts are often found to be quite different.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this particular case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and learned Member will give me the particulars I will inquire into it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible that out of 15.000,000 one might inadvertently die?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of simplifying the clerical work now imposed on panel doctors under the National Insurance Act; whether any complaints have been received from such doctors respecting the labour entailed in filling in the day books; and whether there is a scheme for simplification now before the Insurance Commission?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. The principal pressure of clerical work has been due to the initial work in connection with the selection of doctors and registration of patients at the starting of medical benefit, and this is not a difficulty which will recur. The Insurance Commissioners yesterday received a deputation from the National Insurance Practitioners' Association, who laid before them also certain proposals for simplifying the ordinary clerical work required to be performed by doctors on the panel. Those proposals are receiving the careful consideration of the Commissioners.

    DISPENSERS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked (1) if the proprietor of a drug store who has been in business for six years and previous to that was dispenser to a doctor for nearly ten years, whilst before that he was dispensing for three years to another doctor, is debarred from dispensing under the National Insurance Act, even in the case of prescriptions which do not contain scheduled poisons, although entitled to do so for private persons, while he may sell loose the drugs in the prescriptions; and what steps, if any, are to be taken to alter this condition of things, having regard to the

    2181
    pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the 2nd August, 1911; and (2) if a man who has been a doctor's dispenser for six or ten years, but was running a drug store or store pharmacy for some time immediately prior to the passing of the National Insurance Act, is debarred from appointments under the Act open to a man of less experience who was a doctor's dispenser for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) if holders of the dispensers' certificate of the Society of Apothecaries at the time the National Insurance Act passed, but who were then unemployed, are debarred from dispensing under the Act; (2) whether, having regard to the inability of the Commissioners to make regulations to remove the disabilities imposed on many dispensers who are debarred from dispensing under the National Insurance Act, it is proposed to introduce amending legislation to give effect to the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given on 2nd August, 1911, that no one who was entitled to dispense should be cut out and that those already carrying on business should be protected; and (3) whether qualified apothecaries' assistants, whose qualification is accepted by the Local Government Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and His Majesty's prisons, are allowed to go on the panel for dispensing under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. CASSELasked (1) if a dispenser who has been for twenty-three years in his present situation, was previously regularly apprenticed to a chemist, has been engaged in the business of dispenser for thirty-three years and has dispensed many thousand prescriptions, and whose employers are now dissolving partnership, is debarred from being a registered dispenser under the National Insurance Act, while men who dispensed for doctors for only three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act are qualified; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to fulfil the promise that no one who was qualified to dispense before the Act would be cut out; (2) if a man who served a full apprenticeship to a dispensing chemist and has been an assistant to dispensing chemists in various parts of the country, was in 1885 dispenser to an important hospital, from 1893 to 1896 to a medical practitioner, and since then has been daily dispensing doctors' prescriptions behind a chemist's counter, and has
    2182
    had twenty-five years' varied experience in dispensing, is debarred from doing so under the National Insurance Act, notwithstanding the promise that no one qualified to dispense before the Act would be cut out by the Act; (3) if the rights of a certified assistant to an apothecary, preserved in Section 15 (5) (iv.) of the National Insurance Act, are subservient to the dispensing rights of licentiates of the Society of Apothecaries which are not preserved by the Act; if apothecaries' assistants have, from 1815, been acting as dispensers in hospitals, asylumns, infirmaries, and dispensaries, and to medical men without supervision; and will measures be taken to prevent men who have passed a lifetime as dispensers without supervision, but who, under the Act, can only dispense under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, from having their livelihood imperilled; and (4) if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can suggest any means whereby those bonâ-fide chemists who fulfil the conditions of Clause 3 (3) of the Medicine Stamp Act and are qualified to compound and dispense known, admitted, and approved formulas, and have acted as dispensary assistants or managers to chemists and druggists, and also all dispensers of three years' standing to doctors and public institutions, may submit their claims to dispense under the National Insurance Act either through the London and Provincial Druggists' Association or direct to the Insurance Commissioners, with suitable provisions for dealing with any objection to any name in a manner which will satisfy the association?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: By Clause 15 (5) (3) the Insurance Act prohibits arrangements being made for the dispensing of medicines with persons other than persons, firms, or bodies corporate entitled to carry on the business of a chemist and druggist under the provisions of the Pharmacy Acts, 1868 and 1908. Unqualified persons who for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act have acted as dispensers to duly qualified medical practitioners or to public institutions have a right under the Act to dispense in the service of such persons, firms, or bodies corporate, with the same rights and limitations as those existing before the passing of the Act. This Clause was deliberately approved by the House after a full Debate and without a Division. On an Amendment proposing to extend such a right to dispense to persons qualified under the Apothecaries Act

    2183
    of 1815, my right hon. Friend promised that no one who was qualified to dispense before the passing of the Act should be cut out of the Act; and a Sub-section protecting the interests of these persons was inserted on the Report stage. The Commissioners have no power to alter this decision of Parliament; nor have I any evidence at present that Parliament desires (apart from the possibility of meeting special cases of hardship) that dispensing under the Act should be generally done by unqualified persons.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given on 2nd October, was not carried out in the Amendment made on the Report stage?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think it was carried out. I looked up the Debate to-day. It was in a specific Amendment, and my right hon. Friend promised that no one who was qualified to dispense before the Act should be cut out by the Act.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not a fact that these men referred to in the question were qualified to dispense, and did dispense, for doctors for a considerable number of years, that the result of the Act has been to create a monopoly of pharmaceutical chemists, that these men are suffering in their business, many of them going into bankruptcy, and that this is fast becoming public scandal?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think these gentlemen were qualified to dispense except under the surpervision of a medical man, but I would submit that the whole question would be a better subject of discussion than for question and answer.

    COST OF BENEFITS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what is the estimated amount of the State's liability for two-ninths and one-fourth of the cost of benefits, including the Grant in aid of medical benefit, and of the cost of administration of benefits accruing during January, February, and March, 1913, payment of which by the State is postponed until the year 1910–14?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The liability of the State in respect of charges accruing during the months of January, February, and March, 1913, for benefits other than medical and sanatorium benefits, and including
    2184
    the cost of administration, is estimated at £601,000. No part of the liability of the State in respect of expenditure on medical benefit incurred during these months is postponed to the financial year 1913–14. On the contrary, the whole of the charge on the Exchequer in respect of medical and sanatorium benefits for the year 1913 is chargeable to the Vote for 1912–13.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether the two-ninths and the one-fourth in the new Supplementary Estimate of £18,000 odd is charged anywhere for this year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any two-ninths or one-fourth in the Supplementary Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate is a Grant-in-Aid.

    ISLE OF ELY INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the names and present addresses of the doctors appointed by the Isle of Ely Insurance Committee for the Wisbech and Chatteris districts, and at what places they practised before their appointment by such committee; and what salaries or remuneration are to be paid to such doctors by the insurance committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester on Friday and on Monday last.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether these gentlemen were not practically sent down as strike breakers as against the local doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has nothing to do with strike-breaking at all. The insurance committee has to provide medical benefit for the people in those areas, and the doctors were sent down in order to provide that medical benefit.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a fact that the local doctors would not serve?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: For some reason or another they preferred not to serve under the Act; but that did not relieve the local committee of the obligation to provide medical benefit.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether existing members of friendly societies living at Chatteris who are not insured persons under the National Insurance Act but who are entitled to claim to have medical benefit provided for them by

    2185
    the Isle of Ely Insurance Committee, are entitled to select their present doctors or are obliged to take the services of the London doctor brought in by the insurance committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Members of friendly societies who are not insured persons are entitled to receive medical attendance and treatment from the doctors who are working under the Act and they have the option of selecting those doctors for treatment on the same terms as to remuneration as insured persons.

    PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Prudential Assurance Approved Society is advising its members not to select a doctor on the panel until they actually fall sick; and to what fund the money will be put which is thus saved in medical capitation fees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the society referred to that there is no foundation for the suggestion in the first part of the question. On the contrary, in a circular letter of which I have received a copy they have issued instructions to all their agents to urge upon every member entitled to medical benefit the imperative need for promptly selecting the doctor they desire should attend them in case of illness.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill amending the National Insurance Act at an early date; whether a list of necessary amendments is now being prepared by the Insurance Commissioners; and whether an opportunity will be given to the Opposition to suggest amendments before any such Bill is introduced?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If and when experience shows that amendment of any details of the Insurance Act are desirable, legislation embodying such amendments will undoubtedly be introduced. The Commissioners will be glad to receive at any time and from any quarter any suggestions for possible improvement. Criticism up to the present, however, has been singularly barren in constructive suggestions.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration in any future amendment of the Act the advisability of unifying the commissions and having one commission for the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is quite a possible amendment, but my own opinion is that the creation of four separate commissions was fully justified.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCUSE (SURVEYORS).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give approximately the date from which the last revision of the pay and conditions of surveyors of Customs and Excise took effect?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The present scale of pay of the surveyor grade dates from 16th August, 1911. Certain adjustments of salary were made in May last under the concessions announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Captain MURRAYasked whether surveyors of Customs and Excise are receiving extra remuneration for the duties they have been called upon to undertake in connection with the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I can add nothing to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 5th December last on this subject.

    EVASION (PERTHSHIRE).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will quote the sentence in the letter from the ploughman in Perthshire, dated 27th November, 1912, to the Scottish National Insurance Commissioners, in which the writer is alleged to have asked to be provided with forms or other means for the purpose of informing upon any of his neighbours who might be evading the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Noble Lord does not correctly quote my previous answer. I stated that the Scottish Commissioners afforded the complainant the opportunity which he appeared to desire, of giving specific information of cases of violation of the Act. I am circulating the letter with the Votes, and I think he will agree with me in the interpretation placed on it by the Scottish Commissioners.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the gentlemen who wrote ever asked for any letter of this type to be sent at all?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will ask the Noble Lord to reserve any questions till he has read the letter.

    Customs Port Clerks.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked whether, prior to the amalgamation, at the lowest rate then payable, the sum of £3 would have been paid to Customs port clerks for sixty hours' overtime?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: At the lowest rate, namely, 9d. an hour, the sum payable for sixty hours' overtime would have been £2 5s.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked whether, when the seventh hour was added in 1888, the new condition was imposed upon the then existing Customs clerks only upon promotion from the grade upon which at the time they happened to be placed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The increase in 1887 of the actual attendance from six to seven hours every day was applied gradually to the then existing clerks as they attained an increase of salary by promotion to a higher grade or appointment to a post carrying a special allowance.
    Mr. M. BARLOW: Would it not be possible to apply the same system now?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked whether, notwithstanding the fact that collectors' offices are at present and are to continue staffed on the basis of a daily attendance of seven hours, the attendance required from Customs port clerks at Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere before overtime is payable has been increased from seven hours daily, or forty-two hours weekly, seven between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., to a liability to serve forty-eight hours weekly, without regard to the former limiting hours, 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.; and whether, notwithstanding the increased liability, amounting to 280 hours yearly, the sole monetary grant given to Customs port clerks of the second class (lower section), and which can be taken as compensation whatever be the actual principle on which it is granted, is a sum of £3, which was based on the former average overtime of the class and is equal to the payment for sixty hours' overtime at the lowest rate formerly payable?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend discussed this matter very fully with a deputation from the officers con-
    2188
    cerned on the 3rd May last, and announced that the Board of Customs and Excise will continue to staff collectors' offices on the basis of a normal seven hour day, extra attendance being only required when necessary.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked whether pre-1908 candidates for Customs port clerk ships were informed that, if successful, they would be liable to perform duties not clerical?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend on the 18th December last.
    Mr. M. BARLOW: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take this matter into consideration, in view of the statement of the Financial Secretary in June, 1908, when the two staffs were fused, that every endeavour would be made to see that neither should suffer?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like to see that question on the Paper.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked when the Customs port clerks may expect an answer to their petition presented to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on 29th January, 1912, and containing many points not referred to by the Chancellor in his interview with the representatives of the Customs port clerks on 3rd May, 1912?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend is rather surprised at the suggestion conveyed in the question that this petition has not been answered. Not only was it carefully considered by him, but as the port clerks know very well, he allowed their representatives to place their views before him orally at considerable length, before he announced his decisions to the deputation in May last.
    Mr. M. BARLOWasked whether, except in a few isolated instances at minor ports, the Customs port clerks performed only indoor clerical duties prior to the amalgamation; whether, when a clerk was required for service at a minor port to undertake duties other than clerical, it has been the practice to secure the consent of the clerk concerned before making such appointment; and whether, when he stated that the collectors' offices would be staffed on a basis of a normal day of seven hours, it was his intention to safeguard the Customs port clerks against an extension of their normal day if employed on outdoor duties without their consent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Customs clerks, although mostly employed on indoor clerical duties, were always liable to be employed on outdoor duties at certain ports, the number of which has varied from time to time in the past. It was not the practice to obtain the consent of a clerk before appointing him to a port of this kind. The contingency referred to in the last paragraph has not, so far as I am aware, arisen.

    Imperial and Local Taxation Committee (Report).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman can announce now or before the end of the Session when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation will be issued?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not in a position to make any announcement.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee was appointed specially with a view to reporting speedily, and has its Report now been postponed to the Greek Kalends?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. It has been taking evidence on a very large subject, and it has been taking a large amount of evidence.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the Committee has reported; and, if so, what is the object of delaying the issue of the Report?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Member is quite mistaken. The Committee has not reported at all.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Has the Committee finished taking evidence?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that large boroughs are interested in this question, and they are waiting anxiously for the Report?

    Increment Duty.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked on what grounds houses are made subject to Increment Duty and not other products the value of which may fortuitously rise between one date and another?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My hon. Friend's question is based on an incorrect assumption, the value attributable to buildings being wholly eliminated in arriving at the
    2190
    increment value on which duty is chargeable.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my question. A tax which does not fall upon land value must fall upon something. It would not exist unless the house had been built. I want to know why the house has been singled out for this tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot now enter into any argument on this point, but I certainly dispute the assumption contained in the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Why not, drop the tax now that you have got the valuation?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would the tax have been levied if the house had not been built on that site?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. An Increment Tax may be levied on the value of land on which no house had been built at all.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: But in this case there has been no increase in the value of the land.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know the case to which the hon. Member is referring.

    Land Values Committee.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked when the land valuation now proceeding will be completed; and what steps, if any, he pro poses to take in order to secure that the valuation roll, when complete, shall be open for public inspection?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The service of the provisional valuations will, it is estimated, be completed by the 31st March, 1915. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street on the 12th March last.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked, in view of the interest, taken by the public in the Land Inquiry, if he will say when he expects that the Report of that inquiry will be published; and whether it will include any definite recommendations for legislation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As regards the first part of the question, I can at present add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 21st

    2191
    January last to the hon. Member for Dulwich. As regards the second part, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the Report, as its contents are a matter for the Committee itself.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the report be upon the subject of the recommendations or merely a report of the existing conditions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Mr. MILDMAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that taxation on agricultural land means taxation on what the land produces?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is rather a disputable economic proposition.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the names of the Committee which has recently been collecting information on behalf of the Treasury with regard to the migration of labour from rural districts, the effect of land monopoly in the towns on the well-being of the community, and other kindred subjects?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I presume that the hon. Member means the unofficial Committee, which has been inquiring into various aspects of the land question. If so, I can only refer him to previous answers on the subject.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is it not the case that those investigators owing to the fact of the names having been suppressed have been called "ferrets," "spies," and other opprobious names?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not responsible for that.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the cost of a scientific questionnaire recently issued to obtain information witb regard to the present system of land cultivation, the waste attributable to the depredation caused by game, and loss due to lack of enterprise or insufficiency of labour will be defrayed from public funds; and, if so, on what Vote will such cost be borne?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first branch of the question is in the negative; the second part does not therefore arise.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if the proposals for the regeneration of rural life, submitted in outline on Friday last at the National Liberal Club and announced since in greater detail, through the Press, represent the land policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend in his speech on Friday last formulated any proposals with regard to the land question. Any statements that have since appeared in the Press purporting to state the intentions of the Government are pure efforts of the imagination.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he say whether the statements that have been made in the Press and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement at the National Liberal Club do represent the intentions of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that question. My right hon. Friend made no proposals at all. He dealt with certain evils and problems which he said required consideration. As to statements in the Press I recommend the hon. Gentleman to do as I do, and pay no attention to them whatever.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Does the use of the word "we" by a Cabinet Minister indicate collective Cabinet responsibility?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question of grammar.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is this a case of a Member of the Government being once more wrongly reported?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, not at all.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give instructions that proper notice shall in future be given in writing of the intention of Government surveyors or their assistants to visit premises or land for the purpose of valuation, so that there may be no recurrence of what took place on the farm of Mr. Gold, at Knowle, Warwickshire, on 31st December and 2nd January last, when these gentlemen put in an appearance without notice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Notice is always given in writing whenever possible, and

    2193
    the convenience of occupiers is consulted so far as this can be done without seriously delaying the work.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the valuer and his assistant did invade the farm and premises of Mr. Gold, at Knowle, in Warwickshire, without giving notice of their intention and proceed to do the valuation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman desires it, I will certainly inquire into the circumstances.

    Increment Value Duty.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of claims made by the Commissioners Inland Revenue for payment of Increment Value Duty on builder's profits when there has been no rise in the value of the site, he will state what proportion of any given profit is deemed by the Commissioners a legitimate profit and not the subject of taxation and what proportion is in the nature of a fortuitous windfall and the subject of taxation; and on what principle the distinction is founded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: To obtain the site value of land on an occasion on which Increment Value Duty is to be collected, the difference between its gross value ascertained under Section 25 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which, if there is a building, included builder's profits not the subject of taxation, and full site value similary ascertained is deducted from the value of the consideration. The difference between the remainder and the original site value is the taxable increment, and any part of this not representing a rise in the value of the site, will be in the nature of a fortuitous windfall. The hon. Member will realise that there can be no constancy in the proportion between the taxable windfall, if any, and the non-taxable profit made by the builder.
    Mr. ROYDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a definition of a "fortuitous windfall?"
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We very fully discussed it when the Finance Act was under discussion. I think I had to submit some definitions myself.
    Mr. ROYDS: Docs the right hon. Gentleman suggest the term "fortuitous windfalls" was ever mentioned when the Act was under discussion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That term or its equivalent was mentioned in very many debates by myself.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: If the expression was used at all, was it not in connection with contradictions of any intention to tax windfalls?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was used for the purpose of asserting that fortuitous windfalls were a legitimate subject for taxation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If a man sold a horse for more than it was worth, would that be a "fortuitous windfall," and a subject of taxation?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether this is the Government's idea of meeting the shortage of workmen's cottages?

    Housing Accommodation.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the last year of new assessment prior to 1896–7, and to give figures showing the increase in Great Britain in the number of cottages and small houses under £20 annual value and of houses over £20 annual value, respectively, in that year as compared with that year next preceding it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The last year of new assessment prior to 1896–7 was 1893–4 when the results as compared with 1892–3 were as follows:—
    Cottages and small houses
    under £20 annual value., decrease 6,536
    Private dwelling houses of
    £20 annual value or over increase 45,540

    Nurses' Registration Bill.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Bill to provide for nurses' registration was passed through the House of Lords in 1908 with the assent of both parties; that this. Bill has been for nine years introduced into the House of Commons and supported there by Members of all parties; that within the past twenty years Acts for the registration of nurses have been passed in every British Colony and in thirty-four of the United States of America; and whether, under these circumstances, he can hold out hope that during next Session facilities may be provided for the Bill now before the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I can make no promise for next Session, but the claims of this Bill will be considered.

    Under-Secretary of State for India.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Under Secretary of State for India will be in his place?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give a definite day, but I hope my hon. Friend will be back about 23rd March.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the fact that this Minister was allowed to make a prolonged tour in India indicate an exceptionally long term of office, or anything else exceptional?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    Suffragists in Prison (Forcible Feeding).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is aware that militant suffragists convicted and sentenced to imprisonment have entered into a conspiracy, and publicly stated so, to defeat the due administration of the law, and to obtain their release from prison by refusing to take food; whether he has taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether if any sane person died owing to his or her refusal to take food the Home Secretary or prison officials could be indicted for manslaughter; if so, whether he will pro pose legislation to the House to prevent the administration of the law being defeated and brought into ridicule and contempt; (2) how many men and women were released from prison last year owing to their refusing to take food; whether any such persons have been convicted of felony; and (3) whether, seeing that militant suffragists convicted of offences against the law and sent to prison have publicly stated that it is their intention to defeat the due administration of the law by refusing to take food, and thereby to secure their release from prison, he will forthwith discontinue the practice of forcibly feeding any sane person, or any person or persons who have entered into a conspiracy of this kind, at the same time seeing that an ample supply of good food is provided for such persons?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question, and I propose to answer it along with two questions which my hon. Friend has addressed to me. During the year 1912 sixty-six Suffragist prisoners out of a total of 240 received under sentence were
    2196
    released from the prisons under my jurisdiction on medical grounds. With a few exceptions the condition of health which led to the discharge of these prisoners was due wholly or in part to their refusal to take food. None of them had been convicted of felony. There can be no doubt that the refusal to take food on the part of these prisoners and of others who were not released was due to concerted action. It has not been necessary to consult the Law Officers on the question of the feeding of prisoners, as in 1909 the High Court, in the case of Leigh v. Gladstone, in which this question was raised, definitely decided that it was the duty of the prison officials to take such measures as were necessary for preserving the health and lives of the prisoners in their custody. I am not prepared, in the existing circumstances, to propose to the House the legislation which the hon. Member's first question appears to suggest. I may, however, refer to the answer I made on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for the Morley Division,
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that a prisoner was convicted in Ireland of felony for endeavouring to set fire to a theatre; I do not understand that part of the answer in which the right hon. Gentleman says that no prisoner has been convicted of felony?
    Mr. McKENNA: My answer was limited to prisoners under my jurisdiction. The prisons in Ireland are not under me.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that any persons who chose may commit outrages by destruction of letters and personal property, and making the lives of persons intolerable if they act on what are called "starvation tactics," and that even if a murderer is convicted and sentenced to penal servitude that person can be released by pursuing these starvation tactics?
    Mr McKENNA: My hon. Friend is really putting to me a hypothetical case. No such case has actually occurred in England. In a case of penal servitude it would be open to me to leave the prisoner out on licence and to bring the prisoner back to prison again. In the case of an offence for which penal servitude is not awarded I have no such power. If there were a case of murder, it would, of course, involve at least the punishment of penal servitude, and in that case I should have power to licence.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to prosecute for illegal conspiracy the militant suffragettes who are urging audiences to defeat the administration of the law by using these methods day by day?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question should be addressed to the Attorney-General.
    Sir W. BYLES: Has my right hon. Friend abandoned all attempts to find some other means of dealing with those people other than by forcible feeding?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would suggest any other means.
    Sir W. BYLES: My right hon. Friend has the responsibility. I ask him, has he found it?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to accept the suggestion of forcibly deporting these people out of the country?
    HON. MEMBERS: Where?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: St. Helena.

    Production and Supply (Monopolies).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the growth of monopolies in the production and supply of many of the necessities of life and the urgency of the question, he will introduce early legislation to deal with the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know-to what particular monopolies the hon. Member refers, but if he will submit to me any practical proposals they shall receive due consideration.
    Mr. F. HALL: Has not this system of trusts increased very much under the pre sent Government? May I point out—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must find another time for replying.

    Free Church of Scotland (Vacant Pulpits).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the statement of the number of vacant pulpits in the Free Church of Scotland, taken from public information supplied by the Reverend Professor J. K. Cameron, M.A., principal clerk of the General Assembly of that Church, is denied by the Free Church authorities; and will he consider the ad-
    2198
    visability of appointing a Committee to inquire what is the true state of affairs, with a view to further legislation on the allocation of trust funds under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, I understand that the Free Church authorities dispute the inferences drawn by my hon. Friend from the statement in question. I am not, as at present advised, prepared to promise a new inquiry, but I am not to be taken as saying that such an inquiry may not become expedient.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

    Public Records (Royal Commission).
    Sir WILLIAM ANSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are considering, or taking steps to carry into effect, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Public Records to the effect that a permanent Board should be appointed representative of the judiciary, the public offices, and the claims of historical study to superintend the administration and finance of the Public Record Office?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This and other recommendations of the Royal Commission are receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government, in consultation with the Master of the Rolls. As the right hon. Baronet is doubtless aware, the Commission did not suggest that the permanent Board, to which he refers, should be constituted during the tenure of office of the present Master of the Rolls. I am informed that in pursuance of the suggestion in paragraph 171 of the Report of the Commission Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy has appointed an Advisory Committee of historical experts to advise him on the selection of material and the execution of 1he various publications issued under his authority.

    Women Suffrage Bill.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the Women Suffrage Bill will be given first place next Session regardless of its fate in the ballot, and in preference to other Bills, regardless of their claims, including the Bill at the top of the list?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are pledged to provide facilities for a Bill out of the time at their disposal.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that between now and the middle of next Session there is any possibility of the Cabinet agreeing to bring forward a Bill for the enfranchisement of women, and, if not, will he ask those who are against it to resign?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question I should have to address to myself first.

    Franchise and Registration Bill.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, in introducing the Franchise Bill in the coming Session, to include provisions which will enable seamen, fishermen, and others whose business prevent their being usually able to register their votes on polling day, to record them through the machinery of an absent voter's list?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently stated it would be premature to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the advisability of making the title of the Bill sufficiently wide to enable provisions of the nature indicated in the question, and will he give favourable consideration to any reasonable Amendment which is put upon the Paper to give effect to that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: All these things will be considered if, and when, the Bill is introduced.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether H. Simper applied to the Isle of Ely Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in August, 1910; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land has been offered him during the whole of this period of two years and five months; and, if not, why this has not been done?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am informed that the county council have recently acquired a farm of 115 acres at Manea, where Mr. Simper lives. The farm will be available from next Michaelmas, and Mr. Simper's application will be considered when arrangements are made for sub-letting it.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether James Wakefield applied to the Isle of Ely Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1908; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land has been offered him during the whole of this period of five years; and, if not, why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the county council that they cannot trace the receipt of an application from James Wakefield. If my hon. Friend will send me Mr. Wakefield's address I will have further inquiries made.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Thomas Henry Pedley applied to the Staffordshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1909; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any suitable land within reach of his abode has at any time been offered to him during this period of four years; and, if not, why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that Mr. Pedley applied for twenty-five acres of pasture and fifteen acres of arable in July, 1910; that he has refused more than one offer of land; and that he insists on obtaining a holding in his particular locality, where land cannot be obtained at the rent he is prepared to pay.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Staffordshire County Council have got more land for small holdings than any other county council?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite aware that they have been most enterprising.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are they nearly bankrupt?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That statement is absolutely without foundation.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is not any sign of bankruptcy due to the fact that you are putting their rates up on their improvements?
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Ernest J. Hole applied to the London Small Holdings Committee for a small holding on the 11th October, 1909; that his

    2201
    application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of three years and three months; and, if not, why this has not been done?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Hole applied for a holding of eight or ten acres within six miles of Woolwich, but I am informed by the county council that owing to the high value of land in the London area it is impossible to meet his requirements. The council tried to obtain a holding for Mr. Hole under the Essex County Council, but when this suggestion was made to him he stated that he was unwilling to move from the neighbourhood where he is at present employed.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the right hon. Gentleman the assessment for rates of the Skidby estate, East Biding of York shire, and the East Headon estate, Northumberland, before and after acquisition for small holdings; and if any com plaints have been addressed to him regarding the increase in assessment resulting from the operations of small holders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate with the votes the particulars asked for in the first part of the question.—[See Written Answers this date.] With regard to the latter part of the question, complaints are sometimes made to the Board, but they have no power to review assessments for rates or to intervene in any way.
    Mr. WEDGWOODasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the hardships suffered by the small holders in Staffordshire and elsewhere owing to the increase in the assessment of their land for local rating purposes due to the amount of capital sunk per acre in improving such land for intensive cultivation; and whether he pro poses to take any steps shortly to stop this increase of burdens?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that small holders have been rated on assessments increased under the circumstances indicated, and I am alive to the importance of the questions raised by this fact. The Board of Agriculture, however, have no power to interfere with the operation of the existing rating laws in favour of small holders, and the grievance complained of can only be dealt with under a general consideration of the principles
    2202
    that should govern the rating of improvements on property.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate introducing any legislation which shall give the relief to agriculture of exempting improvements from rating?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Legislation with regard to rating does not come within the purview of my Department. I need hardly say that the present arrangements made by assessment committees for rating small holders' improvements are making the administration of the Small Holdings Act most difficult.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is there any reason why English small holders should be in a worse position than the crofter who is not rated on improvements under the Crofters Act?

    Regent's Park (Crown Leases).
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked whether steps will be taken to intimate to leaseholders within Regent's Park, whoso leases have not yet expired, that no renewal of these leases will be granted except with the express sanction of Parliament and after full discussion?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not proposed to give such a general intimation, but negotiations for renewal of leases of the enclosed premises within the Outer Circle Road, Regent's Park, have been suspended until after the 1st July next, with the object of giving the borough councils of Marylebone and St. Pancras, and the London County Council an opportunity of considering and deciding whether or not they will provide the funds necessary for the addition of these premises to the area open to the public in Regent's Park.
    Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to hold a full inquiry into all the conditions under which Crown property is held in Regent's Park; and whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a small Royal Commission?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A special inquiry or appointment of a Royal Commission appears to be unnecessary.

    Depredations of Game (Scotland).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Scotland if any evidence has

    2203
    been brought before the Rent Court which tends to show that farmers have suffered from the depredations of game?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Assuming that by the term "Rent Court" my hon. Friend refers to the Scottish Land Court. I believe that such evidence has been given in several cases.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is there any such thing as a Rent Court?

    Domestic Training Schools (Aberdeen and Glasgow).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked whether the Government will consider the advisability of transfer ring the control of the domestic training schools at Aberdeen and Glasgow, instituted by the Congested Districts Board, from the Scottish Board of Agriculture to the Scottish Education Department?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the arrangements in force, these schools are satisfactorily managed under the control of the Board of Agriculture for Scoaland by committees including representatives of the Scotch Education Departments; and as at present advised, I am unable to promise to make the change suggested.

    Vivisection (Royal Commission).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Home Secretary whether he is taking any steps to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vivisection?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and I am now in a position to give practical effect to nearly all of them. The new administrative arrangements are already far advanced. I have obtained the consent of the Treasury to increase the inspectorate to four by the appointment of two additional inspectors, and to make the present senior inspector chief inspector for the whole country. The new inspectors will be qualified medical men and will give their whole time to the work. The appointments will be made at an early date. I further propose as speedily as possible to constitute, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, an advisory body to guide me with professional advice in the exercise of my powers. The Royal Society and the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons have, with a public
    2204
    spirit which I cordially recognise, consented to assist me in the selection of the members of the advisory body in the manner suggested by the Commission. I propose to publish the names of the persons appointed in due course.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the recommendations of the Commission as to the full responsibility of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.
    Sir J. D. REES: What will be the cost to the taxpayers of the creation of these new offices?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not a very large amount. In addition to the existing two, I we are appointing two more.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Who will get the Jobs?
    Mr. McKENNA: They are not jobs.

    Public Meetings (Gillingham Street, Pimlico).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the right hon. Gentleman if the police have received instructions to interfere with public meetings held at Gillingham Street, Pimlico, where meetings have been held for many years past by the Salvation Army. Socialists, suffragettes, and other propagandists; is he aware that the constable on patrol has recently interfered with meetings of the Salvation Army and with a meeting or meetings held to protest against alleged abuses in police administration, and cautioned the leaders; and the grounds of interference with these meetings?
    Mr. McKENNA: No such instructions as are described in the question have been given. When the constable on patrol at the place indicated has had reason to apprehend that obstruction would be caused by a meeting, he has cautioned the promoter, and if his caution has been disregarded and obstruction has resulted, he has reported the promoter with a view to his being summoned.
    Mr. J. WARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the arrangement by which he and his Friends govern, and these people are allowed to talk, should be continued?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not quite sure that I have caught the point of my hon. Friend. We have not interfered with the meetings which are held.
    Mr. J. WARD: My question was, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the arrangement by which the people outside are allowed to talk, while he and his Friends are allowed to govern, is an arrangement that should not be upset?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes, it is an excellent arrangement.

    Building and Engineering Trade Bill.
    Mr. J. WARDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent fatal trench accidents at Paddington and Brighton, he will make arrangements with the Home Office to reintroduce the Building and Engineering Trade Bill, which is intended to enable the Home Secretary to make regulations for the protection of workmen engaged in excavating work, in the early part, of next Session; and whether he will try through the usual channel to secure the Bill a Second Beading so that it may be examined by a Standing Committee and passed into law with as little delay as possible?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I can make no promise for next Session, but the claims of this Bill will receive consideration.
    Mr. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this is the only industrial population in the country that has no protection whatever from the law?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

    Unemployment.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the general principle of the prevention of unemployment, through the regulation of the demand for labour by a better distribution of Government and municipal orders over a period of years, and within single years, has received repeated recognition by Royal Commissions, the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and by Parliament in the Development Act, he will appoint immediately an interdepartmental Committee to work out a scheme for the application of this principle as full as possible in every branch of Government and other public work, in order to mitigate the effects of the next industrial depression, and incidentally reduce the amount of public expenditure required for unemployment insurance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will communicate with the Departments principally concerned and ascertain their views as to the utility of such a Committee as is suggested.

    Coal Mines Act.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the Amendment moved on the 24th November, 1911, by the then Solicitor-General for Scotland on the Report stage of the Coal Mines Bill, Clause 57, relating to the hours of winding enginemen, was an Amendment to an Amendment moved in Grand Committee carried against the Government by a majority of six, he is aware that the then Under-Secretary of the Home Department accepted the decision of the Grand Committee that no winding enginemen raising or lowering men should work more than eight hours per day; that the mover of the Amendment in Grand Committee agreed with the said Under-Secretary to allow his Amendment to be struck out on the Report stage, without discussion, on the undertaking that regulations would be made for the changing of the shifts at the weekends; and whether, seeing that the Mining Association of Great Britain have now used the careless drafting of the Government Amendment to force arbitration on the general principle of an eight hours working day for all winding enginemen, he will forthwith introduce a Bill to give effect to the decision of the Grand Committee and to the definite pledge of the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will recollect that the Amendment moved by him and passed in Grand Committee providing for an eight hours day for winding enginemen contained a special provision dealing with the changing of shifts at the week-end. It was recognised, however, by the Government and by a representative deputation of the winding enginemen, who saw the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 7th November, 1911, that it would be necessary to make some further exceptions from the eight hours' principle in order to meet other special cases, such as mines worked by a single shift and mines where the work of the winding engine-man is considerably heavier during some shifts than during others. The Clause which was incorporated in the Bill at the Report stage therefore provided that the necessary exceptions should be dealt with by General Regulations. The Draft Regulations framed by the Home Office

    2207
    do not permit the normal day of a winding engineman to average more than eight hours, except in the case of single shift mines. The Mining Association, as they are entitled to do in the case of all General Regulations, objected to the Draft, Regulations and proposed Amendments, and the matter was referred to a Referee under Part I, (4) of the Second Schedule. Pending the publication of the Referee's finding, it would be improper for me to make any further statement at present.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. "Gentleman aware that the question decided by the Grand Committee was that no man should work more than eight hours a day? I want to know, when a pledge was given, why under these general regulations men are now called upon to work twelve hours a day when they are working in small mines? It is quite contrary to the interests of the Committee.
    Mr. McKENNA: As I have explained, it was agreed that exceptions should be made in particular cases.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Agreed by whom?
    Mr. McKENNA: By the Committee.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It was not agreed by the Committee. The question was decided otherwise.
    Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Has any intimation been given by the Home Office to colliery proprietors that unless a pit turns out more than 400 tons it is not entitled to the benefits of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that question. I am not aware that any such arrangement has been made.

    Education (Scotland) Act.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether, since the period covered by the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1911, any further cases and, if so, how many, of infringements of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, have been discovered, whereby young persons are illegally compelled by the local education authorities to attend continuation classes in addition to working the full time allowed by law in factories; and what
    2208
    steps he or the Secretary for Scotland is taking to stop this practice?
    Mr. McKENNA: The question of contravention in these cases arises under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, and the enforcement of that Act is a matter for the Scotch Education Department. All such cases of contravention as may come to the notice of the Factory Department are reported to the Scotch Education Department, but I have no information as to whether any, and if so how many, cases have been so reported in 1912. I shall be happy, however, to obtain the information and communicate it to the Noble Lord.

    Bastardy Laws.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received resolutions from various boards of guardians urging him to amend the Bastardy Laws in certain directions; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to that effect next Session?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I have received resolutions from various boards of guardians on this subject, but the Government are not at present in a position to promise legislation for dealing with it.

    Motor Vehicles (Warning Instruments).
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the progress that has been made in his investigations into the subject of the excessive use, especially during the hours commonly devoted to sleep, of warning instruments on motor vehicles; and whether he is yet in a position to hold out hopes of remedial legislation?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: As my hon. Friend is aware, the matter is one of considerable difficulty, and I regret that I am not yet in a position to hold out hopes of early legislation.

    Customs House Clerks.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether it is the practice in the Customs House for clerks engaged upon overtime to be required either to forego the usual Saturday half-holiday or to sacrifice the pay for the first three hours of any overtime they may work; and, if so, when this practice was introduced?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and consequently the second part does not arise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Prime Minister say what business, if any, he proposes to take to-morrow night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: After 10.30 we propose to take the Committee stage of the Tuberculosis (Ireland) Bill.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Order for Third Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
  Owing to the conditions under which we have discussed this Bill I have to claim some indulgence from the House. The House is aware that we only finished the proceedings on the Report stage late last night. There is, of course, when the Third Reading of a Bill is taken the very next day on a large and complicated subject such as this, difficulty in placing the proposals in the true perspective which one would desire to lay before the House. The existence of the Established Church in Wales is the visible expression of two great principles. The first is that the State recognises and proclaims its religious basis and its allegiance to the Christian faith. The second is that the Church accepts the national life as its special sphere of activity. For more than twelve centuries nations have been animated and fortified by those two great principles. For scarcely a shorter period the Church in Wales has been fortified and strengthened by her unity with the Church in England, and throughout those great spaces of time Churchmen have freely given of their possessions—freely given to the Church Endowments—in order that she might maintain and push her spiritual mission. These Endowments are unquestionably and admittedly of valid title. They are buttressed and underpinned, if I may so say, by centuries of prescription. This Bill is designed to obliterate and blot cut the first principle
  2232
  —I mean the recognition by the State of the Church. It dissolves the unity between the Church in Wales and the Church in England; and, lastly, it deprives the Church in Wales of her ancient Endowments and devotes them to secular purposes. For such a work of destruction and deprivation, I think the House will agree overwhelming reasons are necessary. But the really arresting fact as I look upon the controversy and the history of the matter, and upon the long debates which have taken place in this House, is that most of the principal arguments upon which, as I think, this narrow, and, I am afraid I must say, mean Bill, was formed, have been shattered. It is not unnatural that here in this House, and at the very core and heart of the controversy, we have heard one distinguished Minister assert, one great principle, and the Prime Minister and Solicitor-General repudiate it in terms.
  We have had in this place what I venture to think is hopeless confusion of thought on the part of the supporters of the Bill. We have had misrepresentation of history, and, as I think, an utter misconception of the facts of the case. May I give a, few instances? It was freely said that the clergy were State paid, and that what Parliament gave Parliament could take away. We never hear anything of that now—not a word. These Debates have had the effect that that statement of fact has been absolutely abandoned. We have heard from one Cabinet Minister that there was a substantial breach of continuity in the Church of England at the time of the Reformation, and, as I said before, the Prime Minister and Solicitor-General have in terms repudiated that statement. We have had passionate invective against the pillage and confiscation of the monasteries, and we have at the same time had that very pillage and confiscation cited in this House as precedents for this Bill. I am not concerned myself for a moment to deny that Henry VIII. pillaged the Church, but I would point out, if that is agreed, that the proceedings of that Monarch are only relevant for a community of robbers and not for a community of respectable citizens. We have had arguments that the Disendowing of the Church is to do her good, and I was amazed only last night to hear the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. A. F. Whyte), whom we generally hear with great pleasure in this House, and whose high intelligence I recognise, deliberately say in justifying this measure that from his reading of history he found that Churches from

  2233
  which revenues had been taken away had improved in spiritual enthusiasm. That is a strange argument. It may be true, but, great as is my affection for the Church, I should have thought that greater enthusiasm would be dearly bought if it was bought by charging the rest of the country as pillagers. It is said that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church," but nobody has ever heard of an enthusiastic defence of those who persecute and put the martyrs to death.
  The whole method of procedure with respect to this Bill has, I think been impeached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He will probably remember the incident at the time of the appointment of the Royal Commission, lie was justifying to a number of somewhat recalcitrant friends the appointment of that Royal Commission, and he stated—I think the same thing was stated by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman before—that legislation had been embarrassed, that legislation had proved abortive on this subject, because of the absence of authentic facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer added:—
  "The evidence of facts collected and sifted carefully by the Royal Commission, they might depend upon it, would be accepted by English public opinion as more or less settling the dispute."
  4.0 P.M.
  In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that this Bill would not be introduced until the Royal Commission had reported and laid before Englishmen as well as Welshmen authentic facts. Upon those facts, I submit, they ought to be asked to pronounce. The Government have taken very good care, in the first place, by issuing this Bill before the Royal Commission reported at all, that these facts should not be before the nation, and they have, by the machinery of the Parliament Act, taken the very best possible precaution that the people of this country should never have an opportunity of pronouncing upon a full and proper statement of the facts. What else did the Royal Commission do? We used to hear much of an alien Church and dwindling minorities. What does the Royal Commission establish? It has established, by the verdict of a quasi-judicial body, that the English Church in Wales is first and foremost among the religious bodies. It has declared that it is the only body which can show in recent years a record of sustained progress. It has shown, also, that the Church is able, through and because of her Endowments, to do in certain spheres what no other Church can do; and the attempt
  2234
  to negative that proposition, which was undertaken by the Home Secretary at Cardiff, based as it was on gross misstatement of the facts for which he has never apologised, only marks how that material finding is ranked by the opponents of the Church. It has also established that the Endowments of the Church, when you come to compare them with the gifts of her sons, have not checked the liberality of her members. I admit freely the liberality, generosity, and faithfulness of the Nonconformist bodies in Wales. But applying even that high standard the Royal Commissioners found that the Church of England was equal to that high standard in the liberality and generosity of her sons. Lastly, in the important matter of spiritual vitality it is found that the spiritual vitality of the Church in Wales is raised and not lowered by a comparison.
  In the forefront of the arguments used have been the thirty-one Members who come from Wales. It is said that there has been for many years substantial unanimity in Wales upon this point. Even if I were to concede that you yourselves are estopped from relying upon that fact, because in dealing contemporaneously with the Irish nation, as they are called, you put in the very forefront of your Bill that the Irish nation are not under Home Rule to have the opportunity of dealing with the question of Establishment under Home Rule, as that is not a local but an Imperial matter. Having said that, with what face or reason can you come before the House now and say that this is a question not affecting England or Scotland, but is a question solely affecting Wales, and one in which Wales only should be consulted? Many of the original reasons upon which this Bill was founded have been either shattered or abandoned. The sub-structure, the foundation, the principle has been visibly crumbling before our eyes, but the superstructure of the Bill reared on its remains stands almost untouched. I trust that I have said enough by way of preface to justify me even to the stalwarts, the hon. Members from Wales opposite, in saying I am entitled to pass in review the larger outlines of this Bill with a feeling of settled hostility. The first of those great outlines, as to which I wish to say a few words, is the question of Disestablishment. I mean the deliberate repudiation by this House and the State of the organic connection between the basis of national life and the Christian religion. It is said by our opponents that

  2235
  the State cannot have itself a religion, that the religion of the community consists of the religion of the individual lives, that religion is an intensely personal thing, and that you cannot clothe the State which is itself impersonal with that which is personal. I submit that the State is an entity, and that is something separate from the aggregate of individuals which compose it.
  You have yourselves on both sides, but especially on the Liberal side, claimed of late years much more for the State than used to be claimed. You have brought the State into questions of education, insurance, public health, and the early care of children, and you ask for it many other functions than those which used to be asked for it. Is this the time, when you invite her to such far-spreading activity in matters of such enormous complexity and difficulty to banish from her the divine light and to divorce her from that wisdom whose Price is beyond rubies? You say, "Look at modern Wales. Look at the various and the versified gathering of opinions," and you ask us how can one religious organisation represent it all. My answer to that is this: unanimity is, of course, impossible. But take the case of the State. Do you imagine that the State, acting through a Government, commands unanimity? Yet you do not abandon representative Government. Representative Government is a rough working policy for obtaining the government of the State. Very often the Government representing the State cannot command the allegiance of more than a bare half of the people, yet you do not repudiate representative Government. You do not say it is an impossibility. I claim for the Church, in the first place, that she is in possession. She is there. You cannot substitute any other body for her. I ask with the very greatest respect whether the circumstances that there are those who dissent from her is really a substantial and true ground for divorcing this venerable institution from the State.
  Again—I am endeavouring to summarise the best arguments that I have heard in the course of these Debates—you may say, "you are wrong in asserting that the State, in pursuing her functions and her national activities is against religion or irreligion. You claim that there is such a thing as religion of civic virtue that there are great qualities possessed even by those who have no religion at all, such as benevo-
  2236
  lence, compassion, and enthusiastic service. I quite recognise that those are sometimes characteristics of men even without religion. But are you sure that those qualities are not in reality the fruits of the Christian religion, that they are not the accumulated opinions and the long-inherited habit and custom of a Christian community which has grown up upon the Christian spirit, and which has been due to centuries of Christian teaching? Nothing has struck me more in life than that I have found generally that the men who have not possessed religious faith themselves have been content to allow their children to be educated in their faith, in the hope that they, at any rate, might receive from Christianity that support and comfort that they themselves have been unable to enjoy. My last word upon the point of Disestablishment is this. I do not wish, and it would be absurd of me to wish, to be dogmatic on the point. But are you quite sure that as the nation separates itself from religion—I mean from the public profession of and connection with religion—there will not be a gradual atrophy of the ideal and the spiritual in national life, some tendency towards a deterioration of character, some decay in that spirit which every one of us knows the nation needs?
  I pass to the second consideration, and wish that I could feel the understanding of my opponent's case that I had in the matter of Disestablishment—I mean the severance of the Welsh community from the spiritual body of Convocation. This professes to be a movement of autonomy and not a movement of separation. You are going to deprive the Welsh of their historic place in Convocation, an assembly older than Parliament, an assembly which the Welsh people themselves have entered before they entered this Parliament at all. This is not merely to cashier the Welsh diocese; it is to deprive them of a perfectly legitimate and proper opportunity of obtaining mutual society, help, and comfort from their colleagues and brethren in this country. What a ridiculous position you have placed yourself in The Home Secretary invited the Welsh clergy and bishops to attend Convocation in the interval between the passage of this Act and the date of Disestablishment. He invited Convocation, with the Welsh bishops and clergy in it still, to frame the constitution of the new body in Wales. What will you do with your miserable Clause 5 if that

  2237
  body takes back your scheme and the Welsh Church still has representation in Convocation, and that that is confirmed by the Welsh Synod when it meets? You would be in a very ridiculous position. You would have a constitution framed, and then approved by the Synod, yet you are estopped by this Bill from permitting the very autonomy which you profess to give. You have said all along that this is a Bill to liberate the Church in Wales, yet you pursue what you call the liberated Church with fetters into the future in her freedom of action in spiritual things. On your own principle you are convicted of unauthorised and tyrannous interference with the body which you profess to free.
  I cannot imagine any other reason, and I believe it to be a false reason, and I put it even to the most ardent of the Welsh Nationalists. This is said to be in the defence of Welsh nationalism. Is the Welsh nation the poorer because she has within her midst such institutions and glorious traditions of the past as those of the English Church? Disendowment claims to take the ancient Endowments from the Church in Wales. I venture to read, as bringing this matter before us in a graphic form, a paragraph from a letter written by the Bishop of St. Asaph's, about a month or so ago. Of course, it was written —as it expresses on the face of it—not with respect to this immediate time, but to the future, and what will happen?—
  "I take my own diocese of St. Asaph, with a population of 313,233. What happens there if the Bill passes as it stands to-day? My successor will have only the bare walls of the Bishop's Palace, every stone of which was built and paid for since 1791 by two of my predecessors, who were men of large private means. The whole of the episcopal income will have been taken away. The Cathedral, founded in 580, and restored, indeed well-nigh rebuilt, by Churchmen within the last 100 years, will be left without one penny for dean or canons or choir. There are 209 parishes in the diocese, and of these parishes 112 will be left without one single penny of their ancient Endowments."
  And here is the meanest part of the Bill:—
  "There are 300 clergy in the diocese; of these 100, being unbeneficed clergy, will be turned adrift at once without compensation. Our churchyards, the majority of which have been enlarged by the generosity of Churchmen, will, if unclosed, be wrested from us;"
  Then the Bishop of St. Asaph's adds:—
  "to many of us they are the most hallowed spots in the land."
  The old arguments, justifying expropriation are, I submit, gone. What has happened in this House? Your majority on the question of ancient Endowments, a subject raised, not by us, but your own side, has dwindled to fifty, and even to twenty-eight. I hear now some foolish cries about snap Divisions and the like,
  2238
  but do you do better on this question when you go to the fountain head? Two and a half millions of people have signed petitions against this Bill There were 9,000 petitions with two and a half million signatures, and I believe half a million of those signatures were from Wales itself. In favour of this miserable Bill there are two petitions, with two signatures each. You have had the industry, which I acknowledge would be worthy of a better cause, to devote months in an endeavour to impeach the validity of the petitions which have been presented to this House, and what has been the result of your strenuous labours? Out of all these 9,000 petitions you have been able to impeach the regularity of only one. That was a petition which came from one parish. There were one or two, or more, if you like, irregularities in it, but, after the cancellation of that petition, another petition has come from the same parish in which the number of the signatures exceeds that of the original. I quite agree that oftentimes petitions cannot be largely relied upon, but in such a case as this, where there has been great labour and industry expended in an endeavour to impeach those petitions, when there follows contemporaneously and concurrently a startling diminution of your majority in this House, I claim that it is proved as clear as daylight, and I challenge anybody to deny it, that this Bill is not demanded by the majority of the people of this country, or even of Wales. I said that the old arguments we once heard have disappeared and have been abandoned.
  Of the hon. Gentlemen who have come from Wales I must specify with great respect the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire and the hon. Member, who is of a different type, for Carmarthen Boroughs. I have greatly admired the speeches they have made, although I regret that the Member for Carmarthen, imitating the unfortunate example of the Colonial Secretary, burnt the midnight oil while carefully preparing his impromptu sarcasms at the expense of his Friends. Those two hon. Members and others seem to have put the argument for Disendowrqent upon at any rate something like an argumentative basis, and I desire to treat their arguments with the greatest respect. They say that there was but the one Church in the Middle Ages, and that the Endowments were given to that Church, that the Church was the only representative of religion, and that therefore all the

  2239
  offerings of piety and all the bounties fell into the lap of that Church. They say that since that period, remote from now, there are several or many Churches in Wales, and that that which was originally destined for the whole community, or at any rate the parishioners of every parish as a whole, should be now divided among those who were the original—as they say— beneficiaries, and that that which was originally given to the Church should now go to the majority. Let me say that I deny fundamentally the soundness of their premises, for the reasons that have been stated, and were stated only last night again with such extraordinary power and eloquence by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University. I associate myself with his arguments, and I will not spoil them by endeavouring to repeat them, but the House will, I know, acquit me of having abandoned that position.
  I wish at this moment to assume the correctness of the proposition stated by the two hon. Members and by the Solicitor-General, and in my last observations I begin with the assumption of the truth of their proposition. Where does their proposition really lead to? Let me assume in their favour that the Church of England and the other denominations—I believe I am assuming against myself—are roughly half and half in Wales, the Church being on the one side and the denominations on the other. [An HON. MKMBER: "No."] Let me assume—I do not think it is very much to assume; it depends upon the number—in favour of my opponent, also, that the whole—which is notoriously against the facts—of Nonconformist opinion is against the Church of England in this respect. That section of opinion says, in the first place, "Give this property, which we say ought to belong to us in part, for secular uses." The Church says, on its side, "No, give it for religious purposes." That is the broad issue on which conflict has arisen. Why should these funds be given, dealing solely with the consciences of Nonconformity, and yielding nothing to the demands and request of the English Church? Why should all concessions be made to the Nonconformists? This Bill is presumed to be based, and is stated to be based, upon religious equality, upon no discrimination between parties, religions, and sections—religious equality, no preference, no discrimination. Why should you admit the conscientious demands of
  2240
  Nonconformists and deny the conscientious demands of the Church? She has as good a right to her share of this neutral property as the Nonconformists have. Why should you devote this money to secular uses which are against the consciences of Churchmen and deny the right to even use a part of it for religious uses? I wish to press the last argument I make most earnestly upon the attention of the House. It does seem to me absolutely contrary to all fairness, and profoundly unjust, that the whole of these funds, which I for this purpose consider to be neutral, should be devoted to purposes which you ask, while not a farthing is to be given to the purposes which we ask. Let me, in conclusion, strike, if I can, the same note as I did six months ago when I moved the rejection of the First Beading of this Bill. I ventured then, and I venture now, to appeal to the great and noble principle of toleration. Many of us may recall the vision of John Bunyan of the Celestial City, set among the hills, toward which all of us, or many of us, with very imperfect and faltering steps, and by innumerable and diverse routes, endeavour to attain. It is very sad that we cannot help each other in that ascent, but it is still sadder that we should obstruct one another in the attempt to make that ascent. On two occasions we have offered, I hope in terms that injured no one, to relieve Nonconformity of any odium or indeed from any delicacy in asking for those funds, and we have freely proffered a portion of them in order that they might be devoted to purposes of religion and not given to public officials for the administration of public affairs, however useful. To reject that offer in the manner in which it has been rejected, I do not mean to say discourteously, but sans phrase implies to me that those who have so lightly put it aside say, not that there are many aspects of Christianity in Wales, which is perfectly true, but that there is no common spirit of Christianity, which is wholly false. If this ground stood alone, I should myself urge this House, and urge it with most profound conviction, to reject this Bill. I beg to move.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken stated at the outset that he proposed to summarise the best arguments that had been advanced on his own side against this measure. He has done so with conspicuous ability and fairness, but I think

  2241
  the general feeling will be that if that is the best that can be said against this Bill there is no real ground for the Motion with which he concluded his speech. Let me take one example, and one which he put in the forefront of his objection to this Bill, namely, that we proposed by Disestablishment to banish the Divine light in Wales. Has it been banished from Canada? Has the Divine light been banished from Australia? Has it been banished altogether in our Colonies when they were Disestablished about forty or fifty years ago? This Disestablishment process is one to which we have to look for our inspiration in all our great Imperial policies. The United States of America is another example, and does the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean to say that the Divine light has been banished from the United States, from the moment when religions ceased to be Established in those States? On the contrary, their view of the matter is, and I think they have very good reason for their contention, that what they have done is to get rid of the artificial light and trust to the sunlight. Then the right hon. Gentleman gave us a denunciation of the conduct of Henry VIII. and his Disestablishment methods. If an ancestor of the right hon. Gentleman used that language at the time it would have carried him tonight to the Tower and to-morrow morning to Tower Hill. When the right hon. Gentleman attributes to me an attack, though I am not sure he is referring to me but to a Minister on this side, and a denunciation of the stripping of the monasteries, it is perfectly true, but the denunciation in which I and others indulged referred rather to the fact that the monasteries had been stripped, not with the view to restoring the property to the uses for which it "was originally given for the benefit of the poor, but in order to endow the courtiers of that particular day. The whole of my denunciation was confined to that criticism.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: What had that to do with the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It had everything in the world to do with the Bill. I went on to say that there were cases in which that Disestablishment process had ended in re-establishment of colleges and schools, and that some part of the property had been given for the purpose of almshouses, and I said that was in accordance with the original purposes. But the
  2242
  part which I denounced, and the part which has not yet been denounced by any supporter of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, or in the other at any rate—and I shall wait with a good deal of interest to see whether the denunciation will be carried—was to the more conspicuous and more flagrant part of the Disendowment proposals of Henry VIII. The right hon. Gentleman stated, although he has not been able to give very much reason for his contention, that the main principles on which the Bill is based have been completely shattered. There is one principle to which he did not allude, or to which he barely alluded, and that is that this represents a demand from a nationality for the adjustment of its own spiritual affairs, and surely when those primarily concerned, and when the people exclusively concerned—
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: No, no.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman means to contend that the spiritual interests of the Welsh people do not exclusively concern themselves, then I am at a loss to know what he is really aiming at. What has happened? Here is no hasty legislation as far as the Welsh people are concerned. This represents a demand put forward by two successive generations. The first generation that put it forward has passed away, and it has been sustained by the second generation, and if it is not settled this year or in the course of the next few years, the next generation will carry on the appeal. I do not believe there is a case, with the exception of the demand for self-government for Ireland, which is comparable to the steadiness of the demand put forward by Wales for the principle of this measure. I think the Welsh people are entitled to say that when a nation, I will not say with unanimity, displays such preponderating opinion in favour of something which undoubtedly primarily concerns them, that at any rate it is entitled to an examination, a patient examination, a fair examination, and a favourable examination at the hands of the Imperial Parliament. That is what we have asked, and the House of Commons up to the present has supported the justice of the demand, and we invite them to do so finally by their vote to-night. I say it primarily concerns the Welsh people, and it certainly exclusively affects their spiritual interests. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a

  2243
  very lurid, or rather a very dark picture of what the results of Disestablishment will be upon the people of Wales. He thinks it will have very disastrous effects upon the Welsh people. If the separation of the Church and State in Wales is a bad thing, it is something that exclusively affects the spiritual interests of the people dwelling in the Principality. The first question I would like to ask is this: Are they not the most competent people to judge of what is best for their own spiritual interests? No nation has made greater sacrifices for religion for the last hundred years than the Welsh people, and in no part of the United Kingdom will you find a people who have made more ample provision for their spiritual needs.
  I am putting that forward as a proof that they are not a people indifferent to religion, that they are not a people who have not given thought to the best method of making religious provision for themselves. On the contrary, they are a race who have devoted their best energies to making the highest and most effective provision for their spiritual needs, and they are therefore competent judges to decide what is best for their spiritual interests. Take the case of London. The majority of the Members for London are against this Bill, I believe, and the lead against the Bill has been taken by a distinguished London Member, though not a word do I say as to the way in which he has conducted it, or as to the tone and temper. But at the same time he is a London Member, although he has not spoken as a London Member so much. In London, if you take all the churches and chapels and missions all together you have not got accommodation for one-fifth of the population, and I do not believe you will find one-tenth of the population who attend any place of worship. When you come to Wales with a population of 2,000,000, and I am taking the figures which the Noble Lord gave in his report, that 58 per cent, is all the accommodation you have a right to expect, so that accommodation for 1,200,000 is all you could reasonably expect. In Wales the Nonconformists alone have provided accommodation for 1,900,000 people, and the Church of England has 458,000 sittings. The communicants, taking church and chapel together, very nearly number one-half of the population of Wales, and the Sunday school scholars number a half of the population. I think, therefore, we are
  2244
  entitled to say to a London Member that the Welsh people, who have shown such energy and such distinct activity, and who have produced such results, are better entitled, with their first knowledge of their own conditions, to speak as to what would best suit their religious welfare than any London representative.
  The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) was last night very much alarmed, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the eloquence of his appeal, and its fervour, and sincerity, about the effect Church Disestablishment would have on the teaching of the Christian doctrine in Wales. I should like to give the Noble Lord and those who take an interest in the matter two or three fundamental facts which they seem to me always to ignore. Most of the Endowments of the Church in Wales are in agricultural districts? That is the first fact which is always overlooked. In the agricultural districts the religious provision is overwhelming, both in regard to churches, chapels, and mission-rooms, and in regard to ministers. I could give no end of illustrations on that point. This is another fact: If the Noble Lord goes to the rural districts in Wales he will find very, very few people who do not attend either church or chapel of some denomination. The men who do not take advantage of the spiritual provision form a very small and inconspicuous minority. The reason for their non-attendance is not that there are no ministers provided for them; quite the reverse. There are other reasons. If you trebled the number of ministers and trebled the number of chapels, you could not get these men there. But the vast majority attend some place of worship, and are either members or adherents of the churches or members of the Sunday school. That is the case with regard to the tithe-producing parishes.
  Let me put another point. The tithe-producing parishes are just the parishes in which the Church of England has the least influence, and were it attracts the smallest proportion of the population. If you eliminate Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport, and great towns of that kind, where the tithe is a very insignificant part of the emoluments of the Church, the proportion would be much nearer one-eighth than one-fourth. If the Noble Lord will look at the figures supplied by the Church itself, in the Appendix to the Report of the Welsh Church Commission, he will find that these are the districts where Church

  2245
  attendance is very small, and the number of Church adherents insignificant; therefore, practically the whole burden of making spiritual provision for these districts is cast upon the Nonconformist places of worship, and that duty is discharged by them. If to-morrow you were to deprive the Church of every penny of her Endowments in those districts, it would make no difference at all as far as spiritual provision is concerned. The only difference would be that people who have never been called upon to contribute as they ought would for the first time have the honour, as well as the duty, of contributing towards the maintenance of their own faith. After all, Welsh Members speak here with some sort of knowledge on this question. In most of these districts, I do not say all the rich, but, at any rate, most of the richest people are members of the Church of England; that is the case almost without exception, and it would be a very small burden to cast upon them the maintenance of their own church. Very often there are only thirty or forty or fifty adherents in a particular district; generally it is a small church, and it does not take a very large share in the spiritual life of the parish, because it does not command the support of anything beyond a small proportion of the rural population in these tithe-producing districts. When the Noble Lord talks about the difficulty of making adequate provision for spiritual work in Wales he is referring to a totally different kind of district; his mind is travelling to industrial districts. There he is perfectly right; it is difficult. But those are not the districts affected to any considerable extent by Disendowment. Take the Rhondda Valley: you have there, I suppose, a population of something like 150,000.
  Mr. BRACE: Two hundred and fifty thousand.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is gigantic. The Rhondda Valley, before the discovery of coal there, was a barren, almost sterile waste. There was no tithe there. There are practically no ancient Endowments in that district. I shall be glad for the Noble Lord to correct me if that is wrong? I shall be very surprised if it is, because, after all, the Rhondda Valley did not produce the kind of agricultural yield which gives a rich tithe. The Noble Lord must know the Rhondda Valley; the moment you get outside the houses, it is practically a waste, and the tithe must be
  2246
  very small. It is, I believe, £20, and the Endowments out of Queen Anne's Bounty and from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not touched by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, in so far as this Bill is concerned, the Rhondda Valley will be impoverished by only something like £20 in regard to a provision for a population of 250,000. I am taking my hon. Friend's statement as to the population. What is the state of things there? You have twenty-two churches and seventeen mission-rooms, and the church collects £8,287. Supposing this £20 was taken away, it means £20 out of £3,287. Does the Noble Lord really mean to say that that will cripple the spiritual work in a district with a population of 250,000? There are large colliery proprietors, rich royalty owners, agents and others, and £20 would be a mere nothing for the Church to collect in a single service. What is the provision made there by Nonconformists? There are between 150 and 200 chapels; they have no Endowments; they are all built by colliers and tradesmen; they maintain their own ministers. The Noble Lord will find about 150 ministers labouring in the neighbourhood. That is how the Nonconformists cope with a work which the Church with its Endowments found itself utterly unable even to touch. The figures I have given relate to a population of 113,000. My hon. Friend evidently takes a larger district. The Church has provided only twenty-two churches and seventeen mission-rooms. I am not criticising the Church. It is because the bulk of the population are Nonconformists. That is why the Church body has not done more there. I am only pointing out that if you Disestablish and Disendow the Church to-morrow in that district, about which the Noble Lord is most sincerely anxious, this Bill will not affect its work in the slightest degree. Take Cardiff: I find that under this Bill the Church in Cardiff will be deprived of £572. The total collected by the Church there is £15,702. Will it really be maintained that the work of the Church amongst the great population of Cardiff will be seriously crippled, and that there will be no preaching of the Gospel in Cardiff because £572 out of £15,000 is taken away by this Bill? The Noble Lord exaggerates the problem. Anxiety always does, and the more real and sincere the anxiety, the greater the exaggeration. The Noble Lord has evidently become a victim of his own earnestness in this matter.

  2247
  Not merely last night, but in other speeches, the Noble Lord has spoken as if the preaching of the Gospel had been almost a monopoly of the Church in Wales. He really cannot possibly know the facts of Welsh religious life if he even suggests that as a possible explanation of "what has happened in Wales in the last 150 years. As a matter of fact, almost without exception—I know only one exception—all the great preachers who have been accountable for the religious life of Wales during the last 100 or 120 years, have been members of Nonconformist churches. That is true to-day. If the Noble Lord were to pursue his inquiries into Welsh spiritual life, he would find that most of the great preaching in Wales to-day is done by Nonconformist ministers. Take what is a conspicuous feature of Welsh religious life —the great preaching meetings—I do not know any other part of the country where they have those at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scotland."] I remember going down to my Constituents on the very day when the House adjourned. The whole population is 9.000 or 10,000. When I got to Carnarvon I found a crowd of some 10,000 people drawn from all the mountains round about to hear preachers. They listened to them from six o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night. I can assure the Noble Lord that we are not likely to suffer from too little preaching in Wales. I doubt whether in the whole world you would get a body of men to discharge their duties with more consummate art and power than the preachers to whom the people listened on that occasion. They held that great crowd for hours. I thought it was one of the most marvellous exhibitions of power, quite apart from the attraction of the message, that I have ever seen. The same thing happened at Pwllheli. I found there a great crowd of men drawn from every part of the district; thousands of people stood for hours listening to these preachers. When the Noble Lord is afraid lest the moment you take away the tithe and glebe there will be no preaching of the Gospel, I can assure him that the most cursory examination into the facts of Welsh religious life will relieve him of the slightest apprehension on the matter.
  5.0 P.M.
  After all, a nation under these conditions, which is going to be moved in spiritual matters, must always depend either upon great ritual or great preaching. In the old days, when the Welsh people belonged to the Church, they were held by
  2248
  a great ritual and the great traditions of the past; they are now depending much much more upon great preaching, and have been for 100 or 150 years. I do not know a case where a nation, after abandoning a great ritual, has ever returned to it; that is why I doubt whether Wales will ever return to the fold which it left about 200 years ago. I should like to say another thing in reply to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He talked a good deal about the danger to the spiritual life of the people if we severed religion from the State. I am not going to argue the principle of Establishment. It is not necessary in this case. Establishment may be good or Establishment may be bad—1 am not going to dogmatise upon it. What I do say is this—and I would rather like the opinion of the Noble Lord opposite upon this point—I do not believe that the principle of Establishment has ever succeeded when it has been applied under the same conditions as it has been applied to the Welsh people—never! Establishment to be a success in any country must be the outward and visible expression of the inward and spiritual attitude of the people for the time being. The Noble Lord talked last night about Christianity as it is understood in the twentieth century, but in order to make Establishment a success you must have Christianity as it is interpreted by the people to whom you apply it. It is not interpreted in the same way by Welsh people as it is by the people whom the Noble Lord represents. The Noble Lord's interpretation may be a higher one, it may be a better one, it may be infinitely near the truth. That has nothing whatever to do with the success or failure of Establishment. The question is whether it is in conformity with the views, faith, creed, and attitude of mind of the people whom it is supposed to represent.
  What happened in England? Whenever the English people changed their mind in matters of creed or ritual the Establishment changed. As to the views of my chief on the Reformation, I have an opinion upon the subject—which I am not free to express. At any rate there was some change at the time of the Reformation, and not an immaterial one. The change was so important that a man who preached a sort of doctrine which would be accepted at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. would have been burnt to

  2249
  death for preaching such a doctrine at the beginning. I do not know quite what you would call that. We will call it continuity of the Church. At any rate there was a very great change in doctrine. It represented the change that had taken place in the nation. It went on for a long time and fluctuated from one extreme to another, but it represented the fluctuation that had taken place in the mind of the nation. Wales was never consulted about it. Wales was Catholic to the very end. England became something which was half-way between Protestantism and Catholicism. At one moment she was violently Protestant, and at the next moment she was violently Catholic. So she fluctuated. But we were never consulted about the matter. We were Catholic in the reign of Henry VIII., but we were compelled to be Protestant. Queen Mary came in, and reverted to our views, and there was a lucid interval of about twelve years. Then came Elizabeth. There was a great conflict between our racial feelings and our religious feelings, and as usually happens in these cases, race beat religion. What followed? Wales was essentially Catholic in its temperament. It was never carried along by the Protestant Reformation, and the only reason why it ceased to be Catholic was because its priests died out. The Church of Rome committed the blunder of entrusting its fortunes to the Jesuits, who, for the moment, were much more concerned about the political side than they were about the spiritual.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: They were the only people who took the risk of death.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not imagine that I am attacking the Jesuits. I am only giving the historical facts. The result was that the Welsh were not Jesuits, and therefore they declined to go to the Jesuit College. When the old priests died out we were without shepherds, and therefore we had to become Protestants. If the Noble Lord will examine some of the documents which are in his own library he will find some very interesting correspondence there which was discovered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen. That correspondence was between an exiled Welsh bishop at Rome and one of the Noble Lord's ancestors. The minister, the ancestor of the Noble Lord, showed in the correspondence a conflict between his sentiments towards the Church of Rome and his attachment to the Tudor Dynasty. The exiled priest
  2250
  wrote letters to the Noble Lord's great ancestor, telling him about the conspiracy which was being hatched for the purpose of overthrowing the Tudor Dynasty in this country. That was the history of Wales at that time. The point I want to make is this: This was an Establishment that was forced upon us. England adopted it and because England adopted it we, perforce, had to adopt it to, although our religious sentiments were not carried along at all. They tried the same thing in Scotland. Scotland would not stand it. I wish some of my Scottish Friends who are apt to help the other side would bear that in mind. What happened then? England became Puritan. Wales loathed, detested, and scorned Puritanism at that time. Take the ancestor of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He was prepared to die rather than become a Puritan. So is the hon. Member I believe. Very well, we had to take it. England set up Presbyterianism and Independency. I should like the Noble Lord some day, when he has a few leisure moments, to study some of the old Welsh ballads of the Cromwellian days. He would get real Toryism there—the real, pure doctrine of Toryism. The old Welsh Tory who wrote against the Puritan would have scorned the sort of abject, miserable copy of Toryism which you have to-day. These were not the sort of people to set up principles and run away from them. Still, although Welshmen did not change at all, they had to change purely and simply because England happened to change.
  England was first of all Catholic, then Protestant, then she became Puritan, and we had, perforce, to accept Establishment, otherwise the Divine Light would have been extinguished in our land. What was the result? Welshmen became absolutely indifferent to every form of religion. If the Noble Lord were to look at the "Welshman's Candle," by Vicar Pritchard, of Llandovery— he could not read the originals—he would find that the condition of Wales was reduced by a principle of Establishment which had never been established in any other country in the world, and Establishment where creed, faith" and forms of ritual made to suit one people were imposed upon another. No religious Establishment based upon that conception of a spiritual adoption by the nation of any religion could be anything but a curse to the land or the nation. Afterwards the

  2251
  Established Church of this country became Low Church and High Hanoverian. Wales detested both. It was Jacobite, and if anything the ritual would be high, for of course Catholic blood was still in the veins of most people. That was the only religious feeling that was left at that time. Then came the next move. Wales became Methodist and Puritan 150 years ago. England moved on, but which way. In the direction of being ritualistic and High Church. So we have always been at cross purposes and we have always had to accept as the national religion something which has been fashioned to meet the views of our neighbours. Can anyone be surprised at what has happened? It has been a failure. This is not the story of thirty or forty years. It is not the story of a hundred years. It is the story of hundreds of years of spiritual neglect, of spiritual degradation, from which generation after generation of Welshmen have suffered. What did they suffer for? They suffered purely and simply because of an Establishment which was imposed upon them.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite should know of the tenacity with which election after election, whatever the issue may be elsewhere, Welshmen have clung to this one purpose—to get rid of a system which has been a curse to their land. Exactly the same thing would apply if the Nonconformity of Wales had been directed from England. Every attempt to direct Welsh Nonconformity from England has always been a failure. The whole spirit and temper of Welsh Nonconformity is different from that which you very often will find in England. For that reason the nation must live its own spiritual life. That is all we are asking at the hands of this House The right hon. Gentleman opposite said in 1895—and I remember it perfectly well—and I also have had a letter from the hon. Baronet on the subject, "Just you wait a while, the Church is growing; it is strengthening, and Nonconformity is dwindling." Well, that has been said ever since the arrival of the Methodists in Wales. I was reading the other day George Borrow's "Wild Wales." He was writing of '54, that is sixty years ago. He came to a certain village, and put up at the White hon. George Borrow always got hold of the best hotel. He began to talk to someone about the religious condition of the people, and George Borrow's conversations led him to
  2252
  the conclusion that the days of Methodism were numbered. The reason he gave was that the parsons were beginning to learn how to preach now. He said:—
  "We have a parson here who can outpreach the Methodist, and gradually the Methodists will disappear."
  That is sixty years ago, and if anyone here will take the trouble before the end of the Debate to look at the figures of the Church communicants and the adherents claimed by the Church, not merely in the town of Bala, but the surrounding parishes, you will find they are not one-eighth of the population at this moment in the district where George Borrow— a shrewd observer, though occasionally rather prejudiced—came to the conclusion that the clays of Nonconformity were at an end, and that the Church was going to recover all the lost ground. That was said ever since Methodism started. They said that Methodism was but a sort of temporary aberration. The Welsh bards thought so; it was not of their mind, and they loathed it, and thought it was a passing mania. Every generation of men who disliked it said the same thing, but there it remains. Let those who doubt it examine what happened, and they will find that there is nothing more deeply rooted in the life of the Welsh people, and for very good reason. It would be a shameful incident in the history of Wales if it forgot the faith that has done more for it than anything else that ever happened in the whole of its history. And that is the reason why it is a permanent factor which everybody has to reckon with who is dealing with the life of the Welsh people.
  I should like to say a word with reference to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford last night and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken about Endowments. The Noble Lord said last night, "Disestablishment does not necessarily involve Disendowment," and that is also the contention of the right hon. Gentleman to-day; and the Noble Lord said last night these funds have been given—he used these words—"for devotional purposes." Well, if by devotional purposes he seeks to establish a distinction as against purposes of an eleemosynary character, then I ask him this: Are there any documents or decrees allocating the ancient Church Endowments to these purposes alone? If so, where are they? When the first appeal was made for tithe, I think by St. Augustine, it was for the poor, and for the benefit of the poor. That was the object

  2253
  which he mentioned in his appeal. The appeal was for the poor and for masses for the soul, and for these purposes they were much more frequently used than for any other purposes. So far as the poor are concerned, their interests have been taken away, and so far as masses for the soul are concerned, the Reformation did away with that as a purpose of the Endowments. The Noble Lord said it was given to the Church. True! But it was given to the Church not merely as trustees, but because the Church at that time was the only reliable corporation or body to do it. If you wanted to give property for any eleemosynary purpose there was no other body to do it. Supposing you wanted to help the poor or education, what other body could you give the money to except the Church? The Church was the guardian and the trustee for the time being for all these purposes. That is why the property was given to the Church. It was the only body at the time which concerned itself about any such services.
  The Noble Lord said no mediaeval person would give a penny to the poor or education except through the Church. True! The Church was the only possible trustee at the time, but I might ask him, would any mediaeval person have given that property to the Church if he thought at the time it was to be given exclusively for the benefit of the clergy. There is every indication to the contrary, and that the donors had in their minds something beyond merely maintaining the clergy at that time. Who are the beneficiaries? The beneficiaries were not the Church or the clergy. They were the people for whom the Church ministered, and it is because of that that we ask for a reconsideration of the method of applying that trust money, and its appropriation to some uses which are more consonant with the original purposes of the donors so far as we can gather. The Noble Lord said, "Does anyone say it is better to spend money upon the poor and on the sick than in preaching the Gospel?" There was a great apostle who thought so, and his authority is good enough for me, but that is not the proposition. The proposition is that there is a mixture of purposes. Supposing you have two or three or more purposes mixed up in the gift, and you find that if you apply that gift for one purpose only you can only benefit a small section of the people, whereas if you administer the other three the whole of the people get the advantage; then I say there
  2254
  is good ground for saying, "Let us administer it in the way in which we will enable the whole of the beneficiaries to get benefit out of it, and not a section. That is my answer to the Noble Lord.
  The Noble Lord is sincerely anxious to promote the highest interest in the Welsh people; I am sure he is. I hope he will not imagine I am saying that in a gibing spirit. I know he is thinking of their best spritual interest, and of their welfare in the highest and loftiest sense. Let me say this to him, and to others acting with him. Most of the men who during the past fifty years have worked for this measure in Wales, who created public opinion, and the demand that is now put forward in this House and incorporated in this Bill, are the men who devoted the whole of their lives to the prosecution of the great purposes which the Noble Lord has in view. They were not the politicians of Wales; they were the great religious leaders of Wales. They were convinced that for the true spiritual interest of the Welsh people the removal of this grievance was essential. To their views the Welsh people listen when they put forward this demand, and it is the appeal which they made to the Welsh people that we are making here to-day, to this great assembly, in the Billnow before the House.
  Mr. DILLON: I should like to give a few reasons that induce me to seek an opportunity of intervening in this Debate for a few minutes. The first is a charge of a peculiarly offensive and unjust character which has been constantly made throughout the course of these Debates against the Irish party for the steady and effective support they have given to this Bill. That charge has been made both inside and outside the House of Commons, and I should like to say a few words upon it. And the second reason is the constant complaints which have been made throughout the whole course of these Debates of the unfair use which has been made of the procedure known as Guillotine Closure, and the protest which has been raised by defenders of the Church in Wales against the denial of what they are pleased to describe now as free speech in this House. The charge made against the Irish party has been this, that in supporting, as we have steadily supported, this Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales, we have been voting against our own principle, against our own consciences, and against the

  2255
  established and well-known principle of our Church, and that we have been doing this in pursuance of a more or less corrupt bargain, and because we have received the assurance of the effective support of the Welsh Members for Home Rule for Ireland. There never was a charge made against a political party more false or more absolutely devoid of any shred of foundation than that charge against the Irish party.
  It is perfectly true, and I am proud here to acknowledge it, that we, the Nationalists of Ireland, do feel under a deep debt of gratitude to the Welsh people and to the representatives of Wales. For over thirty dark and terrible years in this House we were fighting the cause of an oppressed and tortured people. The Welsh Members stood by our side in days when we had few friends in this House, and in the happier days that are before us and before Ireland we can never forget that many many years ago Wales sent up to this House a delegation of Members solidly in support of Irish liberty, more solid than we could even return from Ireland itself. Therefore, it is of course to us a source of the deepest gratification, and I might say of national pride, that the opportunity has been afforded to us while we still remain in full strength in this House to repay in some measure the debt which we owe them. BUD when the charge is made against us that in repaying that debt and giving to this Bill in its passage through the House the effective support we have happily been able to give to it we are false to our own principles and traditions and beliefs on this great question of Establishment and Endowments, I hope to be able to show how preposterous and baseless that charge is.
  Some Noble Lords have made themselves conspicuous night after night in the House, after each Division took place, by crying out, "Saved again by the Irish!" And why not? Why should we be ashamed to come to the rescue of Wales in her struggle for religious liberty? I hope hon. Members heard just now the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in moving the rejection of this Bill. He said that this is an Imperial question and the Welsh people have no right to decide it for themselves. If that is so, have we not a good right to decide the question1! If you leave it to the Welsh people there will be very little doubt about it, and
  2256
  if the English come in and overbear the voice of Wales, why should the Irish Nationalists not come to their support? Therefore, from the right hon. Gentle-mau's own mouth, he stands condemned. It is quite unnecessary for me to quote from speeches in this House or outside the language in which this charge has been made against us. I have here one passage which I will read, because it is so characteristic and so disgraceful. It comes from no less a person than the Bishop of Manchester, and it is contained, not in a speech, where there might be some question of misreporting, but in a pastoral address to his own people published within the last two days. This is what the Bishop of Manchester says:—
  "The past month has seen the Home Rule Bill carried through the House of Commons, and the Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales advanced almost to its completion. Nonconformists have assisted to pass the former and Roman Catholics the latter of these two measures. But for this alliance neither measure could have found its way to the House of Lords. Time was when the Nonconformists refused toleration from James II. because it was coupled with toleration to the Roman Catholic. Then there were Protestants in Great Britain."
  More shameful language never proceeded from a minister of the Gospel. The bishop says, "Then there were Protestants in Great Britain." That is the bishop's idea of what true Protestants are, men who will be heroic enough to refuse liberty and freedom and toleration for themselves because it would carry with it toleration for Roman Catholics. I tell the Bishop of Manchester and all the other gentlemen who have hurled these charges against Catholics, if that be their idea of Christianity it is not ours, and we think it more honourable to take our stand with the Nonconformists of Wales in their fight for religious liberty than take our stand with the Protestants who refused toleration for themselves for fear that it would involve toleration for Roman Catholics. That is the Bishop of Manchester's language, and I say it is most disgraceful.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is quite true.
  Mr. DILLON: Does the Noble Lord stand in with the Bishop of Manchester in regard to that idea of Christianity?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What I say is that what the Bishop of Manchester says is perfectly accurate historically, and if the hon. Member does not know that, he is very ignorant.
  Mr. DILLON: That is not the point of my quotation. My point is that the Bishop of Manchester recommends it to

  2257
  the Protestants of to-day as an ideal of true Protestantism, and he speaks of the Protestants of to-day as degenerate from their ancestors because they are willing to extend the hand of friendship to Irish Catholics and do not refuse liberty to themselves because it comes through the co-operation of Irish Catholics. I say that is base and disgraceful language, and even if it is true historically, it is very disgraceful, and it is doubly and trebly disgraceful for a bishop who calls himself a minister of Christ's gospel to recommend it to the Protestants of this country. I am proud to say if that be the idea of the Bishop of Manchester of true Christianity, it has no place in the minds and the hearts of the people of Ireland. When this charge is made against us for supporting the claim of the Welsh people for religious equality and the Disestablishment of the English Church in that country; when we are told that by doing this we are acting against our own beliefs and our own principles, I say it is absolutely false. By long experience, and I can prove it from our history, we Irish Catholics are free Churchmen to the tips of our fingers. We are free Churchmen in principle and we are against Establishment and State Endowment.
  Reference was made to certain Clauses in the Home Rule Bill denying to us the right of legislation on the question of Establishment. It is quite true we are denied the right to establish a Church in Ireland, but if we had that right we should refuse it with contempt. I am not speaking without proof. An attempt was made at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the British Government to endow the Irish Catholic Church and to impose upon its liberty certain limitations. In those days our Church was desperately poor and unfurnished with ecclesiastical buildings. Its priests were living in a poverty unknown to any religious denomination of those days, and the temptation to accept Endowment was great. What happened? This Government came, early in the nineteenth century, and offered to endow our Church and provide our bishops with incomes on the condition that we should give the Crown a right of veto on the appointment of the Irish bishops. Our bishops were divided on this point. Some of them were in favour of accepting the allowance and others were strongly opposed to it, and even Rome itself was doubtful. But it
  2258
  was the priests and the Catholic laity of Ireland who rose up in revolt against this proposal, and our Church, without any Endowments, refused with scorn and contempt the proffered Endowments. What has been the result? Any man who has studied the history of Ireland knows what the result would have been. Would the Catholic Church in Ireland have been what it is to-day if she had accepted those Endowments? To-day the Catholic Church is one of the strongest and most powerful Churches in the world. It is a missionary Church and a Church spreading throughout the whole English-speaking world. Furthermore, her clergy are comfortably provided for. The whole country is covered with ecclesiastical edifices out of the voluntary gifts of our people and out of the life and zeal and vigour infused into our Church by our absolute refusal to touch Endowments or Establishment by the State. Therefore, when I say we Irish Catholics are opposed in principle to accepting Endowments or Establishment by the State, I am only saying what I can prove from Irish history, because, as I have pointed out, the experiment has been tried, and tried at a time when the temptation was extraordinarily great on account of the crushing state of poverty to which the Irish Church had been reduced by constant persecution. It will be manifest to every honest and fair-minded man that in giving the support which we are proud and glad to be able to give to the Welsh Bill, and in saving the Bill, as we have saved it often, we have done nothing of which we need be ashamed; and we have done nothing contrary to our own consciences or to the principle by which we are guided even in the affairs of our own Church. In supporting our friends in Wales, we are carrying out the very principles which, if the occasion arose to-morrow, would guide us in connection with the affairs of our own Church.
  I have listened with mixed feelings to the complaints and bewails which have arisen from these Benches during the course of these discussions on the guillotine about the destruction of freedom of speech and the injury to this Parliament which that method of procedure has brought about. I quite agree. I think it has seriously injured Parliament. I read the other day with great interest a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), describing the ruin brought

  2259
  about by the guillotine. Yes, but these men always forget how the guillotine came into operation. It was first proposed in this House in its most offensive form, much more offensive than it is now proposed, by Mr. W. H. Smith on the 10th of June, 1887, in order to put through a perpetual Coercion Act for Ireland. The Irish leaders of that time, in protesting against such a measure, warned the Tory leaders repeatedly that this method of procedure would be a method that would be used against themselves with fatal effect. We pointed out to the Tory leaders that it was an absolutely necessary logical and irresistible consequence that if a Tory Government used such a weapon as that a Radical Government, acting as they always did under much greater pressure of business, would inevitably use that weapon more frequently and with more vigour, and we were met with sneers and laughter and contempt, and our warnings were disregarded. That Act was placed on the neck of Ireland by the use of the guillotine for the first time., and the perpetual Coercion Act was passed, which still blots and disfigures the Statute Book of this country. In order to crush Ireland and impose upon it a perpetual Coercion Act you forged this weapon, and it has hung about the neck of this House ever since, and therefore these Gentlemen have no right to complain of the guillotine, because they are only getting what they gave us in contempt of our protests and complaints in those old days. I ask, Is it not a poetic and a just nemesis that a guillotine, originally invented for the purpose of coercing Ireland in a most cruel and shocking fashion, should now be used, after twenty-seven years, for the purpose of freeing Ireland. Let me quote a short passage from the speech of a really great man, who in some respects was the greatest master of Parliamentary procedure I have sat under in this House in all the thirty years I have been a Member—I mean the late Sir William Harcourt, who passed a great Budget Bill without the use of the Closure. He got up in the course of that Debate, and, protesting against the guillotine, he said:—
  "I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a possible future when there may be a Liberal administration. Administration numbering say 310, and there might be a Conservative party of 330. There might be some great Constitutional measure—perliaps Home Rule—and there might be a Minister standing at the Table and saying, 'I shall introduce to-morrow a Home Rule Bill and I shall accompany it by a declaration that the Third Reading shall be taken this day fortnight; the subject has been discussed for many years;
  2260
  the amendments you have put down to the measure are frivolous; your resistance to it is obstructive; you are standing in the way of a great reform.'"
  That prophecy was made twenty-seven years ago, and it was received on the crowded benches opposite with screams of laughter. Twenty-seven years have rolled over us and that prophecy has come true, and the weapon you forged then is now used not to coerce a people and oppress them, but to give to the people of Wales religious liberty and to the people of Ireland a Constitution.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was a measure to be dealt with entirely according to the wishes of the Welsh people, but the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down justified his interference and that of the Irish party on the ground of their Imperial position in this Parliament, and said that from his point of view this is not a Welsh, but an Imperial policy. Where do we stand today with regard to this dividing and destructive Bill? We have come to the last stage of it in this present Session, at all events, and, if we hear of it again, perhaps before it becomes law some of the considerations which have been urged, and urged with force, on this side, and which have silenced the arguments with which the defence of this Bill began, will work outside this House in the political conscience of the people, and the Bill may not go so far as the promoters think at the present time. I have called it a dividing and destructive Bill; and I should like to ask what is the position of the nation, what is the position of Nonconformists, and what is the position of the Church under the Bill? What is the position of the nation as a whole? We are, by this Bill, being divided in that which is our highest possession, a national profession of religion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted the greater portion of his extraordinarily able speech to the question of Disestablishment, and rather treated Disendowment as though it was the natural corollary of Disestablishment. Disestablishment and Disendowment are entirely different things. Disestablishment is the throwing away by a nation of one of its most, if not quite its most, cherished possessions, and Disendowment is the taking away by a nation of that which it never possessed at all, and therein lies all the difference.
  The position of the nation after this Bill is passed will be that the nation as a whole has declared that the possession of an Established form of religion is really

  2261
  of not much account for the nation, because it is allowing it to be taken away from one part of it. The position of the Welsh nationality will be that they alone among the Protestant nations of the world are casting off in the eyes of the world their national profession of religion. There is no great and old nation in the world but which has got a national profession of religion. It is not easy for new nations to agree upon one form of religion which they shall establish in a young and growing community, but, if yon look even at those Anglo-Saxon communities which are trying to grow up without any national form of religion, is their internal and social conditions such as to make you think that their spiritual character is deepened, or that their moral conscience is heightened, by the fact that they have no national profession of religion? A nation, after all, is but an aggregate of individuals, and it used to be considered that a man was honouerd who made a personal profession of religion, and that a family was honoured and looked up to which had a family profession of religion and lived a religious life in face of their neighbours, but nowadays I fear such a profession is rather sneered at than other wise. Depend upon it, that which is true of individuals and of families is true of nations. Out in the world the nation is looked up to which has a national profession of religion, and, as we have proved, that nation which believes in its religion and which takes its national religion wherever it goes will fulfil its duty in the world rather than another nation which neglects to have such a profession of religion in the face of the world. There is at least one of the great nations which used to have a national religion. I listened just now to some of the eloquent sentences of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken—
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found pre sent—
  Colonel WILLIAMS: I was saying that I listened with interest to some of the eloquent sentences which came from the hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the Debate (Mr. Dillon), and I wondered what the attitude of Roman Catholics of Ireland and of England is towards the Republic of France having regard to the way they have treated the Roman Catholic
  2262
  religion there. I wondered whether they would have submitted as tamely to the spoliation of their Church, and whether they think the position of Republican France without a national church is as great in the world, is as happy itself, and speaks as strongly for morality as it used in the days when it was not ashamed to say it had a national religion? I say the nation will be decidedly the poorer for Disestablishment and for this doing away with the national profession of religion. That will be the state of the nation with regard to Disestablishment. I know it is a debate-able point whether Disestablishment is good or not, and that there are opinions to the contrary on the other side, and, though I do not agree with their arguments, still there is more to be said for that part of the Bill than for the other part. What will be the position of the Welsh nation after this Bill is passed with regard to Endowments? At the present moment the Welsh nation has some thousands a year which are spent for religious purposes. What is their attitude towards those thousands of pounds which are being spent for the propagation and the preaching of the Gospel? They have said, "We have got enough money for the preaching of the Gospel; we are good enough as we are. We do not want this money used for the preaching of the Gospel. We ourselves have benefited by this preaching in the past; our fathers benefited by it; our generation has benefited by it; never mind the next generation, we will deprive them of such opportunities of hearing the Gospel as the spending of this money gives them."
  The money is there, and they claim it to be national money. Upon what do they propose to spend it? They say, "We have got great and growing educational needs which will have to be met out of our pockets; as we have met our educational needs in the past, we shall have to meet these educational needs in the future. We will take this money away from the preaching of the Gospel and use it to relieve our own pockets. That is the dilemma out of which they cannot possibly get. If these educational needs are necessities, it is quite certain the Welsh people will provide them, and they are therefore going, so far as these thousands are concerned, to take them out of the religious pocket and so save the secular pocket. That will be the position of part of the Welsh nation. What will be the position of Nonconformists after Disestablishment? They

  2263
  will cease to exist. The word "Nonconformist" will be done away with. It was invented purely to distinguish those who did not conform to the Established Church. There will be no Established Church; all the religious bodies in Wales will be on an equality, and, if they call themselves "Nonconformists" when they do not conform to one of those bodies, namely, to the Church of England, exactly the same thing will apply, for instance, to the Baptist body because they do not conform to the tenets of the Congregational body. Nonconformists will, therefore, be done away with. They have called themselves "Free Churches" because, they said, the Church of England was tied by Establishment, and they were free. They will no longer be able to call themselves "Free Churches," because by their action they have made the Church of England also free. Presumably, the Free Church Council will have to be abolished. Such a thing will be an entire misnomer, because they will be leaving out the biggest individual free church of them all. That will be the position of Nonconformists in Wales when this Bill is carried.
  6.0 P.M.
  What will be the position of the Church of England in Wales which they are trying to dismember, and to set up as a separate church by Act of Parliament? She will be left sore at the loss of valued privileges, which in an increasing degree she has tried to use for the benefit of all sections of the community of Wales. She will be sore at the loss of God-given means of carrying -her message and fulfilling her mission. When I say "God-given means," I mean means which were provided long before our time for these purposes, and which the present Church has inherited. They are in a sense "God-given" to those who inherit them, because they are given to be used for the purposes for which they were intended; they are given to be used to the best ability of those to whom they are entrusted. Therefore, I say, the Church may well be sore at the loss of her God-given means of carrying on her work and fulfilling her mission. She will be left to grieve that the nation to which she was sent has cut off its religious profession. She will be left sore in thinking that her fellow-Christians could rob her of the means which she was doing her best to use for Christian purposes. But she will be left more free to adapt herself more quickly to the changed needs of the nation's life. She will
  2264
  be able to attract to her own barrier of Establishment those who realise her unmistakable historical position, the purity of her doctrine, and the catholicity that has made her a meeting place, and will do so more and more, of religious men in Wales and elsewhere. That will give her a better chance still of appealing to the sceptic, the careless, and those who are out of the way. No one has ever doubted that the Church will be vastly improved in that way by what is done by this Bill. Still I say, as I began, that this is a Bill of destruction, and must be for a time a Bill of destruction, and until the dislocation of enormous funds has had time to settle down it will mean the destruction of a great deal of spiritual work in Wales. This Bill not only destroys but it divides. It divides the most ancient Church in Christendom into two parts. It divides the English people, the people of Wales and England, into two parts. It divides the people of Great Britain into two parts. It divides the Welsh nation from their national profession of religion, and it goes far to divide the present generation into two opposing camps instead of promoting that unity to which we ought all more and more aspire, and which the Gospel tells us is to be our chief end. These are some of the reasons why I shall vote against this Bill for Disestablishment and Disendowment. They are reasons which I believe will commend themselves to the English people and the Welsh people more and more. I believe the Welsh people will realise that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls the adjustment of their spiritual affairs, by which I suppose he means the adjustment of their spiritual affairs by Nonconformists, for I can hardly imagine that either he or the Nonconformists want to adjust the spiritual affairs of the Church of England, is against all their traditions, if that means crippling, robbing and hindering a fellow Church. If adjustment of their spiritual affairs means that they will cast off their national profession of religion, and go into the world as a nation with no form of religion as a whole, I think that such an adjustment will cost the Welsh nation dear, and that they will rue the day that they asked for this Bill and got the House of Commons to pass it.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: In his very earnest speech the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down used a good

  2265
  many terms which provoked almost immediate criticism. He talked of the funds with which this Bill has to deal as "God-given funds." That idea is a new contribution to the terminology which has been developed during the arguments in Committee, He also referred to the funds as being "enormous" That again is something that is quite new to us, because one of the arguments which have been used, I know not with what force, against this Bill is that the total funds of the Church of England in Wales are so small that we are guilty of a kind of mean action in proposing to divert any of them in accordance with the principle of the Bill, however just and equitable that principle may be. But perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him through the whole course of his speech, the earnestness of which I recognise and the general purpose of which is logically carried out in his opposition to the present measure. I only rise now not in order to try to cover the field of controversy upon this Bill but to make a few remarks which seem to me to be more specially appropriate to the present occasion, namely, the Third Beading of the Bill. First, as one of the Welsh Members who are specially concerned in this measure, I wish to say a word or two about the changes that have been made in the Bill during its passage through Committee and on the Report stage. Let me point out that all these changes are either changes that are favourable to the Church in Wales or to the interests connected with those who are adherents of the Church in Wales, or else are changes which have been made in order to meet the general feeling of the House or, as we conceive it, the general sentiment of the Welsh people in the application of these funds. The first important change has been the introduction of the commutation scheme. That scheme is embodied in the new Clause which has just been added at the instance of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Gladstone). I wish to make our attitude in regard to this matter of commutation quite clear. There seems to be some misapprehension upon the point. We are not responsible for the form which the Bill originally took. We are not, and we never have been, specially enamoured of the gradual process of partial Disendowment which was provided for by the Bill in its original form. The difficulties of any such process, whether
  2266
  you look at the matter from the standpoint of the representative body of the Disestablished Church or from that of the University of Wales or the Welsh county councils, are considerable. We acquiesced in these proposals because we thought that they had been adopted by the Government in order to make the transitional period from an Established to a Disestablished Church more easy for the Church in Wales. We have therefore readily agreed to this principle of commutation.
  Speaking for myself, I looked at the scheme put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the light of two conditions or principles. First, I thought that the scheme should be so liberal as to make it safe for the representative body to exercise its option. The second condition, which I thought ought to be observed, was that it should not be so liberal as to disturb the adjustments of the property of the dissolved corporation between the adherents of the Church, on the one hand, and the Welsh people, on the other hand, to the material disadvantage of the latter from the financial standpoint. I am not going to discuss the details of the scheme. I wish to make our position clear. Having considered the matter, and having consulted with my hon. Friends who sit with me and with men of business in whom I have confidence, I think the scheme as it stands satisfies both these conditions, and for myself I hope that when this Bill becomes law the representative body may see their way to accept it. The other chief alteration that has taken place in the Bill has been the transfer in the account between the Welsh nation on the one hand and the representative body on the other of some part of the property of the dissolved corporation. The amount is something like £15,000 a year. I have already said what I thought and what the majority of my hon. Friends thought about that. We are not convinced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but we recognise that if he and his Friends are convinced, it suggests that there must be something in the matter. While we disclaim all responsibility for the concession, our general view is that we do not wish to say anything more about the matter. We have no desire to drive a hard bargain. We have no desire to haggle about small points of property, because the great and broad principle for which we are contending is the principle of religious equality in Wales. I am only

  2267
  speaking for myself and my Friends. There are, or there may be, one or two among the Members from Wales who take a different view. Mr. Burke, an eminent Member of this House, once described Welshmen—he was referring in his own day to a past generation—as "an intractable and restive race." I suppose my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) is a type of the sort of Welshman that Mr. Burke had, or may have had, in view. My hon. and learned Friend was not born in those days, nor could he have been a Member of this House, but in these Debates he has always talked as if he were personally acquainted with the ancestors of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Hugh Cecil), and as if other historical personages like King Stephen and the Empress Maud had the privilege of his acquaintance. He complained of the want of discipline in the Welsh Parliamentary party, but I suggest that he should first settle his own account in that matter. All I can say is that in what I said about the two main changes in this Bill I think I was expressing the general opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House from Wales.
  With regard to the other alterations, they are of a different character. The Amendments of substance to Clause 18 which were put down by myself, and which were adopted by the Government, were alterations in regard to the application of the national or Welsh people's share of the property of the dissolved corporations. They were put down in order to meet the general views not only of that side of the House, but also on our own side of the House. They were designed to meet the view that all the funds of the Church which are not going to be handed over to the representative body should be given to purposes as nearly as possible which might be assumed and which I think were the purposes to which they were originally intended to be applied by the pious founders or by the authorities of the Church at the time when these Endowments came into being. I will say nothing more about that except that I think that if hon. Members opposite once admit the principle, argumenti causâ, that nothing wrong is being done by the application of these funds. I am not going to restate the arguments I attempted to make on the Committee stage, but I assert that the objects to which our national share of
  2268
  these funds is going to be applied are objects which were spiritual in the eyes of the Church at the time that these Endowments came into being. I could, if it were fair to the House, strengthen the arguments which I used on the Committee stage. After listening to the arguments from the other side of the House, more especially of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), I have gone a little further into the matter. The more I look into it, the more convinced I am that I was right in saying that in the early days, when the Church assumed its form as a Catholic Church under the Empire, the Endowments of the Church were not in the least intended to apply only to what would now be called devotional purposes. The distinction which the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) drew between the devotional objects and other Christian objects, which by the common consent of Churchmen of apostolic times were deemed to be spiritual, is a modern antithesis. It has only been brought about since the Reformation, since the multiplication of religious bodies, and the gradual change which has come over the system of law and of religious organisation in Western Europe.
  I will give one instance which is a very celebrated one. Very soon after the Christian religion became recognised in the Roman Empire, and after it became an admissible religion and began to have rights conferred upon it, one of the great developments was that of hospitals. One of the first notable hospitals was the one founded by Fabiola, a friend of St. Jerome, which was deemed to be a spiritual foundation, in consequence of her having committed, unwittingly, without any attack upon her personal honour, some offence against the matrimonial law of the Church. I mention that as being the first instance of institutions specially designed for the sick. Throughout: the whole of the Middle Ages the example set by this lady, under the influence of St. Jerome, was followed, and if you will you can trace from the first Christian institution of that kind the spread of that idea throughout Western Europe. It is very interesting to find in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—I can give details if it were sufficiently relevant for me to take up the time of the House in doing so—of 1835–6 that they found that there were hospitals which are still of spiritual promotion. When they came to deal with

  2269
  the matter in the legislation consequent upon their action, they actually applied the funds of those spiritual promotions which had been devoted to hospitals for sick people to the cure of souls. You have our case in that kind of alteration. If it were right for the Church of England to apply money which had been left to hospital fundations to the cure of souls, why is it so wrong for us now, in dealing with another part of the country, and in dealing with other funds, to apply the converse process, and to take away part of the money devoted to the cure of souls and apply it to education and other purposes which in other times have been regarded as spiritual promotions? That is all I want to say upon the changes made in the Bill. I think hon. Members will see that they have been changes all made, not in deference to any clamour from our side, but in deference to the arguments which have come from the other side.
  I do not want to go over the whole ground, but I think it right to make a few general observations restating our position in regard to this Bill. Our first principle is that the ascertained facts and circumstances of the present time justify us in contending that Wales may, according to sound legislative and political principles, rightly claim to be treated in regard to many local and domestic affairs as a separate entity, like Ireland or like Scotland. Our claim is admitted by responsible statesmen belonging to both parties. The Prime Minister, in his speech on the Second Beading of this Bill, used language which so far as I could judge at the moment secured the approbation of the whole House. He said:—
  "If there is any where in the British Empire a community which has all the indicia of a separate nation in history, language development, traditions and special needs, all that makes up domestic and civic life, surely that community is the Welsh nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l5th May, 1912, col. 1152, Vol. XXXVIII.]
  That being so, we have a right, with proper safeguards, to manage our local affairs, and if the principle is once granted it ought clearly to be applied in regard to matters affecting the right of private judgment and freedom of conscience in regard to religious questions. Such matters do not touch the stability of the Empire or the security of the Crown; they do not affect the Army or the Navy, general taxation or the economic interests of the country. Our demand in this regard is a national one, made in what we believe to be the general interests of the people of Wales. It is not based—and to
  2270
  this I attach some importance, having regard to the arguments used against us— on any particular theories as to religion. The question raised is not one between the Free Churches and the Established Church, not one between chapel and church, as is sometimes asserted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but between the majority of the people of Wales and the supporters of the existing legal ecclesiastical system. Nor is it based solely on the abstract principle of religious equality, or on the notion that the interests of religion are best served by freeing all religious bodies from the control of State or Government so far as their creeds, rites, and ceremonies are concerned. It is, I believe, true that most of my colleagues from Wales, and Liberals and Nonconformists in Wales, object to the principle involved in the Establishment of a particular kind of religion as the official religion of the State. I think we have shown throughout these Debates that we have no desire to dogmatise in regard to the question whether the existing connection between Church and State should be maintained in regard to England.
  That leads me to make this further observation, that a good many of the arguments that have been used during the Committee or Report stages of this Bill seemed more relevant to the question whether the Church of England should be wholly Disestablished, than to the question whether the present ecclesiasical law should cease to operate in a particular part of England and Wales. We say that, founding ourselves upon historical, religious, and economic considerations, especially applicable to our area, it is desirable to sever the connection between the Church and State in this particular area. The central government of the Church until recently has been so anti-national, and the administration of Church property and the exercise of patronage so improper and occasionally so scandalous that, as a result, the Church can only claim about one-tenth of the population in Wales as being communicants. Our case is that it is owing to the failure of the Church of England that Nonconformity has arisen in Wales. The whole history has been generalised in a speech of singular eloquence by the Chancellor of the Exchequer already. I have made these general observations in order that there may be no mistake, so far as I am concerned at any rate, as to our general attitude upon the question.

  2271
  I am much tempted to go over and try to answer some of the principal arguments which have been used by our opponents during the progress of this Bill through Committee and Report stage, but I will not do so, except as to one or two questions. The first is the argument which has been put, most forcibly, by the hon, and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps). I remember his Second Reading speech, and though I was not convinced by it, I thought the strongest point made against the Bill was his suggestion that the Church of England was going to be dismembered. I have been considering that and trying to analyse it, and I submit that when the whole of the Bill is looked at, when the terms which have to be applied in the controversy—the Church, Establishment and Dismemberment—are rightly defined, it is not accurate to say that there is any dismemberment of the Church. I must assume that everyone has read Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. Taking those Clauses in conjunction with the other consequential Clauses, I cannot see that there is anything in the Bill to justify the broad proposition so often put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this is a Bill for the dismemberment of the Church of England? What is the Church? I know that is a question which might lead to long controversy, but I will take the definition in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commission, where I find that the Church is
  "A spiritual society living or existing under the conditions of civil life."
  It is open to anyone to say that is not a true definition of the legal or the religious position of the Church, but supposing you take that, how on earth can it be asserted that the Church of England is dismembered by this Bill? The Church is a spiritual society. What does this Bill do? The ecclesiastical law, I submit, is that administered in the Courts Spiritual, consisting of such canons and constitutions as have been allowed by general consent and custom within the Realm as modified by Statute. Follow that out. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to make any of these canons or constitutions unlawful in the sense that they may not be applied to the Church of England in Wales. The whole effect of the Bill, when rightly considered, is that the jurisdiction of the Spiritual Courts in Wales, derived from the Sovereigns of England and Wales, is put an end to, and that the King's Ecclesiastical Law, as administered in those Courts, ceases to exist in law, but there
  2272
  is nothing whatever in the Bill after the date of Disestablishment to prevent the representative Synod which is to be convened under Clause 13 from meeting and reaffirming all the canons, constitutions, and if need be the Statutes which together form the Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. The only change is that what has hitherto been the positive law of the land, binding upon every one of the King's subjects, becomes law, adopted on a contractual basis, by the members of the Disestablished Church in Wales, and I submit that it is not fair, therefore, to say that there is any dismemberment of the Church. Any member of the Church of England in Wales, after this Bill, will have the same rights in England as he had before. There is no separation of orders, and there is no separation of communion. The Seventh Article on Ecclesiastical Law in Lord Halsbury's "Compendium of the Laws of England," says:—
  "The civil power may, even when no division takes place in the territory subject to its jurisdiction, limit the recognition of the organisation of the Church to such portion of that territory as it thinks fit, and the Church organised in relation to such portion of the territory will retain its identity with that part of the Church which previously existed within that portion."
  I conceive that that is a true statement of what will be the law in regard to the Disestablished Church in Wales. In conclusion I wish to express, on behalf of all the Liberal Members from Wales, our gratitude to the Government for prosecuting this Bill, and to the Liberal party in general for their support. Especially I should like to thank the Home Secretary for his very able and admirable conduct of the measure throughout, and for the great consideration he has always shown to our representations in regard to the various matters connected with it. I listened, of course, with very great pleasure to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), a speech to which all Welshmen will respond with the utmost readiness. We feel very grateful to the Irish National party. We are not only grateful, but we feel proud. We are utterly unmoved by the sneers which are made in certain quarters, and I can only say that we feel that it is a singular and a providential occurrence that we, the Irish and the Welsh nations, who have suffered so long in common, should, in the Session of 1913, triumph. In appealing to the House to pass this Bill, I would remind it that we are the representatives of a very ancient people in this land, and that we have for many centuries progressed side by side with the English people, and that during all those centuries

  2273
  we have retained the consciousness of our national identity and also our common speech. We recognise, of course, that we have lost our independence as a political entity or nation for ever, but we cherish the recollection of our past days—the days in which, side by side with the English, we attained to no inconsiderable share of military glory. Of course, Norman baron and Cambrian chieftain have gone the way of all flesh, and after life's fitful fever we trust they sleep well. Their features are but faintly drawn on history's pictured page, but their names and the memory of their deeds are engraved in imperishable letters upon the hearts of all Welshmen. We dream no impossible dreams. We have learnt our lesson, for we have learnt that even as the individual must lose his life to claim it, so also may a nation upon occasion have to submit to the loss of the form of independence in order to gain the substance of freedom. All that we are asking by this Bill is full and ample liberty to develop in religious matters, according to the characteristic bent of our national genius, under the broad and equal sway of the Crown and Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not wish in any sense even to attempt to answer the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman, because I agree with much that he said, but there was one special point which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to answer. I have said often that one of the worst features of this Bill, unprecedented and entirely out of accord with all our notions of religious freedom or religious tolerance, is that it necessarily implies a principle of compulsory dismemberment of an existing religious community against the will of the members of that community. I do not wonder that the right hon. Gentleman desired, if possible, to get rid of a statement of that kind, because, if I am right, at no stage during our discussions on this Bill has any answer been given to what I have argued. If that statement is right, it is without precedent and nothing is to be said in its favour. Surely it is quite clear. I put it as a matter of fact, and also upon the technical ground. At the present time, as a matter of organisation, you have a Convocation which includes the bishops and the representatives of the clergy in Wales and the bishops and the representatives of the clergy in England. In fact, you have a Convocation which is called by the Archbishop of Canterbury the representative assembly of the whole
  2274
  clerical body of the United Kingdom. What does this Bill do? This Bill by the intrusion of Statute law outside the proper sphere of statutory action compulsorily excludes from that old religious body the body which is representative of the bishops and clergy of Wales. I want to put it to anyone whether you can imagine a more complete dismemberment in every way of a religious organisation than by compulsorily excluding the Welsh bishops and clergy from the ancient Convocation which has been their representative assembly for a long time past? Surely no special pleading of the right hon. Gentleman can possibly close his eyes to a clear statement of that kind.
  I deny myself that this House ought to interfere to dismember compulsorily any existing religious organisation, but that it docs so cannot be denied. And more than that, I think it is the greatest blot on this so-called Welsh Disestablishment Bill, for this reason: I can quite understand arguments for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church as a whole in Wales and in England. Of course, I do not agree with those arguments, but I cannot understand any argument applicable to the Welsh dioceses alone and not equally applicable to English dioceses, and surely it is a mean and petty thing to attempt to dismember and break up compulsorily a great religious organisation of this kind by deliberately attacking it in those dioceses where you think it is weak in numbers and poor as regards resources. May I answer the right hon. Gentleman's second point? What have we been discussing several times in this House? The claim under this Bill is that in the future the portion of the Church in Wales should be governed by Welsh opinion—Welsh bishops, Welsh clergy, and Welsh laymen only. That claim is the basis on which this Bill is founded. How can you imagine more complete dismemberment of a religious organisation if you put that forward? At the present moment you have one Church consisting of members partly in Wales and partly in England, and the government of that religious organisation is in the hands of a united body. Churchmen in England and Churchmen in Wales are quite united in opinion.
  What are we protesting against here? We are protesting against the dismemberment of the Church, and leaving the government of the segregated or separated portion in Wales, not under the Church as a whole, but only under that portion which

  2275
  hon. Members opposite associate with Welsh nationality. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), apart from special pleading and certain interpretations which appear to me to be very irrelevant—it appears from Lord Halsbury's book that if you break up the old Convocation in order that in the future the dismembered Church in Wales may be governed apart from the English portion—whether that is not compulsory dismemberment against the wishes of the religious community as it exists at present. I wish to say that that is a new precedent. Since the Toleration Act of 1688 there is no instance of the political life of this country through the House of Commons seeking to interfere with what I call the religious liberty which everyone ought to have as regards the organisation of the religious community to which he belongs. I say that the essence of this Bill is religious coercion of the worst kind, when you consider what is the effect on Churchmen in Wales who, at any rate, form a very large portion of the Welsh nationality and the Welsh community.
  Having answered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea District, may I now refer to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It appeared to me that in some respects, at any rate, he has quite misinterpreted what I call the trend of religious history in Wales. My reading of history is quite inconsistent with what was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the history of the Church in Wales is this: In the first place, monastic institutions were more developed in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and the result was that when you had the dissolution of the monasteries you left the Church in Wales poorer than the Church in any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not think anyone will dispute that proposition. At the same time, when you had the dissolution of the monasteries in Wales bringing the Church to a condition of extreme poverty, you had a Tudor Sovereign—that is a Welsh Sovereign—on the English Throne—I mean Henry VIII. The result was that not only under the Tudors but the Stuarts, there was no more loyal party in the United Kingdom than the Welsh. What was the result of that? It was that they were opposed to what I may call the Cromwellian party. When the Cromwellian party came into power what did you find? You found that owing to the
  2276
  fact that the Welsh party were opposed to them they wrought absolute ruin and destruction as regards the conditions of religion in Wales. After the Cromwellian period you find the Church in Wales practically in a condition of ruin as regards its churches, the homes of its clergy, and its resources. In other words, broadly, the history is this, that the Church in Wales has suffered through poverty. It suffered the same sort of deprivation as is going to be attempted under this Bill, with the result that it was unable to carry out its great religious duties because it had not sufficient resources and funds to do it.
  What has happened since then? I challenge anyone who knows the history of Wales to find any fault with my statement of the history since that date. It is that the Church in Wales has gradually recovered its position. I will not say that it has been gradually Re-endowed or that it has had money given to it with a lavish hand. It has only at the present day got level with the enormous religious liabilities and responsibilities thrown upon it, and so much is that the case, as has been pointed out more than once in the course of the Debates, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who deal with the common funds of the Church, are giving from English sources as much as £60,000 to Wales, because it is the poorest part of the English Church and requires more pecuniary assistance. More than that, a special obligation upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is that they are to provide for the religious necessities of our mining population. Everyone knows that that is a special obligation put upon them by Statute. They fulfil that duty to a very large extent in the Rhondda Valley. I cannot tell the exact amount involved. If my history is true, what can be worse than what you are doing now? The Church now partly from its own resources, partly from voluntary gifts, and partly from English resources, receives funds which, although insufficient for its religious needs and purposes, yet enables it to do a great and noble work in all parts of Wales. Are you going to impoverish the Church again and rob it of funds which are used for deeply religious purposes? I cannot understand how anyone who has read and appreciated the religious history of Wales can come to any other conclusion than that what Wales has suffered from is not a superabundance of Endowments, but the poverty of the Church, and if it had not been for that poverty you would not have the amount

  2277
  of Nonconformity you have in Wales at present. I am not attacking Nonconformity, but when you had the conditions of the Church in Wales reduced to what they were after the Cromwellian period, what could you expect? In another respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wholly inaccurate as regards history. The revival of Methodism in Wales took place contemporaneously with the revival in England. Wesley was the predominant force. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In my opinion, as regards Methodism, he was the predominant force.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES indicated dissent.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I disagree from my right hon. and learned Friend. I read history in another way. [Cheers.] I do not know whether that is supposed to be a sympathetic cheer or not. As I read history, the revival in Wales took place contemporaneously with what we call the Methodist revival in this country.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: No.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I differ from the hon. Member. It does not necessarily follow that Wesley did it. That is another matter. If you take the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to—I think two centuries or so ago—you would not have found any large body of Nonconformists in Wales at all. The Nonconformist body in Wales has grown up since that date. The right hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do. I say the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in what he said as regards the history of this movement either in this country or in Wales. What is the result of all the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said? I understood him to say that in the result religious feeling in Wales has been developed to an exceptional degree. I agree with him. I think that is the result of the findings of the Royal Commission which was appointed to go into the Welsh question. But what is the moral from that? That the Church and Nonconformists have worked well together. You may have antagonism in one sense, but they have worked well together in this way, that each has given a measure of inspiration to the other. It is not as though the Church here had had a coercive power by which it repressed Nonconformity in Wales. Religious feeling in Wales has spread
  2278
  under the joint action of the Church and Nonconformity during the last century, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to realise the advantages which they have got and not to use these advantages as a cause for attacking the Church. This attack upon the Church is coercive and reactionary in the highest degree. I am not going to discuss how many Churchmen there are in Wales, though I believe there are a great many more than right hon. Gentlemen state, but be they more or less, what I want to ask the advocates of religious freedom is: Why do you not allow Churchmen to carry out their own religious life, their national religious life, if you like, according to their own views and their own inspirations? We do not seek to interfere with Nonconformists in Wales Why should they seek to interfere with Churchmen in Wales? That is what they are doing. The Church has an organisation which all Churchmen love and for which they have a traditional affection. What right have you, in a spirit of coercive tyranny, to do what you are seeking to do in the teeth of what you know to be the opinion of the vast majority of Churchmen in Wales? I have never heard an answer to that question. Churchmen are not attacking Nonconformists. In the course of this Debate we have shown again and again that we have no jealousy of them. We wish them Godspeed in their work in every direction.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: We say the same to you.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Then why not leave us alone? We have our organisation. It may be different from yours, but it is the organisation which we believe can give the best expression of perfect religious feeling among the Welsh people who desire to remain members of the Church. What possible argument have you for coercion against the will and religious convictions that Churchmen who at present are doing great work as regards religious feeling and religious developments in Wales? There can be no answer. If, of course, you could allege that we were in some way in default, if you could indict us because we were not using our funds properly, or were seeking to interfere with Nonconformist developments I could understand it, but no allegation of that kind is made. The right hon. Gentleman put it as a matter of theory as regards Disestablishment and Disendowment, but what does that mean? What does it matter to

  2279
  us that his theory differs from ours? It is our theory that ought to be adopted as regards our Church and religious development and liberties. I agree, on the other hand, that it is his theory that ought to be adopted as regards the development of Nonconformity with which he is associated. Leave us the freedom that we do not seek to interfere with in your case. That is the answer we make as regards your attack on the Church in Wales. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed very strongly to national feeling. I do not want in any way to say anything that can affront the national feeling of the Welsh party or people, but among that national party you have Churchmen; why are yon to affront the feelings of national Churchmen?
  The Churchman is as much a part of the nationality of Wales as Nonconformists. Leave the Churchman alone if you want nationality to have full play. If the nationality of Welshmen is to be recognised and considered you must pay at tention to that nationality in all its developments. In attacking Churchmen and breaking up their organisation you are really acting in the teeth of the very nationality to which you are appealing to support this Bill. We know we are dealing here with one Church of which the members are partly in Wales and partly in England. We have had this question raised, whether you are to have matters of this kind settled by the nationality interested or by the common opinion of the United Kingdom. I agree that those points of view are very arguable. But what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says and what is being put forward in support of this Bill is that you are to have this question decided on the nationality principle. There are two nationalities involved here. The nationality of England is as much involved in the maintenance of the old Church as the nationality of Wales. We have just the same feeling for our Welsh brethren as for ourselves. We are going to stand as staunchly with our Welsh brethren as if the Church in the English dioceses were being attacked; and if you take the test of the two nationalities, whether you take the test of public opinion or the test of Membership of this House, this Bill stands condemned. There is a large majority of the two nationalities against this compulsory interference with the Church in which we are equally interested, which is
  2280
  one Church, and of which we are common members.
  The next point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with was the question of Endowments. If there was one thing proved in the course of this Debate, it is that we have disposed of the false historical archæological inaccuracies which were promulgated among the Welsh people and elsewhere as regards the origin of the Endowments of the Welsh Church. In substance these Endowments come from two sources. They come either from tithe rent-charge or through glebe. I was more than astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say, that although challenges had been made as regards the original documents dealing with the original dedication of tithe rent-charge, none such had been forthcoming. He has been a Rip van Winkle since this case has been going on. He has slept his time away instead of keeping up to date with the documentary developments which are open to everyone at the present moment. There are any number of documents to be found from Welsh sources dealing with this question of the origin of tithe rent-charge, and in all of them you find the same incidents, namely, the dedication of these funds to what we call devotional purposes; that is; in order to ensure that by a resident Christian ministry you may bring Christian ministrations within the reach of all parishioners. That is the greatest of all devotional purposes. We have heard about teaching religion and the use of the Sacraments. You cannot get any of those unless you have resident ministers to bring the truths home to various people, such, as we will say, those in the mountain parishes or in the slum parishes. I am perfectly certain, so far as a matter of this kind is really relevant, that every research—and a great deal of research has been going on even during the course of this Bill—confirms the views which Churchmen have put forward, in the first instance, that the funds were given to provide Christian ministrations, and given for that purpose only.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone back to the old doctrine of the quadripartite or tripartite division, but that never applied—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is going to speak by-and-by will give us an answer to this —to the parochial tithe at all. He can find no instance in this country. It is true that there is a controversy, though I think the notion is wrong, as to whether it

  2281
  applied to what was known as the general tithe before the parochial tithe. That is an historical matter which I am not going into, but what I challenge him to do is to give us an instance where after it became parochial any notion was ever entertained as regards its quadripartite or tripartite division. We have asked that several times. I know there can be no answer, because no illustration can be found, but in those circumstances I do repudiate bringing up again and again what must be looked on as nothing more than a matter of prejudice, because we have shown over and over again that as regards parochial tithes it is impossible that any such document has ever been held. With regard to glebe, the other source of these Endowments, it is established beyond all doubt, that glebe was given in order that the Church might be consecrated. It was the old doctrine that you could not consecrate a church unless sufficient glebe was attached to it. What possible basis is that for suggesting that either glebe or tithe rent-charge had any other origin than that they were dedicated for purely devotional purposes hundreds of years ago, and used for those purposes ever since?
  For my part I think the user of 300 years is sufficient, and this historical disquisition has been introduced in order to obscure what is in itself sufficiently clear, because if you have funds dedicated on trusts for religious purposes, if they have been properly used and are needed for those purposes, then it is nothing but plunder and robbery to take them away in order that they may be alienated to secular purposes, and it is because that principle cannot be controverted, the principle which is applicable to the very foundation of proprietary trust funds, that we have this notion of deviating from that principle and introducing the complicated historical developments of the past. As regards what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said of the Reformation period, I am not going into any vexed question whatever. I am not going to attempt to decide whether he or the Prime Minister is right—I put my faith on the Prime Minister—as regards what happened in the. Reformation period. But what does it matter? Suppose we have held these trust funds for these religious purposes for the last 300 years; suppose during all that time you held that under an Established title; suppose at the present moment we are using that properly, and that is urgently needed for the
  2282
  religious uses of our Church, how can it be said on any principle, either of equity, law, or justice, that a fund of that kind ought to be taken out of the hands of the present trustees in order to be alienated and diverted to purely secular purposes? I think it is a pity in a case of this kind to make a simple position obscure by too much archaeological and historical disquisition. In no other case do you go into a matter of that kind.
  For instance, I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we did not call attention to the money of the monasteries that has gone into lay hands. He is quite wrong. I know his other duties took him away, and that he has not had time to listen to these Debates. We have said again and again that if you are to have this confiscation you ought to begin gin with the lay impropriator; the clerical impropriator has undoubtedly great religious duties attached to the income from Endowments he is enjoying at the present time. I do not want to open a point of this kind now, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have informed himself before speaking as to what had been going on in Committee; and, if he had, I think he would have found that the most zealous Churchman here pointed out that, even if his doctrine was right—of course, we deny it—he ought not to attack the clergy, who are carrying out great duties in connection with these Endowments, but he ought to have attacked, in the first instance, the lay impropriator— whose title I am not attacking; I am taking their view—on the ground that his duties are not being carried out. I think there is only one other point on which I wish to join issue with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. I understood him to say—I have not the exact words, simply the purport—that in his view Disendowment and Disestablishment went together, and, in a sense, that Disestablishment implied Disendowment. Is it in any sense true that Disestablishment and Disendowment are so mixed together that if you have Disestablishment it implies Disendowment? I deny that altogether. Not only do I deny that altogether, but it is inconsistent with the first principle of Establishment, as I understand it. If anyone wants to appreciate the views which I hold upon this subject I wish he would read one of the most eloquent speeches ever made in either House of Parliament, that of the Bishop of Peterborough, on the occasion of the

  2283
  Disestablishment of the Irish Church. There they will find that he said:—
  "If I thought Establishment was based on privilege I would be the first to denounce it. It is nothing of the kind. I think the State ought to be associated with religion, and, if you once grant that, it is a necessary consequence that you must choose some religious body with which to be connected, and you have the same right as between State and that religious body as you have in any business concern where people find it to their interest to bargain one with the other."
  So far from Establishment being in the nature of a privilege, my view as a Churchman is that it is in the nature of a burden. I do not mind undertaking that burden; I think we ought to do so; I like the Church to undertake a burden for the good of the State and of the citizen. That she ought to do. But what has that to do with Disendowment? I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suppose he was satisfied that the funds belonging to the Church were held by her under a title which no one could question, would he under the circumstances say, "Because I wish to Disestablish the Church I am entitled to rob and plunder her of her funds, being used for religious purposes at the present time"? I do not want the two issues to be confused. At one time we are told that Endowments are taken because of Disestablishment, and at another time because they are held under an uncertain title. Disestablishment in that sense has nothing to do with Disendowment at all, and as long as we are using our funds in the way we have used them in the past, for the good of religion and for the good of Churchmen in Wales, we are entitled, whether Established or not, to have the benefit of those funds in the same sense as any other Nonconformist community has in regard to the funds at its disposal as a religious community. I may state once more that in my view Disestablishment is far more important than Disendowment. I think, of the two principles, Establishment is far more important as regards our religious future and religious life than Endowment. But I do say, if we are to Disestablish the Church in Wales, that it is no argument whatever for Disendowment, unless you can show either that we have no title to our funds or that we are not using them properly. One other matter was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was the use of the funds after Disendowment. As I understood him, he said, "the use we are going to put the funds to after Disendowment is in accordance with the use to
  2284
  which they might have been put under their trusts." I will not go back on the origin of tithe and of glebes, but we deny that wholly. We put forward our view that these were funds originally given in what we call the devotional spirit, in order to encourage Christianity and a Christian life. That is our view, and we say that is a much greater object and a much greater duty than all those social matters to which those funds would be alienated under the terms of the Bill. We feel as keenly as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last on this question of religious life and religious development. We are as anxious as he is that this development shall go on in Wales as fully as in all the other parts of the United Kingdom; but we believe that what he is supporting is not likely to develop that religious life in the future; we believe that he is not acting in the spirit of freedom, but in the spirit of reactionary religious coercion, and we believe that this measure will bring, not reunion and co-operation between Christians, but antagonism and differences. On these grounds, at every stage and every step, we intend to give a determined opposition to this Bill.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member in traversing the whole of the Bill, as he has recently done. I want to say a word as to one or two of his last remarks. He said that there is no reason for Disendowing because of Disestablishment, but surely funds that have been left to the Established Church have been left on conditions quite of a different kind from the funds that are left to a Free Church. The nation has the determination of the course of the Established Church. The nation has power to restrain her and can prevent her from going forward or backward. The Church cannot change her ritual or her doctrine unless she has the consent of Parliament; and, therefore, clearly on that ground there would be a very great distinction between money which is left to the Church under the control of Parliament and money proposed to be used under regulations and trusts allowing her far greater freedom. We have never said that particular funds have been earmarked; we have said that the Church 200 years ago, or 150 or 100 years ago, if you like, having the assistance of that ministry, performed duties both to the poor and to education. It must have been in the minds of those who left money to the Church that those parochial

  2285
  funds would be applied to more than the maintenance of worship and the preaching of doctrine. But I wish to call the attention of the House, if I may, and particularly the opponents of this Bill, to certain advantages in Disestablishment that they appear to have overlooked, or perhaps they have never experienced, and are, therefore, about to make that experience—advantages which are so great that, sooner than come tinder the control of the State in any sense by accepting State funds, the Nonconformists of Wales, who are poor, have declined the offer, and a generous offer, on the part of Churchmen in Wales to divide the funds which the Church is relinquishing under this Bill, because they know the danger of accepting State funds to the freedom and independence which they value.
  What is the secret of the difference between the two Churches—one group of Churches and the Church in Wales to-day? Why is the one complaining of the loss of funds, and doubting and fearing the possibility of replacing them? Why, on the other hand, have the Free Churches declined any subvention? Why is it that they have no sort of difficulty in raising thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of pounds in a short time to make good any deficiency? There must be some reason. All people are the same; they are not illiberal. There must be on one side confidence and enthusiasm, and, on the other, a sense of responsibility to the Church of their fathers, and the Church which still holds their love and respect. That same feeling will be shown by the supporters of the Church of England the moment the reason for it calls upon them to make the sacrifice. But Nonconformists are interested, quite apart from the fact of satisfying the national claim of Wales, in seeing the work of a free episcopal Church. We believe it will be found that the experiment will prove so successful and so encouraging that when it is necessary to take another step, and when the Church of England herself claims her liberty, when we have the increasing power of that Church demanding freedom with an emphasis inconsistent with submitting any change of opinion or development of feeling to Parliament—when the demand of the Church is so great that it cannot be denied, then the instance of the Welsh Church will be cited in favour of her Disestablishment. That is an ideal which is really inconsistent with the realisation of privilege. It
  2286
  is no part of the Church to evangelise the State, so to speak to shepherd every one in the State, and claim each one as a member of the Church. They know that such a membership in many cases means only lip-service; there is no reality in it; and the Church itself is weakened at the present moment, may I say with a great deal of respect, because she is unable to concentrate her spiritual membership upon the work which she desires to undertake for the nation. She has to listen, to the claims of adherents who are only adherents in name; she has to allow their membership and their claims upon her services. If she desires a bishopric to be established, or some small change in her economy, she must come to this House. I say it with all respect that this House is no longer a Christian House. Here is a body of non-Christians who are as rightly here, and as worthy of our consideration, as any others who hold the doctrine of Christ. It is a matter of inconvenience and of pain to some of us to hear, as I have heard in former years, questions of doctrine and of the functions and mission of members of the Church of England treated as a football and kicked across this House from one side to the other in the presence of those who were non-Christians, and of those who might belong to other forms of the faith, or of those who have no sort of faith at all. It is not the place for such discussion, yet the Established Church can neither move hand nor foot unless she comes here for relief.
  Therefore her ideal is an impossible one to-day. There was a time when perhaps she might have Christianised the State completely. Even if the proportion of those who care for its work and who attend its services were very much larger, and even if they exceeded the two-fifths of the population mentioned to-day, still the differences amongst them of expressing their common views in forms and methods and ceremonials is so great, and those differences reach so far down, that it is impossible to represent the Church in the State in a way that would command the assent of all. It is becoming more and more unjust, particularly in the case of Wales, to select one denomination for representation. There is a State religion, and a very powerful State religion, which has its marytrs and confessors, and that is patriotism. It is that instinct in men that makes them die for the State and die for their flag, because in its folds have been caught and held the history of a

  2287
  proud race. That is the religion of the State, a religion that we have seen in Japan, and that we are now seeing on the plains of Macedonia. The Jews and the Romans of old had it. Its standards of morality are not the same as those of the Christian faith, yet it belongs to the development of society and the evolution of the world, and we must accept it and we have to construe it with the religions that stand side by side. Hence, a religion established by law can only be so in name.
  What is the Church to gain by the liberty she will have conferred upon her through this Bill? She will be more free than many of the so-called churches of Nonconformists, because she is beginning from the beginning; she has a clean sheet of paper on which to write her creeds, desires, rules and wishes; and in the spirit of the ago she will probably take care not to tie herself up too tightly. Many a Nonconformist Church is still tied in the name of ancient creeds of two or three hundred years ago creeds that are outworn, and that are not taught and not observed, but that no one cares to operate against the congregation. But the new Church of Wales will be able to make her own rules and establish her own organisation, and that is of infinite importance at present, in the conditions of flux and change in religious thought and scientific thought, when there are points on which religion and science may learn to agree, and when, as some of us believe, confirmation of religion is coming from the side of science. You may have a Church which is bound by historical creeds, and a condition of things that has passed away, like sea beaches on which the storm had broken years ago, and which are now far inland, and which no one cares about save as historical things. To those things the Church of England is to some extent historically bound. The new Church in Wales will be able, at any rate, to treat them with respect and preserve tradition, but with more room for life. We are told that the Light, the Divine Shining, will depart from Wales because the Church is Disestablished. It is not that the Light does not shine, but that the Church stands still. The Divine Light would never forsake a Church on the march, faithful to God and to humanity; the Light would march in front of her, a cloud by day and a flame by night. We may depend upon it, with organisation, the Church will respond successfully to the great movements of the
  2288
  day; and the spirit of the age, if you like to call it so, or as I would call it the spirit that blows where it listeth, and that the Church will be a real live Church not resting in the centuries ago.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, deals with the general question of Establishment as to which I shall have to say a word presently, in relation to the very striking speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want, first of all, to say a word about what fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). The hon. Member for East Mayo was anxious to maintain that the essentially valuable support of the Nationalist party during these Debates, or on the Divisions that followed, on this Bill, was given from, as I understood him, a single-minded approbation of the principles of Disestablishment, and that it was zeal to sever the tie between Church and State, and to Disendow a religious body that induced those telegraphic Whips and induced hon. Members from Ireland to attend with extra ordinary regularity during discussion in which they do not appear to be very much interested. The hon. Member drew a touching picture of Ireland coming to the rescue of Wales against the tyrannical in fluence of England. I cannot help but feeling that the English electorate, when they come to study the subject, will take a rather different view of that picture. The prime mistake King James made was the bringing over of Irish troops to suppress the English people. If the hon. Member for East Mayo will read that most delightful narrative, Lord Macaulay's History, he will learn—
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member for South Donegal, not only thinks he knows history, but will not allow that anyone else knows it. He has made a corner in historical facts which enables him to resist all arguments, and enables his colleagues under his aegis to issue a good deal of what we would call fiction. If the hon. Member will read Lord Macaulay's History, he will learn that the Bishop of Manchester made his parallel, which has not in the least the meaning he attributes to it, between the attitude of Nonconformists in the time of James II., and the attitude of Nonconformists now. He will also see how very imprudent it is for other parts of the United Kingdom to league

  2289
  themselves together and try and force upon England a measure affecting the religious convictions of England, which is profoundly distasteful. I can quite appreciate the hon. Member as a democrat and a nationalist, but I cannot accept him as a typical Roman Catholic. I know very well that the principle of Disendowment has been disavowed by Roman Catholic authorities much greater than the hon. Member, like Cardinal Newman and Cardinal Manning, and I am confident that the great mass of English Roman Catholics at the present time, and I believe Welsh Roman Catholics are opposed to and dislike the present measure for the Disendowment of the Church in Wales. The truth is that Roman Catholicism is able to look on this matter from a wider aspect. They see and know how much harm has been done to Christianity all over Europe by attacks upon Establishment and Endowment. They are therefore not deceived by plausible appeals; they see the reality of the thing, and they reject it for what they know it to be as a blow to Christian religion.
  On this general question of Establishment let me say I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's views, in his very interesting, vivacious, historical survey, have nothing whatever to do with Establishment. I do not assent altogether to his historical survey, but it is quite true, of course, that the Church of England in Wales did sink into a state of great apathy and inefficiency towards the latter part of the seventeenth century, and that that apathy and inefficiency continued until the Methodist movement awoke the religious life of Wales, and that same Methodist movement in turn strengthened other Nonconformist bodies, which up to that time were not very strong. So that we have a situation which we are familiar with, and which was even more marked in the earlier part of the nineteenth century, but that really had no bearing on Establishment. It was not Establishment that made the Church in Wales indifferent or apathetic or inefficient. It was the circumstances of the time. That was a period in which there was great religious depression, not only in England, but all over Europe. You had just the same thing in France and in Italy, and you find at that time a great decay of religious life going on all over. The Methodist movement happened to strike into Wales with tremendous effect. No doubt want of judgment and charity
  2290
  of dealing with the Methodist movement prevented its being what it began by being, a movement within the Church, and allowed it to go forth and to become a movement quite hostile to the Church though in it at first. All that has no bearing on whether we ought now to Disestablish the Church. Let us look at what Establishment really is. It is not really essentially either a system of bondage, or a system of privilege. It is quite true there have been particular Establishments-that have been both. We should be perfectly prepared to deal with Establishment in England or in Wales with a view to removing every scrap of privilege, and we are still more willing and anxious to remove anything like deadening control which this House exercises.
  I quite agree with what the hon. Member said just now, that it is desirable that the Church should have more freedom than the Church to-day has. I certainly think she ought to have as much freedom as the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has considerable freedom in spiritual affairs. She has absolute freedom to do anything except alter the fundamental formularies of her faith. That cannot be done without the consent of Parliament, but the whole of the internal administration, which in regard to the Church of England is largely controlled by the State, is quite free in the case of Scotland. I should thoroughly sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member in their resentment against the system of Establishment in Wales if Establishment meant anything distressing or obnoxious to Nonconformists. If it were a system by which it was sought to impose the Church of England upon those who did not agree with her teaching, I should strongly agree that such a system was tyrannical. It would be especially tyrannical in a case where the majority of the population did not agree with the Church, although it would be tyrannical if it were imposed upon even a small minority. But the Establishment is nothing of the kind. It is really an act of national recognition. Take away from the Establishment everything except the Coronation of the Sovereign, and you still will have the reality. Will anyone really say that the Coronation of the Sovereign according to the rites of the Church of England injures or wounds any Nonconformist in the country? I do not believe that any Nonconformists resent that the Sovereign should be anointed or crowned

  2291
  by a solemn religious rite. It is consonant with their own religious ideas. It consecrates the nation in their view. That is all we contend for.
  That brings me to a point which is constantly overlooked. Hon. Members speak of the Welsh nation. They say that the Welsh nation ought to settle these matters. But the Welsh nation, as such, is not a party to the Establishment. I am a little sceptical about the Welsh nation, but I am quite willing to accept it for the purposes of argument. The Welsh nation is not the body which establishes the Church. The body which establishes the Church is the State—the State of the United Kingdom. The Welsh nation, as a nation, gives no special privilege, not even any special recognition, to the Church in Wales. I do not know what would properly be said to be the organ of the Welsh nation. However that difficult question might be answered, it remains certainly true that Establishment is a relation between the Church and the State, and as there is not a Welsh State, the whole theory breaks down ab initio. There is nothing in the argument from the beginning that Disestablishment must follow in Wales because the majority of the Welsh people are opposed to it. On what ground is the argument as to the objection of the Welsh people based? It is based on elections. We get back to the Parliamentary doctrine of the mandate. I have never believed in mandates. I do not say that you cannot find in history any cases where you may say there was such a thing as an electoral mandate; but in the vast majority of cases it is all nonsense, for the obvious reason that the party system elaborately corrupts and perverts the nature of the mandate. As we have pointed out in a recent controversy of a very different kind, all the voter does is to choose between two candidates. He votes either one way or the other. Therefore all that you really prove by saying that Welsh people have for thirty or forty years voted in favour of Welsh Disestablishment is that Welsh Liberalism has been in favour of Welsh Disestablishment, and that the electors of Wales prefer Welsh Liberalism to Welsh Conservatism. Therefore all that you are really certain of is that Disestablishment is the view of a majority of the majority, not of the majority as a whole.
  2292
  It would be easy to give instances which no one could dispute. Suppose there was a constituency in which three-fifths of the electors were Liberal and two-fifths Conservative. Supposing that of those three-fifths, three-fifths were in favour of Disestablishment and were also the most active and most influential wire-pullers in the Division. Of course the Liberal party would adopt the Disestablishment view, and when they ran a candidate they would return him. But that does not constitute a mandate from the Welsh people. I am told, for example, that only 51 per cent, of the electors who voted in the constituencies that were contested at the last election voted in favour of the Liberal candidates. That is a little more than a bare majority of the whole electorate. How can you call that a mandate from the whole Welsh people? Clearly one must keep within reason in these things. There is a balance of opinion, and the balance of opinion as expressed by the electoral machinery has declared for Disestablishment. A majority of the majority are of that way of thinking. What the people as a whole think we cannot say. We never shall be able to tell unless you have a Referendum, and that is constantly refused. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your party object to the Referendum."] No, we do not on this question. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say that the Welsh people much prefers some religious denomination other than the Church of England, I should be in favour then of changing the character of the Establishment, but not of abolishing it. I think it is for the State to decide whether there shall be an Establishment or not; but supposing there is to be an Establishment, I think the Establishment should conform to the wishes of the preponderating majority of the people in the part of the Kingdom concerned. That is the principle upon which we go in Scotland; that is the principle upon which we go in England; and I should have no objection to applying the same principle in Wales. But to abandon the Establishment altogether is to say that the whole State, not Wales only, is to recede from the position of recognising the truth of religion, and that I think is an injury to the religious life of the whole community.
  I pass next to Disendowment. The argument with regard to Disendowment has been so fully dealt with by my hon. Friend that I shall deal with it comparatively briefly. It is notable that there seems to be a comparative modification in

  2293
  the case put before us at this stage of the Bill as contrasted with what we used to hear from time to time. We have heard much less about national property in this discussion. Apparently the case rests now en the original donor. We have got back to him. Of the many different theories, the theory now adopted is that the original donor gave for the sake of the community, and that he gave in a threefold spirit—partly for the State, partly for the poor, and partly for the Church. That is the first argument. There is no ground whatever for saying that that tripartite arrangement applied to parochial tithes. You are gleaning after Henry VIII., and that is a very difficult thing to do. It is quite true, as the right hon. Member (Sir J. Compton-Rickett) said, that at the beginning of Christianity there was a great disposition always to endow religious foundations for the purposes of education and for helping the sick and the poor. Those distinctively religious bodies were no doubt endowed with what we should call Christian Endowments. But that stream of benevolence went to the monasteries. They, in the main, undertook that work in England and Wales. I do not say that there are no exceptions, but on the whole that was monastic work. Those Endowments were confiscated by the State under Henry VIII. I cannot accept Henry VIII. as an eligible precedent. To take him as a precedent for confiscation would be like taking Nero as a precedent for cruelty, or Judas Iscariot as a precedent for treachery. You cannot base any argument upon what he did. He undoubtedly did away with educational Endowments which were of a distinctively religious character. Some of them he gave back in other forms, but the greater quantity he disposed of for the various purposes he had in view.
  What was left in the parishes—the parochial tithe—was what had always been intended for the services of the Church. I should have thought that no one who had given the matter a moment's reflection could doubt that when you have Endowments which are, as a matter of fact, only barely sufficient, and in a number of cases are insufficient, for the purpose of keeping up religious services, to say that those Endowments were intended partly for other purposes, which no one suggests are anything but subordinate and secondary, was contradictory on the face of it. It is manifest that where Endowments are only just sufficient the pious donor must have
  2294
  intended that the cost of the primary purpose of the religious services of the Church should be defrayed, and that if he ever contemplated that parochial tithe should be used at all for other purposes, it would only be when there were any surplus funds which could be disposed of for any other good object. There was no tripartite division. Where there was a tripartite division it had reference really to the monastic Endowments. If there had been a tripartite division, the first charge on the tithes would still always have been the religious services to be done by the Church. But none of that justification can possibly be made to apply to the glebes, which, in fact, are being withheld from the Church to which they belong. The whole argument breaks down.
  Another argument is that the religious character of the Church was so changed at the Reformation that she forfeited her title to her property. I think that that argument put forward in a contention between Church and State is really almost a shameful one. What is the history of the Reformation? This is a controversy between the Church and the State. The State is gaining, the Church is losing. If I may personify the parties, the State says to the Church of England, "Three hundred years ago you changed your religious teaching; therefore I am entitled now to take your funds from you" The answer of the Church is, "If I changed my religious teaching, and in so far as I did so, I did it with your consent, and, indeed, at your suggestion." [An HON. MEMBER: "Pressure."] Pressure, if you like. That makes it all the stronger. The Church carried through the Reformation in conjunction with the State. To every part of the Reformation the State was a consenting party, and something more than a consenting party. What right, then, has the State to turn round to the Church now and say, "Because you did what I told you to do 300 years ago you have forfeited your title to your property, and it belongs to me." That is most absurd. The truth is that, according to the view of the time, and as I think according to reason, the character of the Reformation was merely the removal of certain corruptions which had grown up. It was not thought at the time, and was not intended to be a destruction of the life of the Church and the settlement of a new Church. If it had been so, all that you would have been able to say is that the State presented to the new Church as a

  2295
  free gift the Endowments of the old. What a good title that would be. It was freely given by the State. What better title do you want? Do you not recognise it as a good title when you come to the gifts made by the State to the Church in the course of the nineteenth century? Whoever dreamt of overthrowing, in any other connection whatever, an unbroken title of 300 years? Whoever maintained, for any other purpose, that a property which has been held for 300 years without dispute really belonged to the nation and not to the body which had enjoyed it during that period? You could not have a more inequitable way of dealing with the matter.
  8.0 P.M.
  Finally, is the money not being well used? The only ground you normally have for interfering with Endowments is that they are not being well used. Henry VIIL, who is your great exemplar, acted more oppressively but far more regularly in form. He made a separate inquiry into every monastery. No doubt the inquiry was a disreputable one, yet there was an inquiry. If you followed Henry VIII.'s example you would send down a Commission to inquire into the cases of the Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of St. Asaph. Having convicted them, you would say that the claims of the diocese were forfeited. You would probably so frighten them that they would be induced to surrender them, and afterwards you would get an Act of Parliament to confirm what you had done. That is what Henry VIII. would have done. It is significant that all his actions, while being greatly oppressive, were clothed in the form of law and reason. That showed that even so arbitrary a man as he, recognised that you could not take away property on a great scale unless you could prove some defect in the trustee of that property, and some failure in the trust. Nothing of the kind is alleged here. The Church is doing a good work, and going on with it. We come to the last point. I urged last night, and I again urge that over a great part of Wales and Monmouthshire what you are doing will seriously injure and hinder the good cause of religion. To that the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied this afternoon that abundant provision is made by the Nonconformists in the North, and that in the South very little money will be lost. No doubt it is true that in rural Wales the Nonconformist bodies have provided a
  2296
  great amount, indeed, an excessive amount of accommodation for the religious needs of the districts. What the explanation of that excessive accommodation is I do not know, but no doubt there is a very considerable accommodation. Nevertheless in the best provided rural districts it cannot do anything but mischief to take away all the funds—as you will in some cases; and a very large part of the funds —as you will in other cases, from one of the denominations of the country.
  It is all very well to say that money can be raised in other ways. No doubt it can; but all the religious bodies in Wales are always raising money. The Nonconformist bodies are often driven to go deeply into debt in their endeavour to raise money. How then can it be argued that money is of no importance, and that the loss of money will inflict no injury? If that be true in the rural parts of Wales, how vastly more will it be true in the industrial districts of Monmouthshire and Glamorgan The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that we did not always understand the character of Wales. He himself falls into a very serious mistake about the character of Wales. He seems to forget that more than half the population of Wales—considerably more than half the population—is in the two counties of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which are enormously and disproportionately the most important counties in Wales. If you add to the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth the industrial parts of Carmarthenshire, North Wales, and Denbigh, you get an industrial population which, counting heads, is immensely the most important part of Wales. What is going to happen? What is happening to them now? The evidence was abundant before the Commission that we want more money. It was stated that the Nonconformists were also in need of money, that similar efforts to raise money were being made by the Churches, that the battle was a hard one, and it was difficult to get enough. How can you reasonably expect the Church to find it easier to raise more money when you are taking all you can now? You have now in Wales the pressure and the stimulus, the strain, the difficulty, and the struggling against great difficulties.
  The bon. Member for Perth, speaking last night from the opposite benches, spoke of the stimulating effect of Disendowment. It is like people who say that flogging is good for the circulation. That is no consolation to the person who suffers. It

  2297
  really is a fact that all forms of cruelty and oppression produce a reaction. Persecution always produces such a reaction. Undoubtedly it will be the case if you treat the Church harshly, that you will "liven up" Churchmen as the clown used to liven up the pantaloon with the red-hot poker. You will stimulate them to exertion, but you will also bring about a great access of Church feeling. Let it be observed that though this stimulus and zeal has a good side, that it often has a bad side. It produces an uncharitable spirit. It produces the result that people feel that they have been hardly treated; therefore they are disposed to retaliate whenever they get the chance. Nothing is more striking in the history of the early centuries that followed the persecutions, than that after all the heroic endurance of Churchmen, how low they sunk in point of charity, reason, calmness and surrender. It is melancholy with what vehemence they conducted all their disputes. Yet it is very natural that those who have to suffer acute pain, and go in danger of their lives, should be precisely the people who are the least reasonable when it comes to exercising charity and reason. In a minor degree probably Disestablishment leads that way. But if you inflict what people believe to be unjust you provoke a spirit of bitterness and animosity, along with the growth of zeal and energy, and you have a much less simple spirit and a much less worthy spirit in it all.
  I have said enough. We shall presently conic to the vote. As the phrase goes, "The House will divide." It will divide; we shall take different paths as well as different lobbies; paths differing not in wisdom and statesmanship only, but, as I presume to think, in moral rectitude itself. You will choose to hinder religion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] We shall choose to leave the religious life of what is, after all, against religious denomination in conformity with what it is to-day. You will choose to sow bitterness among the people of Wales; we shall choose to maintain the state of things which was, I think, really tending to a better feeling in the relations of Church and Nonconformists. You will choose to repudiate forms of Christianity so far as the formal recognition of the State goes in respect of Wales. Doubtless greater evils might happen. I do not at all want to suggest, of course, that the great Nonconformist bodies do not do much to propagate and teach the Gospel, so enabling the people
  2298
  at large to maintain the spiritual life. Their work is excellent. Still, so far as this Bill goes, it is stepping down hill. You will choose these things. What have you to console yourself with, that you are a majority? A majority raked in from Scotland, and Ireland, and all ends of the earth.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is an Imperial matter.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes, certainly, it is an Imperial matter, and the State itself is most deeply interested in the matter. The speech that the hon. Member opposite has made does not show that he realises how profoundly and keenly interested the English people and the English representatives here are in this matter. It is our Church that you are hindering. It is the spiritual body to which we belong that is in danger, and whose good work you are hampered. We claim to be concerned and interested in this great matter as much as anybody else in this House. However, you are in the majority—that is your consolation. We are a minority. You will have the victory, the wrong, and the shame. We shall have the defeat, the right, and the honour!
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: It is with some diffidence as a Scottish Member that I rise to intervene briefly in this Debate. I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord into the arguments he has brought forward, but the most important point to my mind to which he has directed the attention of the House is in his closing references. According to his view, the question which the House will have to vote upon this evening is one which ought to be decided by the votes of those who have the chief interest in it—in other words, they should have the prevailing voice in the settlement of it. I am quite sure that that is an argument which will appeal to all hon. Members who realise that, so far as the views of Wales are concerned, they have been stated with no uncertain sound. I desire to voice in this Debate the strong feeling of sympathy which exists in Scotland with the people of Wales in the opportunity which is now being afforded to them by means of this Bill to secure redress of a long-standing national grievance. I venture to say that the situation in Scotland has been very much misrepresented by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred in one of his

  2299
  speeches to the fact—according to his view—that the feeling in Scotland was
  "that the Bill was being pushed forward from a mean motive against the best interests of religion."
  I venture to protest emphatically against that statement. It is a libel upon the Scottish nation, because there is no nation more tenacious of the principle of religious equality, and there is no nation more sensitive to any form of injustice. I believe that to-day the Scottish nation realises that in this matter the Government is seeking to do justice, and long-delayed justice, to the people of Wales. I cannot see how the word "mean" can be applied in any sense to action which is intended and which will have the result of applying national funds to national purposes, and of preventing the Church—in a degree alien to the people of Wales—from assuming and maintaining a position of privilege to which she has no claim whatever. It is desirable, I agree, that everything should be done to avoid unnecessary friction in carrying out these proposals. I do feel that the Government have carried their policy of concession and compromise to the furthest possible limits. I think the Bill was generous as introduced—far more generous than the Bills of 1895 and 1909. As it is going to pass through this House to-night it will be in a much greater degree generous. On the score of lack of generosity there can be no argument adduced against the proposals which will be submitted for Third Beading. I confess that while I admit that there have been a number of hon. Members who have pressed the Government to make concessions, many of them with the highest possible motives— all of them, indeed, with the highest possible motives—some of them speaking with a special title to express the views of the Church which I do not possess—and I do not suggest that the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, who, we all agree, has stated his views in the clearest possible way, and with a deep sense of conviction, does not possess that title—I should not like it to go forth that the views thus expressed were the views of the people of Scotland.
  I should like to dissociate myself from the policy of certain Liberal Churchmen and Nonconformists sitting on these benches who have sought to be generous at the expense of other people. I believe that you have got to be just before you are generous. The Bill which was intro-
  2300
  duced by the Government was founded upon principles of justice, and has proceeded upon principles of justice, and the Government would have been entitled to retain the Bill in the shape in which it was originally introduced. I also feel very strongly that this is entirely a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Welsh Members themselves. I should never seek to put any pressure upon them in a matter in which they are responsible to their own constituents and where they have for so many years laboured with great exertions in order to-secure the success of this cause. What is the position in Scotland? I do not propose to go into any matters which would be out of order at this stage, but I would say this: In Scotland there has been a feeling that there is every reason to give the Government strong support in the policy which the Government has adopted. I should like to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Perth in pleading for generous treatment, referred to the fact that he had been in correspondence with the leaders of Disestablishment in Scotland, and that according to their view the Church in Wales should be treated with generosity in regard to this measure. Now I happen to know there were some vigorous disclaimers issued almost immediately afterwards by the Disestablishment Council of Scotland, a body which has every reason to claim that it represents the leaders of the Disestablishment movement in Scotland, and a body amongst the membership of which you will find the names of a great many distinguished and earnest Scotchmen, and of those who have studied this question of Disestablishment, and who are entitled to speak for Scottish opinion. There was a resolution passed by the Scottish Disestablishment Council supporting this Bill and not only so, but
  "hoping"
  —and I am quoting the words of the resolution—
  "that the Government will not yield any further than it has done to the demand that the Disestablished Church in Wales should have a larger share of the Endowments,"
  and
  "urging upon Scottish liberal Members to give the Government, their full support in carrying the Bill through the House of Commons."
  I am glad to put on record so far as the Scottish Disestablishment Council is concerned, that they are in hearty support of the Government on this Bill. Reference has been made in these Debates to the fact

  2301
  that in Scotland negotiations are proceeding at the present moment between the United Free Church and the Church of Scotland. I do not desire to say a single word to prejudice in any way the situation that exists at the present moment. But I think this illustration has been somewhat unfairly used in the course of our Debates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, said in one of his speeches that the object was to unite again in one Established Church, and the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow) made a somewhat similar reference as if there was at this moment proposals for union between those two Churches being carried through. That is not the situation. The facts are that there have been—and I desire to give the greatest credit to the Church of Scotland for the approach that Church made to the other body—there have been negotiations proceeding with a view to considering the obstacles which at present separate the Churches in Scotland. But it is a matter preliminary which is being discussed. The question the Churches desire to discuss in the most dispassionate fashion and to satisfy themselves on is "whether the road may be made clear in the future for these proposals. I should like to make it perfectly clear that, so far as the United Free Church is concerned, there has been no indication that that Church is prepared to unite with the Church of Scotland as an Established Church in that sense. The United Free Church is tenacious of her principles, but she is prepared, and is at the present moment engaged in considering along with her sister Church, which is withdrawing from her position of privilege, matters with a view to the removal of these obstacles. That is a very different question. Hon. Members opposite appeal to us to consider the spirit of union prevailing in Scotland. The union negotiations are not an argument against Disestablishment, but an argument to remove by voluntary consent the causes which stand in the way at the present moment of union between the Churches in Scotland and which make the claim for Disestablishment so strong.
  What we desire to see in Scotland is that every encouragement should be given to the Church in Scotland to withdraw from a position of privilege and to come down rather to the position of other denominations in Scotland — the Free Churches. That is not the case in connection with the Church in Wales at all. The Church of Wales maintains a position
  2302
  of privilege. She is not entitled to appeal to the position in Scotland so long as she herself is not prepared to take the first step towards negotiation and towards a settlement of this question by consent to which she herself is a voluntary party, and the situation in that respect has got to be distinguished entirely from the situation in Scotland. I believe that in Scotland we have never had anything approaching the same bitterness which exists between the Churches in Wales. I rejoice to think there has never been the same degree of friction which necessarily exists in the Establishment in Wales, but there is a very strong feeling that there are restrictions necessary to a State connection, and the Church of Scotland has been the first to recognise that herself. The Churches Act of 1905 showed, as the Noble Lord indicated, a certian desire for freedom, and secured that—
  "the formula of subscription to the confession of faith required from ministers and preachers of the Church of Scotland… shall be such as may be prescribed by act of the General Assembly of the said Church with the consent of the majority of the Presbyteries thereof."
  That was a step in the direction of greater freedom. I believe that the spirit of freedom is abroad in Scotland because of the success attending the efforts of the voluntary Churches and of the United Free Church of Scotland, and because the Church of Scotland herself is willing to-day to recognise that she can come a step nearer and seek to deliver herself from the restrictions imposed upon her by her State connection. I do not desire to elaborate that point, but I would like to say that the outlook in Scotland is hopeful to-day just because of the action taken by the Church in Scotland, and we believe, and we desire that these negotiations should bring forth fruit. Whatever the result, the outcome will be good. We desire that every opportunity should be given to the Churches to consider their position, and I feel quite satisfied that you will find that if a similar spirit had prevailed in the past in Wales the situation there would have been simplified to a very considerable extent.
  The argument against Disestablishment in Scotland is suspended owing to the spirit which the Churches are exhibiting towards one another, but it has not disappeared. It remains in this sense: The argument will always be bound up with

  2303
  the question of a privileged Church in Scotland which you cannot dissociate from State connection. I am glad to have an opportunity of simply stating the nature of the position of Scotland with regard to this Bill. We are heartily in sympathy with our brethren in Wales; we desire to see no injury done to the Church in Wales. Disestablishment to my mind will be a blessing to the Church in Wales in securing to her increased spirituality and Christian activity, and she will find, we believe, the result to be the same in her case as in the case of every other Church which has realised that Disestablishment was one of the best steps ever taken in the whole of its history.
  Mr. WHELER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in regard to the questions that he has raised affecting the Scotch Church. I admit that I do not know much about that Church myself, and I do not think it is very relevant to this discussion. The hon. Member said he was voicing Scotch opinion, which is in sympathy with the Welsh people on this question. I think I can equally say that, in common with hon. Members on this side, I am voicing, at any rate, a very strong public opinion in sympathy with the Welsh Church, to be found not only among the Churchmen of England, but among a very large section of right and careful thinking Nonconformists. My reason for saying this is very much fortified, because a night or two ago in my own Division we had a debate upon this question, and two men who have always been strong political opponents of mine, and strong supporters of Nonconformist views, both got up and openly said that while they considered there was a good deal to be said for Disestablishment, they were entirely averse to taking away any money from any religious denomination, when they were satisfied that that denomination was using that money rightly and well. If there were two who spoke of that opinion, how many more were there likely to be who did not get a chance of speaking, who were of the same opinion? That is an instance of what I believe is the feeling of many religious Nonconformists throughout the length and breadth of the South of England.
  This Debate still more shows the great difference that exists between Churchmen and Nonconformists on this question. The
  2304
  suggestion has been made that if these funds, which we consider religious funds, were taken away from the Church in Wales, they should be used for religious purposes in Wales, and allotted to various religious objects in Wales. We advanced that suggestion because we realised, although we wished to keep our own funds for our own purposes, that if this money has got to go, it is far better to devote it to religious than to secular purposes. We cannot understand the mind of those who refuse to accept that suggestion; we cannot understand why that suggestion should be overthrown when we realise that its one motive is to further religion in the Principality of Wales. When that suggestion has been cast on one side, it shows that there is a great gulf existing between us on this side, and hon. Members opposite with reference to the great principle which underlies the whole of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite have been talking about the Government being generous. It is very easy to be generous with other people's money, and we do not admit that it is any concession at all. What right has any hon. Member opposite to assert that these ancient Endowments were given for any other purpose except the religious purposes of the Church? All this talk of concession is entirely wrong. It is true you are not taking away quite so much as you previously arranged to take—I think the figures are now something like 8s. in the £ as against 6s. 8d. in the £. We do not admit that you have any right to take a single penny of that which was always Church money devoted to Church purposes, and which nobody denies has been very well spent.
  I should have thought that the promoters of this Bill would have tried to establish two points if they wished this Bill to be a sincere and honest attempt to solve the difficulty of religious inequality in Wales. In the first place, they ought to establish without contradiction the origin of these ancient Endowments, and the purposes for which they were left. The Debate to-night has shown that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not at all settled in their minds as to the original purposes of these ancient Endowments. I do not think in the lengthy speech we heard from the leader of the Welsh party, that there was any real endeavour or depth of argument to show that he was fully convinced in his own mind as to the origin or the purpose for which these Endowments were originally granted. It has never been

  2305
  denied in this House that the money of the Church has been well spent; it has been admitted from the Prime Minister downwards that the Church of England in Wales is a living organisation, doing good and increasing in spiritual power. That fact can be proved by the improved Sunday schools and the increase in the number of communicants throughout the Principality. I think that, coupled with the point I first mentioned, and the difficulties that hon. Members have in proving the origin and the original intention of ancient Endowments, are points which, if hon. Members ever hope to establish this Bill on a firm foundation, they ought to have shown in a different light to that which they have shown in these Debates. The hon. Member for Perth last night argued that in the past, when you took away Endowments you thereby did good to that body and enabled it to carry on its work and improve its spiritual undertakings. Surely the history of the Nonconformist endeavours to raise Endowments for the benefit of their own pastors and ministers shows plainly that they realise how absolutely essential it is for their own welfare and the support of those who administer their churches and chapels and how necessary it is that they should have Endowments to supply the men doing that work with suitable stipends year by year.
  In face of those facts, which nobody can deny, I think it is childish of any hon. Member opposite to try and advance an argument that it would be good for any religious body to have its Endowments taken away because that would be a spur to increased spiritual efforts. I think that argument can be brushed aside as futile and childish, and I was surprised that any argument of that sort should have been advanced by anybody sitting on the benches opposite. The truth of the matter is that the attack is not coming from those who are truly religious on this question, but it is being brought forward largely as a matter of party expediency. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I believe this measure has been brought forward in order to carry out a programme which may be dear to politicians, but is not equally dear to the religious-minded followers of the churches to which hon. Members belong. I do not believe that many of those who voted for hon. Members opposite who come from Wales thoroughly understand the proposals enumerated in this Bill. I am certain they did not understand the Disendowment pro-
  2306
  posals, and on this point I am fortified by the evidence of many people in Wales, who voted for this Bill because they thought they were going to be free from the obligation of having to pay tithes. Human nature being such as it is, it is perfectly certain unless it were very clearly explained to the voter that he would still have to pay tithes—and I do not believe that was explained—it would rather suggest itself to him that he would be put in a position of being freed from a burden to which possibly he objected, and that no doubt had a great influence in securing votes at the last election. I, in common with the vast majority of people, do not like this Bill, and all we ask is that it should be submitted to the tribunal of the votes of the people of this country. We are quite certain, now that they understand the Bill and the meanness of the Bill, they would, if they got the chance of exercising their votes, say there is no demand for the Bill, and treat it with the contempt which a proposal of this sort rightly deserves.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I would ask the attention of the House to one salient point on which perhaps I may be able to throw as great light as any person in the House. I am a very sincere and ardent member of the Anglican Church, and I agree with my hon. Friends here in their devotion to their Church, but from my experiences in Ireland I agree with my hon. Friends opposite in considering that the severance of that Church from the State will be useful, not only to the people at large, but also to the Church itself. Perhaps I have been so long a Member of this House that it will be considered scarcely impertinent of me to speak of a personal incident. Though I was very young at the time, I have a perfect recollection of the Established Irish Church as it then was. It could not be otherwise, having regard to the antecedents in connection with that Church I have the honour to have. I was as a boy of eighteen of course cordially opposed to the Disestablishment of the Church, as every clergyman's son ought to be, but I have completely altered my views, and I will show why. In history one rarely finds an exact parallel, but the Welsh Church and the Irish Church are almost exact parallels in parity of circumstance. Let me say something which so far as I know has not been mentioned in this Debate and which perhaps may interest the House. We Irishmen who are glad of the Disestablishment and

  2307
  Disendowment of the Irish Church owe a considerable debt to Welsh Members. In my young days here I first met a dear old gentleman, Mr. Dillwyn. He was the Member for a Welsh constituency and he was the first British Member who began to hammer at the Established Church in Ireland as a State institution. We know very well the attitude of the four Welsh bishops of the day. Will it surprise the House to hear that one of the ablest speeches for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church was made by a Welsh bishop, Dr. Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's. At that time as at the present time the reproach of robbery of God and sacrilege was bandied about. Dr. Thirlwall, whom Mr. Gladstone said had the ablest and the most workmanlike intellect of his time, made the speech in the House of Lords in favour of Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and he repudiated the doctrine of public robbery. He said public robbery or the robbery of God should not be applied to such a thing as this. It was not a Christian, it was a heathenish, conception. The transference of public property from one object to another should be guided by the benefits it would confer on the greatest number, and that was the way in which trustees should regard even Church property—as dedicated to public uses and to be applied to them.
  May I, dealing with it completely in the cold light of history, show the parity of circumstance between the Welsh Church and the Irish Church, and, though I hate to be a political prophet, I think I may say a few words just at the end to show that men, however ardently devoted to the Anglican Church, need fear nothing from Disestablishment and Disendowment with the parallel of the Irish Church before them. They are parallels; they are more than strong analogies. First of all, the Irish Church like the Welsh Church was the Church of a minority; secondly, it was the Church of the rich as distinct from the poor; thirdly, it was paid for by the poor; fourthly, it had much property given before the Reformation, when that property was given to the State alone; and, fifthly, it had not autonomy. It had not the power of legislating for itself and its bishops were appointed, not as they are to-day, thank God, by the clergy and the laity of the diocese, but by a Government power. Then it had this which is distinctly the character of an Established
  2308
  Church: there was, however much the clerics of that Church, and they were admirable men, might try to avoid it, a feeling of caste, a feeling of respectability attaching to the Establishment. We sometimes see it in England when people of the middle classes gradually leave the bethel for the Established Church. That was largely the case in Ireland, and it is very considerably the case with reference to the Established Church in Wales to-day. The Irish Church was opposed to the national aspirations of the people. It set itself against them, and the Irish Church, like the Welsh Church, had for two centuries what I can only call the curse and bane of being managed as a political institution in the interests of politicians by ecclesiastics who were pitchforked into the bishoprics. Therefore prejudice still attaches, and must attach, to an institution with such horrible unsavoury memories.
  I can assure the House that the opposition to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church was immensely stronger and more vehement than the opposition is now to the Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill of the Welsh Church. When I heard the Noble Lord in front of me (Lord Hugh Cecil) making that admirable speech about the Disendowment of the Welsh Church, which he described as "the robbery of God," I thought that if he had read the biography of his father, the late Lord Salisbury, he would have found that that Noble Lord took very good care to vote in-the House of Lords for the Second Reading of the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill. The question of Disestablishment and Disendowment has been settled by the precedent of the Irish Church, and I was amused at hearing all the old stale arguments known to historians in connection with the Disestablishment of the Irish Church trotted out as if they were new discoveries and new doctrines in the case of the Welsh Church. The Church of Ireland was Disestablished, and there was at the time the greatest horror and fear as to what would happen. That Church today is in a better position even financially than it was at the time it was Disestablished. At that time a bishop might have £10,000 and another man £75. There was a gross disproportion of that kind in the appropriation of its revenue. Now the temporalities, such as they are, are fairly distributed, the Church is the Church of the people, and all the old feelings of jealousy or animosity between Churchmen, Dissenters, or Catholics have entirely

  2309
  vanished. One bishop of the Disestablished Church, Dr. Knox, Bishop of Down, said at that time, as the Bishops of Oxford and Hereford are saying now with regard to Wales, that Disestablishment was good in the interests of the Irish Church. He was insulted in the streets of Belfast. They held an indignation meeting on the 31st March, 1869, in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, and a resolution was passed, which was seconded by the late Mr. William Johnson, of Ballikilbeg, the celebrated Orangeman, saying that the Union was virtually at an end.
  What happened to that very bishop who was then called "Traitor" and "Judas?" The first time after Disestablishment when there was an opportunity of electing a Lord Primate as head of the Irish Protestant Church, fifteen years afterwards, who did they elect? They elected Dr. Knox, the only one among the Irish bishops who had the courage and statesmanship to say that an Irish Independent Home Rule Church is better than a Church managed by State-made bishops, nominees of a Prime Minister. Let us take the case too of the respected hard-working parish clergyman who was made Bishop of Killaloe. He was a Conservative of Conservatives. He came back after his election as a popular bishop, and the Nationalist band turned out, and he was led in great triumph to his vicarage. I could give you many extracts showing what Irish bishops have said upon the result of Disestablishment in Ireland. Dr. Plunkett, Archbishop of Dublin, stated in 1382 that Disestablishment had been a benefit to the Irish Church. In 1892 he said, that looking at all the circumstances and balancing losses and gains, that after all Disestablishment had been in the interests of the Irish Church. Undoubtedly it will be the same in Wales. It is absolutely essential in my humble judgment that there should be no distinction, no State recognition of one religious belief more than another. Not that I am at all opposed to the recognition of religious belief, but because I believe that the blessed mysteries of religion ought, not to be associated with State performances one way or the other. I give my hearty concurrence to this Bill. I was of all places in the world, on Sunday morning, worshipping in the Chapel of Trinity College, Dublin, and the cleric was a very distinguished and gentle scholar who read the prayers. He read the State prayer for Parliament in which he hoped that all things would come for the good of the Church. Of course, the thought came over
  2310
  me, was it for the good of the Church that I was crossing the channel that night to vote through thick and through thin for Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment. I say it is for the good of the Church, for the spiritual Church as distinct from the political Church. If it was the last vote I could ever give I would be proud to give it in this Division.
  Mr. JOHN: I desire to give my warm approval to this Bill4 but before doing so I should like to thank the Member for North-Last Lanarkshire (Mr. Millar) and the Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill), one speaking on behalf of the Scottish Members and the other for the Protestant section of the Irish people. We are very much indebted to the Member for North-East Lanarkshire for stating the views of Scotland. It was somewhat needed, for we have not received the support from certain sections of Scotch opinion that we should have looked for. I am sure the House is always ready to appreciate the Member for Donegal, particularly when in reminiscent mood. Perhaps, as a comparatively new Member, who intervenes rarely in Debate, I may be forgiven for recalling to the recollection of the Member for Donegal an early instance of cooperation between Welshmen and Irishmen. Twenty-seven years back I had the privilege in the town of Middlesbrough of presiding over a meeting at which the Member for Donegal addressed the people there in favour of Homo Rule for Ireland. It is a curious coincidence that I should have been privileged to follow him here to-night. I have not intervened earlier in these Debates because I have been content to leave the views of Wales in the capable hands of my colleagues, and I desire to make a special acknowledgment of the very admirable fashion in which the Member for Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) has expressed the views of the representatives of Wales. He has done so with courtesy and dignity, and I am sure his arguments have been cogent and convincing. He has possibly not filled the part of that truculent bandit who has figured so much on Church defence platforms. I suppose that particular character has been left to my hon. and learned Friend and colleague the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), but again I am sure he must have been very much more at home in the congenial atmosphere of historical research rather than in dealing with commutation, sinking funds, and matters of that sort.

  2311
  I occupy a position of some detachment among Welsh representatives, in the fact that I have lived for many years out of Wales. But during the forty years I have resided in England I have been acting in constant association and closest co-operation with English Nonconformists, and I feel I am entitled to speak for them as emphatically as for my countrymen in the Principality. These discussions have been marked by much erudition, and as I am neither a lawyer nor an antiquarian I do not propose to go into matters of that kind. I am very much disposed to think that those questions have not a very direct bearing upon the matter the House has to decide. A demand which has been put forward by a nation for forty years, and has been maintained by them for that protracted period, must have originated in some consideration of simple equity. The position has been that in Wales we have always felt with regard to the precedence and preference given to the Church that, as one English writer has put it, preference however slight is persecution, and has constituted a flagrant injustice peculiarly intolerable when associated with the religious life of the nation. That has been demonstrated in the case of Ireland and of Wales. Although the land system of Ireland was correctly described as the very worst in Europe the Irish people first claimed religious equality in the Roman Catholic emancipation and subsequently in the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. The precedent established by Ireland in that matter has been followed by Wales, and the warm acknowledgment made by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) of the services rendered by the Welsh people to Ireland in connection with Irish Disestablishment is very fully deserved. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton), has claimed to-day that the opposition to State intervention in matters of religion is a decreasing one. I am here to claim that the unbelief of the Welsh people in the Erastian system is profound, abiding, and increasing. We hold very strongly that connection with the State is necessarily harmful to religion. We hold that view not only theoretically, but we claim it to be demonstrably accurate. We claim, above all else, that the religious history of Wales proves that the voluntary principle is efficient and sufficient.
  2312
  9.0 P.M.
  Take, very briefly, the religious history of Wales for the last 150 years. Nonconformity in Wales 150 years ago was numerically insignificant, if not negligible. What is the position to-day? Nonconformity in Wales provides to-day sittings for 1,550,000 people, or 77 per cent, of the total accommodation. Striking admissions were made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) on the Welsh Commission. He stated in his memorandum that in every county except Monmouthshire the number of Nonconformist sittings largely exceeded the maximum accommodation required for the total population, inclusive of those who never attended any place of worship, and without taking any account of the accommodation provided by the Church of England and Roman Catholics. That demonstrates that there is no fear of lack of religious accommodation as a result of Disestablishment. We have demonstrated in our history that the people of Wales, without the assistance of the owners of land, have provided abundantly for the religious requirements of the people. Nothing has struck me more in this House than the lack of knowledge of the conditions of Wales, even among the fairest and most temperate of the champions of the Church. I include in that description the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. The Church communicants of Wales are 25 per cent.; the voluntary contributions are 26 per cent, of the whole. The seating accommodation in Wales provided by the Church is 23 per cent., and the number of the Sunday School scholars is less than 22 per cent. That demonstrates how relatively unfruitful the work of the Church has been if, as claimed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, the Church adherents amounted to approximately half the population. By all these tests of religious activity it is proved that Nonconformity in Wales stands substantially for three-fourths of the work done. This feeling of ours is shared and confirmed by English Churchmen whenever they have taken the trouble to study dispassionately and master the conditions of religious life in Wales. Let me quote Canon Hobhouse on this question. He says:—
  "There is a want of discipline and cohesion amongst Church members. They have little power and too often little interest. This is reflected in the paucity of lay readers, and in the small number of Sunday school teachers as compared with Nonconformists. Nonconformists can command greater enthusiasm and more

  2313
  lay workers. They are accustomed to rely, not on Endowments, but on voluntary support, They can follow up their work where it is most needed. They are more coherent, and they adapt themselves more readily to the natural sympathies of the Welsh."
  That is the testimony of a Churchman to the operation of the voluntary principle in Wales. That being so, you cannot be surprised that we regard that principle as more efficient for the evangelisation of the people. As compared with England, the voluntary system in Wales has worked incomparably better than the Erastian system in England. Anglican communicants in Wales are 8 per cent., and the Free Church communicants are over 22 per cent. Thirty per cent, of the people of Wales are closely associated with religious life. In England the Anglican community, in spite of great wealth and of the learning, devotion and piety of its leaders, has in communicants only 6 per cent, of the population, while the Free Churches have 4¾ per cent. The result is that in England one out of every ten of the population is associated with religious life. We can claim therefore that the voluntary system in Wales has proved a brilliant and unqualified success, and that the Erastian system in England is a great and a disappointing failure. Take the great county of Durham, in the immediate vicinity of which I live. You have there a population of 1,369,000, and the number of communicants is only some 50,000—a proportion of 3.66 per cent. Take the county of Carnarvon. There you have a population of 125,000, and the Calvinistic Methodists, one denomination alone, have some 27,000 members—a proportion of 22 per cent. In this county the voluntary principle has proved fully six times more effective than the Episcopal State Church system has proved in the great county of Durham. Under these circumstances the gloomy forebodings which have been given us as to the results of Disestablishment leave us absolutely unmoved. What strikes one most is the weight that is given by the Opposition to the element of finance in religious activity. We claim, further, that not only does the Erastian system hamper the spiritual efficiency of the Church, but that it is demoralising to the national life. It is to this connection between Church and State that we attribute the hesitant position of the Established Church on such great issues as the licensing question, the question of national rectitude, and the issues of peace and war. As a matter of fact, these deplorable moral effects of the connection between Church and State were
  2314
  admirably put by a countryman of ours, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—Sir George Cornewall Lewis—when he said, "All experience shows that where this intimate union of Church and State exists, instead of the Church spiritualising the State, the State secularises the Church." I will read to the House a communication I have received from a Welsh clergyman. My acquaintance with Welsh clergymen is not very extensive, and this communication has come to me wholly unsolicited. He says:—
  "As a Welshman I am very glad the House resisted the proposal that our fossilised Convocation in London should prepare the new constitution of the Welsh Church. Whatever happens, I hope that things will be done in such a manner as to guarantee that our Welsh Church democracy will have their say in the reconstitution of the Church. I believe you are going to give the power to the bishops. That in my opinion means giving it, in the long run, to the hereditary enemies of our common Welsh nationalism, the Anglicised squirearchy of Wales."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir A. Cripps) has in anguished terms inflicted on the House many pained perorations upon the wickedness of dismembering his Church. An exalted dignitary of the English Church had told my clerical friend that "the four dioceses of the Province of Canterbury argument" was the very last that he should use if he lived and worked in Wales. My friend adds:—
  "It is all nonsense representing the Welsh Churchmen as being indignant at dismemberment. Most or us care not two straws for it, and, if you notice, it is not genuine Welshmen who use this argument, with rare exceptions, but the English Church defenders in Wales."
  Colonel PRYCE-JONES: I do not think the Welsh clergyman whom the hon. Member has quoted is representative of the Welsh clergy or of Welsh Churchmen, or even of Nonconformists. I do not propose to take up isolated cases, but it is a very remarkable fact that a Gentleman who was a Member of this House for two or three Parliaments, and was returned for Wales to damage the Welsh Church, was recently in the third row on the front of the platform at a Church Defence meeting at Carnarvon. It shows that representatives on the other side of the House from Wales do not really represent the feeling of Wales in this matter. I listened, of course, with the utmost pleasure to the eloquent and passionate speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a Welshman I think there are few in the House or outside it who can tickle up an audience better than he can. If I had noticed in time that no one got up on this side to follow him I would

  2315
  not have shrunk from the task, because he had to go back hundreds of years, far beyond the Middle Ages, in order to make out a case for this drastic Bill. It is perfectly true that in my lifetime there was in Wales a strong feeling against the Church, and in favour of Disestablishment, and perhaps in those days to a greater extent than now, in favour of the Disendowment of the Church. Those were the days when it was extremely difficult to get up meetings against the proposal to Disestablish and Disendow our Church, but I am glad to say that things have altered in recent years. There is a very different feeling now, and the difficulty is for our opponents to get up meetings in favour of this Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill. Take the recent Flint election. The champions of the Church in that constituency challenged our opponent to make the Welsh Church an issue, but he refused to accept this challenge. It has been stated this evening—I will not press it—that the farmers, who represent an important part of the population, had gone against the Church in Wales because they thought that if tithes were taken away it would put so much money into their pockets. Now they found under the Bill they would pay tithe just the same they were not so keen for the Church Bill. I can assure the House that the meetings we have had in all parts of Wales, big and enthusiastic, attended by Churchmen and Nonconformists, and all interested in the Principality, have been such as Wales has not had for generations. I ask the House: Why is it that the situation has changed? It is because there is a better feeling among Nonconformists and people who belong to the Church in Wales. The people who attend chapels are coming nearer to the Church. Their buildings are getting like those of the Church, and when you enter a place of worship, you do not know whether you are in a church or a chapel. The services of the Nonconformist bodies are becoming similar to those of the Church. I remember in my younger days it was thought that an organ in a church or a chapel was a very improper thing. I have no doubt that in a few years hence there will be practically no difference between the two bodies.
  Another fact to be remembered is that the Royal Commission, which was appointed by the present Government to inquire into Church matters in Wales, heard
  2316
  evidence which shows that the Church has well earned her Endowments, and that she is making use of them in doing excellent work. An hon. Member from Wales has been taunting right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, and also some hon. Members behind them, for supporting my hon. Friends on this side when they have asked fair play for the Church in Wales. I would remind the hon. Member that when he finds fault with his own friends in this respect, his argument is in favour of our side. He ought to see that we must be right when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on his own side agree with us. I think that speaks volumes for our case. When proposals have been made on this side, they have in some instances been accepted by the Government, but the hon. Member has found fault with the Government for making those concessions. If the Bill has been altered since it was introduced, it has been altered with the view to our satisfaction. We say it has not been altered nearly enough to satisfy the supporters of the Church. In order to make my position clear to the House and friends outside, I would say I only wish that, instead of having been brought up a Churchman, I had been a Nonconformist. If I were a Nonconformist, I can assure the Government and my hon. Friends opposite that I would never vote for the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill.
  Parliament has done much for children by giving them free education. This Government has given pensions to old people, and it has given others insurance money during sickness. Surely, if the State is right in these matters, it cannot be wrong for the State to provide something for a religious organisation such as the Church of England in Wales. This is not a case where we ask for additional Endowments. What we ask is that the Endowments we already possess may remain with us. We have proposed that if the Nonconformist bodies in Wales would agree, we are willing to share the Endowments with them. If this Bill should ultimately become law, those who have supported it will know that they have done damage to the Principality by taking away money from the Welsh Church, which is the poorest Established Church that we know of. [Laughter.] Yes, the poorest Church that we know of. It will be a precedent, and Nonconformist bodies which have property might be treated in a similar

  2317
  manner. There are Nonconformist corporations in Wales which, if their trust deeds were looked at, and if the doctrines they preach now were examined, would be turned out of their chapels. It would be for Parliament then—I hope this will not happen—to attack these Nonconformist bodies in a way similar to that in which this Government is attacking the Church in Wales. I thank hon. Members from England who have stood by the Welsh Church so gallantly. We Welsh Church members are a party of only three, and we can never forget the services which have been rendered by hon. Members to our Church.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure that hon. Members on all sides of the House appreciate the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down. He made, however, one remark with which I cannot admit complete agreement. He said that if the Front Bench opposite and we were agreed we were sure to be right. I happened to read the other day the remark of a distinguished lawyer who had been in the House of Commons, and who said that the House of Commons was never unanimous except that when it was wrong. I do not think that that is likely to arise in this Parliament, but if it ever happened that we were in agreement with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite I should begin to have a, strong suspicion that we were probably not in the right. We have now reached nearly the end of the stage in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer described the other day as one of the stones remaining in the Gladstone quarry; and a thing not uninteresting to remember is that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs has shown throughout these Debates in the most unmistakable way that he was entirely out of sympathy with many of the provisions of this Bill and with the spirit in which this Bill has been pressed. That hon. Gentleman also comes from the Gladstone quarry, and I am sure no one will question that in his view he has more nearly expressed than the Government have done by their action what would have been the attitude of Mr. Gladstone himself towards this question. The discussion which has gone on with regard to this Bill, both in the House of Commons and in the country, has proved conclusively to anyone who is not blinded absolutely with party prejudices the fact that this Bill would not have the smallest chance of becoming law if our Constitution were not
  2318
  suspended, and if there were any possibility of referring it to the opinion of the electors.
  I know of no proposal of any Government in my time where the expression of public opinion has been so clearly on one side. In this country, in support of this Bill, there has been nothing but apology. In Scotland the same thing is true, and I was greatly struck by what happened last year at the general assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland, which is, of course, the largest Free Church in Scotland. On that occasion a proposal was brought forward to get that assembly to adopt the motion in support of this Bill. It was refused. Such a thing, even ten years ago, would have been absolutely impossible. It proves exactly what my hon. Friend has just shown, that there has been a great change of feeling in regard to this matter. It is a proof, in fact, that this cause, however in earnest some hon. Members are in regard to it, is, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City said in an earlier Debate, not a cause which is coining in, but a cause which is going out. The truth of what I said is shown by positive action outside as well as by negative action. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's referred to the petitions which had been presented against this Bill. I do not exaggerate the significance of petitions. I know that it is easy to get petitions, but it is not easy to get them on the scale on which they have come in regard to this Bill, and if it be anything like the truth, as suggested by my right hon. Friend, that over half a million of the male population of Wales have actually signed these petitions, it is a fact of importance which no one in the House would underestimate.
  Equally important, there have been no petitions on the other side. I do not mean to say that they could not have got more than two petitions if they had tried, but I am perfectly sure that the Committee over which I understand the hon. Baronet below the Gangway presides, and which probably is not destitute of funds in addition to the funds which the hon. Member has special means of securing, has been considering the subject and not with much success, for I have not the smallest doubt that if they had thought there was the least chance of getting petitions which would in any way rival those against the Bill, such petitions would have been got. The same thing is shown by meetings all over the country. The country has really

  2319
  been roused about the matter, and in many cases it has broken down the ordinary party division. The same thing is true of the history of the Bill in this House as well. That it has reached even the present stage is not due to the Government. The credit for it, if credit it be, is due to the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who alone have made it possible that we are now discussing the Third Reading of the Bill. I think on seven or eight separate occasions the Bill would have been dead but for the fact that it received the support of Nationalist Members to a larger extent than the amount of the majority in its favour. That Bill is being pushed forward under these conditions by a Government, the head of which told the country some years ago that his party ought not to take office unless they had an independent majority, and he told us in this House, only this Session, that he still adhered to that declaration in the letter and in the spirit. That is the history of the Bill up to this date. I know that the hon. Member for Mayo refused to accept the suggestion that the saviours of the Bill did not vote in accordance with their convictions.
  Mr. DILLON: I said we had voted in accordance with our convictions.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Refused to accept the suggestion that they had not, which is very much the same thing. But in the same speech in which he made that interesting declaration he said that we owed a good debt of gratitude to Welsh Members, and he was proud of the opportunity of paying that debt. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the party, at a meeting in Wales, made the obvious and open avowal that if he got the support of Welsh Members for Home Rule they would have the support of Nationalist Members for Welsh Disestablishment. There is no doubt upon the point. I will read words which were actually spoken in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in regard to his attitude to all English questions. He said:—
  "Your English politics do not concern us. Our votes will, in this Parliament, as in past Parliaments, be directed by one sole consideration—by what we regard to be the interests for the time being of Ireland."
  To those who feel strongly on this question it is an additional and intolerable injustice that such a question should be settled absolutely by the votes of hon.
  2320
  Members who avow that those votes are given without any regard to the merits of the question. The truth of the statement I have made that the success of this depends on our Parliamentary constitution is shown by the attitude of the stalwarts themselves below the Gangway opposite. The real protagonist of this Bill is not any right hon. Gentleman sitting on that bench, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The real protagonist is the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams). To his great gifts of speech I would like to join my right hon. Friend in paying a well-deserved compliment. I do not make the qualification which my right hon. Friend made. It was his invective and his sarcasm which I admired, and if it was, as my right hon. Friend suggested, the result of midnight oil, it did not at all events smell of that oil, and that is all that any of us has a right to ask. The hon. Member gave us a picture the other night, a picture that seemed to me pathetic, of the backsliding not only of English and Scotch Radicalism, but of that chosen band who, for reasons which we all understand, and which the hon. Gentleman carefully explained, was inadequately representing Welsh national sentiment. "Among the faithless, faithful only he." And what will happen to the Bill when his own transformation comes, and I venture to say that his Euthenasia will not be long delayed.
  There is one thing that right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench do understand. The hon. Member is something of a tornado, and on that Bench they do not like tornadoes. They have learned how to chain even the winds; and when the time comes that, to use the words of the hon. Member himself, he is "browsing peacefully in the Ministerial pastures," it will be at least a negative gain to the Government, but it will be a distinct loss to the House of Commons. I feel that one is under the common disadvantage on an occasion like this, because the whole subject has been covered so very fully. I am oppressed with the multitude and abundance of my material, I must make the best of it. Fortunately, my time is limited, and my speech will, at least, have the merit of brevity. The discussions which has so far taken place have not in my opinion been to the disadvantage of those who defend the present position of the Church. Take, for instance, the question of Disestablishment pure and simple. I am quite sure

  2321
  that the Debates which we have had have removed from the minds of many people, both in this House and in the country, the false idea that there was something in the existence of an Established Church in Wales which was invidious and oppressive to the Free Churches in the Principality. That can no longer be claimed. I believe, as a matter of fact, and I believe strongly, that it is in the National interests that there should be State recognition of religion, and whatever may be in doubt as to the figures, and in regard to this Bill, I have found most things to be in doubt, it is not questioned that the Church in Wales is the largest single religious body, and therefore if there is to be a State recognition of religion the Church has a claim not only on account of her history but of her numbers, and it is the body to which that recognition should be given.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted in one of our earlier Debates that the Church had no invidious privileges as an Establishment, and whatever privileges she had, she had used them so moderately that things are exactly the same as if the Church had been Disestablished years ago. Neither he nor anyone else has been able to find out a single grievance which affects any individual or Church in the Principality of Wales. The Debates on the Disestablishment side of this Bill have shown clearly the fact that the Disestablishment of the Church does not only mean privileges, as my hon. and learned Friend behind me said, but it means obligations; and if you carry this Bill you will not only remove privileges which do not affect you, but you will remove or diminish obligations which are certainly not immediately to the disadvantage of the people of Wales at the present time. It is the question of the Disendowment of the Church which has caused us greatest interest in this House, and which, I think, has roused the conscience of the people of this country. What is the position? The Church has admittedly enjoyed these Endowments for at least three hundred years on the lowest estimate. In every country in the world at any time in the world's history prescription has been recognised as the best of all titles to property, and the very arguments by which this proposal is defended are arguments which if they were carried out in other directions would destroy absolutely the title to property of any kind on which the whole basis of society in my opinion rests. That is the position which
  2322
  rests upon those who recommend this Bill. The burden rests upon them of showing why this undoubted title to property should be disregarded. What are the arguments by which they attempt to justify it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, in referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend, said that he had left out the most important argument. What was that argument? It was that the Welsh people still demand, and have for generations demanded that this Bill should 'be carried through. I do not admit that claim. There is no evidence whatever that the people of Wales are in favour of the Disendowment provisions of this Bill. In the first place, it must be remembered that the people who are pressing this Bill most strongly are the very people who have always refused to take in Wales the course which was taken in Ireland, that is to have a religious census so that the numbers of the people could be ascertained. It is the fact also that on the one occasion in recent times when this question was more distinctly an issue at an election than at any-other election, namely 1895, was the one occasion when the Radical party returned a smaller number of Members to this House than they ever returned before or since. Only the other day, while this Bill was going through this House, the representatives of the party opposite refused to make this the issue at the Flint election, while we tried to make it the issue. The result of that election was that at this moment when the Bill is before the House of Commons the majority in favour of the Radical party was smaller than it has been since, I think, 1895.
  Even if it were true that the great majority of the people of Wales desired it, that would be an argument in favour of Disestablishment, but not in favour of Disendowment. After all that is a question of right and wrong. The question of whether or not you can justly deprive a religious body of its property is a question which we have no right to decide by the opinion of any section of the community however unanimous. That is a question for which the House of Commons as a whole must be responsible, and in regard to which the Welsh Members have no more right to speak than other Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am sorry to see is not present, made a very interesting speech this afternoon. My hon. Friend who spoke last paid due tribute to his power of tickling up an-audience, but I was sorry that he did not

  2323
  exercise that power to his usual extent this afternoon. I like his other manner better, and I hope with the Celtic temperament, or whatever it is, that he will not often in future address either the House or the country in the way which he addressed it this afternoon. That is an inverted compliment from the point of view of an opponent, for I think that kind of speech is much more dangerous than the other. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very interesting disquisition upon the history of Wales. It was new to me, quite new to me, and if it is true, and if it is a correct description, if I were a Welshman, there is nothing I should resent so much as the character which he gave of the Welsh people. What was the picture he held out to us. It was that for centuries on this question of religion the people of Wales had no convictions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They moved about from one side to the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That was his picture. Of course I see the point of the hon. Gentleman, and it was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was all the fault of the people of England. The right hon. Gentleman forgot two facts. At those times in all parts of the world men of other nationalities were willing, even though they had not power, to become martyrs for the cause they believed in.
  As regards Scotland to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he had for the moment a complete lapse of memory. He seemed to suggest that Scotland had escaped the English Establishment because of her strength. Bannockburn was fought long before that, and from the time this question arose Scotland was never able to stand up against England, and the only time she tried to do it in an effective way, was against a man of Welsh descent at Dunbar, and she did not come well out of it. She, just as much as Wales, was, as far as power is concerned, at the mercy of England, and if the Scottish people secured their own views it was because they believed in them and were ready to suffer for them, and to suggest that the Welsh were not moved by the same influences is, I fear, one of the worst tributes a Welshman could pay to the character of the people. In this connection the right hon. Gentleman could not avoid making a very obvious point. He said still he does not give up his convictions before an election. We quite understood the reference. There is room I admit for legitimate taunt,
  2324
  but there is no room for such a taunt from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is and still professes, as they all do opposite, that they have been devoted to Home Rule for I do not know how many generations, yet they did precisely what he is blaming us for doing. In 1906 the one time they were sure of winning an election and carrying it, they postponed the subject on which they were so unanimous. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Lords Veto."] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was right. There may be no analogy. We do attach value to our cause. They attach none to theirs, and they have only adopted it from the same causes from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Welsh people adopted their religion; from compulsion inflicted upon them from the outside.
  The next argument to which I wish to refer in favour of Disendowment was that of the Prime Minister. Ho told us this question was not open to argument, that it had been decided by the precedent of the Irish Church. Xo contention was ever less justified. The man who could best speak as to the grounds on which the Irish Church was Disestablished was Mr. Gladstone. He never used an argument which would apply to the Welsh Church from beginning to end. He justified what he was doing on this ground, a ground on which Parliament has over and over again interfered with trusts, that the body which exercised this trust was not able usefully to employ the money with which it was entrusted. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, I will read what Mr. Gladstone said.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I quite agree.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Then the argument obviously falls to the ground. There would be justification for the same course if it could be said that the Church was not properly exercising the trust, but the Prime Minister has said that it is. Then we have the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward very gingerly to-day about the Church having changed its constitution. He said he was debarred from pressing it on account of the presence of his Chief. I do not know whether anything has happened since the Second Reading to alter his attitude. The views of his Chief were known then, but he spent half an hour in proving the very point which the right hon. Gentleman said was incapable of proof. In the very

  2325
  speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that long digression he him self proved the worthlessness of the argument by showing that in his own denomination, in his own lifetime, the doctrine had changed; yet he never suggested that that fact deprived that body of the right to the exercise of any Endowments which it possessed. What is more, if one thing has been made clearer than another by Parliament, it is that the Church has a right to grow, to develop, and to change its doctrine, without losing the right to continue to enjoy its funds. What happened in the Free Church case in Scotland? That case is in every way of value in the discussion of the Bill now before the House. What was the fact? The Free Church joined a voluntary Church. The Courts of Law held that by so doing it had lost its right to its Endowments. What happened? Parliament stepped in and laid down two principles, either of which would be fatal to the Bill before the House. It laid down, first of all, that the Free Church, which had a legal title, had a right to all the funds which it could usefully employ. What you are doing is to take away from a Church which has a legal title at least as good funds which it is employing and admittedly employing to the best possible advantage. Parliament laid down another principle. The funds which the Free Church could not usefully employ were not taken and given to the State, but they were given to the other denomination, although they had no legal title to them, on the sole ground that they were using them well, and for the advantage of religion.
  10.0 P.M.
  I am sorry I have not time to go further into this question of Endowment. The whole strength of the case is proved by this, and it has been said over and over again. All the arguments that we have heard to-day are based on the origin of these funds. Is it not obvious, if that is a just ground for interfering with them, that you ought to interfere just as much with the laymen who hold them, much more than the Church? But you are not doing that. Why? Because you know that it would sap the whole foundations of society, and destroy the basis of property on which society rests. If it is not right to do it in the one case, it is robbery and nothing else to do it in the other. Even if the Government had the legal title or the shadow of a legal title for what they are doing, is it wise? What are they
  2326
  going to gain? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very moderate speech, with a great deal of which I sympathised, because of the religious life of Wales. That had a practical bearing on the question of religious equality, but what in the world had it to do with depriving the Church of funds which it is using well in the cause of religion? No speeches in these Debates have been to me so unpleasant as those unctuous speeches which have implied that the Church would be benefited by this Bill. Such speeches might have been made with sincerity at a time when people believed in voluntarism. But they do not now. The Free Churches do not, any more than the Established Church. They are all trying to got Endowments. Under such circumstances, is it not hypocrisy to say that the Church will be better without them?
  I do not deny that the purposes to which these funds will be applied may be useful. But unless the House accepts the principle that religious service as religious service is bad, is it not true that the funds for these purposes which the State thinks are necessary could easily be supplied from other sources? Is it not true that every Christian denomination finds it increasingly difficult to get the funds necessary to carry on Christian work? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They all do. Let those hon. Members who speak for Wales and who deny that, look at the salaries paid to their Ministers. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Church curates?"] There has been a good deal of talk, and I have heard some sermons on the question whether or not the uses to which these funds are to be applied are religious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon told us that the Apostle James was good enough for him. I was brought up in a very strict Calvinistic atmosphere, and in my young days, although it was' hardly possible to treat James as heretical, anybody who chose his writings as a text for his sermon was regarded with suspicion. I do not take that view. If that is not religion, it is very like it; it is the best expression of religion. But we need both. That can be got in other ways, but the spiritual needs can only be supplied in one way, and the money for them is short. Is it not in the highest degree against the interests of society to take away these small funds from a Church which is relatively poor and devote them to secular objects for which money could be supplied in other ways?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): This is the twenty-sixth day of our discussions on this Bill. During most of that time the attendance has been extremely small; but, if I might, I would like to pay a tribute to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who, throughout the whole of that time, have conducted the discussions with such ability, learning, and sincerity. Hon. Members opposite, whose faces I recognise well, will not refuse me this chance of complimenting them upon the skill and obvious sincerity with which they have argued their case. We began our discussions on the First Reading Debate with a certain amount of heat. That heat through the long days has evaporated entirely into the atmosphere, and I hope on both sides that the language and temper has been suitable to a subject in which on both sides we have endeavoured to direct ourselves to argument and reason. In the quarter of an hour that remains I sincerely hope that we shall still maintain the calm atmosphere which has so long been maintained. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was not, I think, quite accurate in his recent history. He stated that in England there had been nothing but apology for this Bill. As recently as 26th November, we had an election at which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton put forward Welsh Disestablishment as a leading plank in his programme. He won that election with a triumphant majority.
  While this Bill was under discussion in this House we had an election in North Wales and one in South Wales. Those concerned had the precise terms of the Bill before them in both cases, and the supporters of the Bill returned their candidates to Parliament. We have never shrunk from the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reduced majorities."] I quite agree that the majorities were reduced, but it was owing to the use made of the temporary unpopularity of the Insurance Act. At both these elections, and in Bolton, the Welsh Bill was made a prominent feature, and in all three elections hon. Members now sit on this side of the House to represent the views of the electors. The right hon. Gentleman was also a little inaccurate in his history not quite so recent. He stated, with perfect truth, as my right hon. Friend has admitted, that Mr. Gladstone in arguing upon the.Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church founded himself upon, the fact that the Irish
  2328
  Endowments were excessive and were not being properly used. But Mr. Gladstone also made a speech in 1891 on Welsh Disestablishment, and speaking of it in relation to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church he used these words:—
  "In two vital and determining points I cannot deny that the case of the Welsh corresponds with that of the Church of Ireland. In the first place, it is the Church of the few against the Church of the many. In the second place, it is the Church of the rich against the Church of the comparatively poor. These broad features are so stamped upon the case that, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny it."
  It is idle to-day to quote Mr. Gladstone as an authority in opposition to the Welsh Church Bill. It is not enough to quote even my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs as an opponent. He voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. He accepts the principle of the Bill, and though he differs from us in regard to certain details of the measure, I sincerely hope we may see him in the Lobby in support of the Third Reading. On one point I agree with the Noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman. The subject has been discussed for so long that there is very little new to be said. In the few minutes that remain to me I propose only to state quite shortly the principles upon which we have acted, and principles which, with us, are the foundations beliefs in dealing with this measure. We believe—and I am sure in what I say I speak for all my hon. Friends—that it is not right to Establish a Church to which the majority of the nation do not belong, when the majority of the nation are devoted in their adherence to other Churches, and when the majority of the nation strongly protest against Establishment.
  The Noble Lord says that Establishment is necessary as an act of the national recognition of religion. If an act of the national recognition of religion be required, let it take some other form than the Establishment of a Church which, with the majority of the people amongst whom the Church is Established, is morally indefensible. That can be no act of national recognition which is contrary to the consciences of the majority of the people! There are other ways, if it be needed, to establish the national recognition of religion. We believe in Wales that Establishments are wrong in principle, and it is no compensation to us to offer us the Establishment of any other Church. We wish to Establish no Church. The Churches are Established on the only true foundation when they rely for their firmness and

  2329
  strength upon the consciences of the individual. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who opened this Debate, stated that the Disestablishment of the Church would be a national repudiation of religion. With every respect for the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I will go to a greater authority, and one who is perhaps the greatest opponent of Disestablishment in this country. Lord Selborne, speaking upon this point, declared:—
  "There is no such thing as national religion. The religion of the nation consists in the religion of the men and women who compose the nation."
  It is no national repudiation of religion to Disestablish a Church when every member of that Church will tell you with unshaken confidence that the Disestablishment of the Church will not affect in the smallest iota the influence, belief, or devotion to their Church of a single member of that Church. That is my first point—that we regard Establishment as morally wrong.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why not abolish it in England?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have not the power. We are speaking for ourselves. My second point is that we believe that in this respect—I will not put the matter very largely now; I will not take a wider ground than that—having in view Welsh history, tradition, race, and religious belief, the Welsh people are entitled to be regarded as a nation separate from the English. That is our view; that is the view of the Welsh people; that is the view which has been accepted by their sympathisers in England. We look upon it as one of the great glories of England that she has ever been sympathetic—it has taken time—that England alone of all the nations, after experience and after a lapse of long years, has known how to become sympathetic with the smaller races in her midst. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ulster." Other HON. MEMBERS: "Derry."] I would remind hon. Members that so far as Ulster is represented in this House the majority are in favour of this Bill. And, Sir, England, not perhaps the England which calls itself "Imperial England," but the true England which by its policy has been able to maintain the Empire, the England which recognised in time past the claims of every one of our Dominions, and has extended self-government all over the world, that England has recognised the claims of Wales, and I, on behalf of Wales, thank my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies for the consistent support they have given us.
  2330
  Holding these views, and having had the task before me of introducing a Bill to Disestablish the Church, it was my sincere desire that the transition from Establishment to Disestablishment should be conducted with as little friction, difficulty, or trouble to the Church of England as was possible in the circumstances. I and my colleagues, who have been so helpful to me, have done our utmost to frame this Bill in such a way as to inconvenience the Church to the smallest possible degree. So far as Disestablishment in concerned, throughout the whole Debates, I do not recollect that there is any one real outstanding point of difference between us, once the principle of Disestablishment is accepted, except the retention of the Welsh bishops and clergy in Convocation. That I believe is a still outstanding difficulty, and upon that I have this to say: We should have been most glad if we could have met the views of hon. Members opposite, but when we remember that Convocation is a common law body, that it is set in motion only by the issue by the Writ of the Crown, of Letters of Business, and that its character and functions, particularly in subjection to the authority of Parliament, are one of the very incidents of Establishment which we wish to get rid of in Wales, it was impossible for us in that respect to meet the views of hon. Members opposite. With that exception, in all the matters appertaining to the Church I believe we have met all the arguments upon the other side.
  Now what remains? Only the question of Disendowment. The total Endowments of the Church in 1906—I will keep to the figures of those years for which we have authority—amounted to £260,000 a year. The Church is bound to spend that money in certain ways. She cannot use her £260,000 a year as a flexible instrument for the better advancement of religion in Wales. She is limited under her parochial system. The Endowments are attached to particular benefices, and the Church, whether she wishes it or not, has to maintain a large number of incumbents in parishes where there is little or no work to be done. We have never made this a point of attack against the Church. We have never said that the Church is spending her money ill. I do not think she is spending her money well, but it is not her fault. I make no charge against the Church on that ground, but when the right hon. Gentleman claims it as a merit that the money is being well and wisely spent, that is no

  2331
  where near an approach to the actual fact. I have taken out the figures of two dioceses only—Bangor and Llandaff—which are the least strong in support of my argument. I find in those dioceses there are no less than 106 parishes with an average of thirty communicants only in the whole parish, while the total Endowments of those 106 parishes amount to £25,000 a year, or £8 per communicant. One-tenth of the whole of the Endowments of the Church in Wales are spent in ministering to the needs of 3,000 communicants. Is that money being well spent? I could show to the House, if time permitted, that in regard to these Endowments the Church could easily save far more than is being taken from her, and yet be able to do as good and even better work than she is doing now in ministering to her own members. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to-day, these Endowments are all spread over parishes where you have rich congregations, and in the poor parts of Wales where there is a great work to be done there are no Endowments.
  How do we treat the Church with those Endowments amounting to £260,000 a year? Of that sum £102,000 a year is left to the Church without any qualification whatever. There remains £158,000 a year. It is roughly estimated that under commutation the Church will receive £2,000,000 to represent life interests. Of course, the Church will have to take over the life interest of the existing incumbents, but the Church will have the services of those incumbents for the remainder of their lives. If you reckon 3¾ per cent, on that £2,000,000 the Church will have an income of £75,000 a year from that source. Add that to the £102,000 and you have a total of £177,000 a year. We have had an assurance from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty that "What has hitherto been appropriated may be in the future appropriated as annual income, by which means the Church will receive annually after Disendowment an
  additional sum by way of income which it has not hitherto enjoyed of £31,000 a year. I add all these figures together, £102,000, £75,000, and £31,000—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is a very absurd sum of addition.
  Mr. McKENNA: And I get a total of £208,000.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is quite irrelevant.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it is not so irrelevant as the Noble Lord thinks. The income is subject to life interests of £158,000 a year. I have stated that fully. What does it mean? It only means that if Churchmen in Wales will give additional subscriptions amounting to hardly; more than a penny per week per communicant the Church will be as rich after Disestablishment as before. The whole of this clamour about our ruining the Church in Wales and about our robbery of God is all based upon a refusal to admit the need that members of the Church of England in Wales should show something like the same generosity in support of their Church that Nonconformists show in support of their's. We base our claim to alienate these ancient Endowments from the Church on the ground that they are national funds. We believe they were given at a time when there was no distinction between Church and State, and that they were devoted to the purposes of the whole nation. We believe they ought never to have lost that character, and the only way by which we can restore to the Welsh people what belongs to them as a whole is that we shall devote the funds to purposes, quite truly secular in one aspect, but in the truest sense of the word I believe genuinely religious.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 347; Noes, 240.

  Division No. 576.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Adamson, William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Boland, John Pius

  Agnew, Sir George

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Booth. Frederick Handel

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnes, George N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barton, W.

  Brace, William

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Brady, P. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Harcourt, Robert v. (Montrose)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Middlebrook, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Molloy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, J.J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hayward, Evan

  Morrell, Philip

  Cameron, Robert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Muldoon, John

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Helme. Sir Norval Watson

  Munro, R.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray. Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Clough, William

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

  Clynes, John R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hinds, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hodge, John

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hogg, David C.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien. William (Cork)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crean, Eugene

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, S. L.

  Ogden, Fred

  Cullinan, J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Ketly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Johnson, W.

  O'Mallcy, William

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O Shaughnessy, P. J,

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Delany, William

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Keating, Matthew

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Dillon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Doris, W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Duffy, William J.

  King, J.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lawson. Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Leach, Charles

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Falconer, J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Reddy, M.

  Field, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ginnell, L.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Richards, Thomas

  Glanville, Harold James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Guest, Major, Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Manfield, Harry

  Roch, Walter F.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roche, Augustine. (Louth)

  Gulland, John William

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hackett, J.

  Martin, Joseph

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowlands, James

  Hancock, John George

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  2334

  2335

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Thomas, J. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Thome, William (West Ham)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Toulmin. Sir George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Shortt, Edward

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.W.)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Walters. Sir John Tudor

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smyth, Thomas F.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Snowden, Philip

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wardle, George J.

  Young, W. (Perth, E.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wason, Rt. Hon, E. (Clackmannan)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

  Sutton, John E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Webb, H.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jackson, Sir John

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ashley, W. W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Keswick, Henry

  Astor, Waldorf

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baird, J. L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Knight. Captain E. A.

  Balfour. Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Barnston, Harry

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Berestord, Lord C.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bird, A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Blair, Reginald

  Grant, J. A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Greene, W. R.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gretton, John

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Boyton, James

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Burn, Colonel, C. R.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Morrison-Bell. Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Campion, W. R.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Cassel, Felix

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Cator, John

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Norton-Griffiths, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hickman, Colonel T. E.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hills, John Waller

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hohler. Gerald Fitzroy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Peel, Captain R. F.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Perkins, Walter

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  2336

  2337

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stanier, Beville

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Rawson, Col R. H.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Starkey, John R.

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Winterton, Earl

  Royds, Edmund

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Sandys, G. J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Younger, Sir George

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  It being after Half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th November, 1912, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Third Reading of the Bill.

  MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting, -whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as DETUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  PILOTAGE BILL.
  As Amended (in the Standing Committee), Considered.
  PILOTAGE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Liability of Owner or Master in the Case of a Vessel Under Pilotage.)
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I beg to move, that the following Clause be read a second time:—

    (1) Notwithstanding anything in any public or local Act, the owner or master of a vessel navigating under circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory shall be answerable for any loss or damage caused by the vessel or by any fault of the navigation of the vessel in the same manner as he would if pilotageo were not compulsory.

    2338

    (2) This Section shall not take effect until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or such earlier date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, certifying that it is necessary to bring the Section into operation in order to enable His Majesty to comply with an international convention.

    (3) As from the date of the coming into operation of this Section, Section six hundred and thirty-three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall cease to have effect.

    Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, when a vessel is navigating under compulsory pilotage, the owners are not liable for any damage caused by it when in charge of a pilot. This Bill gives power to make areas which are not compulsory pilotage areas into compulsory pilotage areas, thus further relieving shipowners from liability. This question of shipowners' liability is in no sense a new question. It has been the subject of investigation and inquiry for many years past, and whatever inquiry has been held, and whatever investigation has been made, they have always come to the same conclusions, that the exemption for liability on the part of the shipowner is not a justifiable or a defensible position. I would like to quote from two Reports of inquiries held upon this subject. The recent Departmental Committee set up by the Board of Trade reported to this effect:—
    "It is difficult to exaggerate the hardships inflicted on innocent persons whose property has received damage from a vessel in charge of a compulsory pilot. Evidence to this effect has been given by ship, barge, and wharf owners, which confirms the evidence given at previous inquiries, and, in fact, the hardship and injustice inflicted by this law on persons whose property is damaged is so universally admitted as to make it quite unnecessary to multiply evidence on this point."

    2339
    The Select Committee which sat in 1888 reported as follows:—
    "Your Committee are strongly of opinion that the time has arrived when the exemption of the owner from liability for damage done by his ship when the ship is placed in charge of a pilot by compulsion of law should cease to exist."
    I could quote other Reports of inquiries to show how this hardship and injustice injures innocent people on the Thames and at other ports. The conclusions arrived at by the Committees which have inquired into the subject are in every way sound. I would remind the House that the Board of Trade introduced a Pilotage Bill in the Session of 1911, which, in Clause 45, made the very same proposal as I am making tonight. Looking to the great importance of this question, the House will naturally ask why the Clause which was in the 1911 Bill is not in this Bill. I understand that the reason it was not put in this Bill is not because the Board of Trade has altered its mind, not because anyone thought the circumstances were different, or that the exemption from liability of the shipowners should continue, but because the Board of Trade, as the Committee were informed upstairs, were carrying on international negotiations, and because pending the settlement of these negotiations it was not desirable to put the Clause in this Bill. The House will see that, in Subsection (2) of the new Clause I am moving, the difficulty of the Board of Trade has been met. The first Sub-section is identical with the Clause in the Bill of 1911, but the second Sub-section makes the Clause suspensory until January, 1918, so as to enable the Board of Trade to carry on its international negotiations. If their negotiations are completed before January 1918, they will bring their proposals before the House embodying this question, and other provisions arising out of the negotiations and this question will be settled on lines thought out by the Government and the Board of Trade.
    In the event of international negotiations breaking down and no further legislation being proposed by the Government, then the Clause in last year's Bill, the Clause now moved, will become operative in January, 1918. This is not so much my Clause, but is rather the outcome of discussion in Committee, in which the President of the Board of Trade was as anxious to find a riâ media as anyone else. We were all trying to find a way out of the difficulty to do what the Board of Trade admitted to be a proper thing to do, and
    2340
    at the same time to safeguard the position which the Board of Trade was trying to safeguard. The joint wisdom of the Committee in its final sitting, brought us to the idea that some such Clause as this. Since the Committee separated I have been negotiating with the President of the Board of Trade and the members of the Committee whose names appear on the Paper in support of this Clause. We have brought this up with a full belief in its utility and in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade will accept it. The Bill is a very useful measure to codify and simplify the pilotage laws of the country, but without some such provision as is now proposed I do not think that it would have been fair and equitable.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: The hon. Member has repudiated this Clause as his handiwork. My name is put down as the Seconder. I also wish very respectfully to repudiate it as being in any way my handiwork. We have both taken a very active part in the Committee stage of this Bill. Some Clause of this character has, in the interests of common justice, become absolutely necessary. There is the case of the 1,900 barge owners wbo suffer material damage from the action of the compulsory pilots. Their case must be taken into consideration, and the relief which this Clause will give of throwing responsibility of damage on the shipowner has really become necessary. On the other hand, it may be argued from the shipowner's point of view that the compulsory pilot supersedes the master in command of the ship, and the master, who is the owner's agent, being superseded, the owner should be under no further liability. That, to some extent, has been the law of the land in the past. In the Committee stage of this Bill I suggested a solution of the difficulty, making the compulsory pilot the adviser of the master, and leaving the master in command of the ship, but there were difficulties in the way of adopting that point of view, and we have been thrown back, after a great deal of discussion and negotiation, on this solution of the difficulty. Unless some international agreement is arrived at by the date named in this new Clause, then this new Clause should take effect, and I think it will be necessary as the only ultimate solution of a great difficulty.
    Mr. HOLT: I should like to put a few reasons before the House why this Clause should not be read a second time. I must say frankly that I find it very difficult to

    2341
    understand how any persons can be found to support this proposal. What are the reasons for compulsory pilotage? A pilot is not put on board a ship compulsorily in the interests of the ship, the owners of the ship, or the owners of the cargo, who are capable of taking care of themselves, and a voluntary pilot is quite sufficient in the interests of the ship. Compulsory pilotage is not substituted in the interests of the ship, but in the interests of the craft on the river and of the harbour authorities. A compulsory pilot is put on board for their protection. Shipowners do not want compulsory pilots; they want voluntary pilots, and they will pay any damage they cause. When you Substitute for the master a compulsory pilot, you are not at liberty to reject that man; and when you put him in charge of the ship, in the place of the master, owners are entitled to say, in the event of damage, that they should not be asked to pay for the misdeeds of that particular person. The ordinary Common Law never makes a person financially responsible for the misdeeds of a man over whom he has no control. But my hon. Friend says there is a certain amount of hardship on innocent persons. Surely the owner is just as much an innocent person; he is not the employer of the man who has done the wrong. If the Clause is passed no doubt the position of the compulsory pilot will be materially changed; he will not have any effective control over the management of the ship. If you take away the control of the pilot, the man might be put on one side, or ordered into the saloon, though his fees have to be paid. He really comes as a man who has the right to work, or to have his pay, if his services are not used.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Am I to understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the pilot on a compulsory ship has an authority which neither the master nor anyone else can supersede, and that the pilot on a non-compulsory ship has no such advantages, but the shipowner or the shipmaster has always control of the pilot, whether non-compulsory or compulsory?
    Mr. HOLT: If the pilot is a voluntary pilot, the master at any time can say, "We do not want you. Get out of the way." But the compulsory pilot has real authority on the ship, and if his orders are not correctly carried out the ship has to pay the damage. That is the whole basis of the pilot's authority on the ship.
    2342
    Directly you carry out these orders you strike a blow at the very foundation of compulsory pilotage, and he becomes a person of no real importance, and must inevitably, in the course of time, be struck off the list of compulsorily employed persons, because he ceases to serve any useful purpose. We heard something about this international bargain, and as I understood an agreement has been come to or is in course of being arrived at by which it is proposed that shipowners on the other side shall give up this legal defence of compulsory pilotage in exchange for certain considerations which the authorities of this country are more or less ready to give with regard to limitations of liability. The Board of Trade stayed their hands in this matter in order that we may try to negotiate a settlement, but is it not perfectly obvious that if you put into an Act of Parliament a Clause stating that the legal difference of compulsory pilotage is to come to an end in five years, your weapon for negotiations is perfectly worthless, as the people have only got to sit tight for five years and they get everything. I think that is a very serious reason why this Clause should not be put into the Bill. Even if it were thought right to abolish the legal defence and compulsory pilotage, I submit at the present time it would be extremely unwise to put a definite date at which that defence is to come to an end. I think shipowners have some just ground of complaint of the way in which they have been treated in this matter. The Clause was not put in the Bill on Second Reading, and for that reason they did not oppose the Bill. They were unable to be represented directly on the Committee, and upstairs. They had no proper opportunity of making their views known. Therefore I do submit with very great confidence that the proposal of my hon. Friend is not fair, and that the House ought not to accept it.
    Major GUEST: I also desire to express my opposition to the Clause, though not quite for the same reasons as those just advanced but for the reason that this question of compulsory pilotage is raised at the last moment on this Bill by a side wind. It is a complete reversal of the policy which has previously been pursued, and in fact before the owner can claim immunity from liability for damage he has got to prove that the pilot was at fault when the damage took place. That is an additional difficulty that the owner

    2343
    is in. With regard to the actual case, I think between shipowner and shipowner it is not a very vital question, because one day the shipowner may be the cause of the damage, and another day his ship may be damaged. I quite admit with regard to the question of shipowner and dock owner that the dock owner is at a disadvantage, and I admit also that in the Departmental Committees that have been held a case for the consideration of these conditions has been made out, but not, I contend, in the present Bill. In the first place, when the Bill was presented for Second Reading these provisions were entirely omitted. In answer to the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) on the 19th December, the President of the Board of Trade stated that international considerations made it inadvisable to include this Clause in the Bill. Moreover, when the Clause was discussed upstairs, the right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that either he or some future President of the Board of Trade would have to introduce legislation to remedy this condition of affairs, but I certainly never understand that a Clause of this kind, would be introduced into the Bill. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Clause. It would have the effect of prejudging the case, and would not on any future occasion give the shipowners an opportunity to put their side of the question, which in justice they should be allowed to do, although there is much to be said against it. If my hon. Friend divides against the Clause I shall support him.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I object to this Clause for many of the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), but my principal reason is that there are in the Bill five Clauses dealing with compulsory pilotage, everyone of which contemplates that compulsory pilotage as it has existed in the past is to be continued. We are now suddenly brought face to face with a Clause, apparently the production of private Members, which in effect completely abolishes compulsory pilotage at the expiry of five years. To make such a complete alteration of the law of the land in a matter of this kind in such a way upon the Report stage is, to my mind, a very irregular proceeding, and one calculated to do a great deal of harm. The Bill has been carefully examined by a large
    2344
    number of interested parties. The pilots of the United Kingdom have studied it, and by communicating with various Members, have been able to put forward their views. Shipowners, dock authorities, and other interested parties have done the same. But they have not been able to say anything about this Clause, because they knew nothing about it. What is this important proposition? It is that the question of the liability of compulsory pilotage is to be abolished in five years.
    It has been fairly and clearly stated by a shipowner opposite who understands the subject and who to-morrow may be interested one way or the other—for it cuts both ways—what the position of the law is in the matter. It is this, that there are two absolutely different kinds of pilotage—the voluntary and the compulsory. In places where pilotage is voluntary the shipowner, or the master of the vessel, takes on the pilot if he wants one, and the master pleases himself to what extent he avails himself of that pilot's recommendations. But there are places, harbours, entrances where in the interests of all the traffic—of the barges and so on—every ship that navigates these particular waters is bound to take a pilot; not of the shipowner's choosing, but chosen by that particular authority. The law always practically has been, and is today, that having taken the pilot on board, that pilot has absolute control of the ship. As a consequence the law very properly says, if any accident happens to the ship the master is not to be liable so long as the pilot is on board and his orders are carried out.
    This new Clause, if passed, will absolutely wipe out that state of affairs at the end of five years. What will be the consequence? It will be that if a shipowner is to be liable for whatever accident or damage may occur in consequence of the navigation of the vessel under the circumstances, having been obliged to take a pilot on board, the shipmaster will take jolly good care that if the pilot tells him to do anything likely to cause an accident he will not do it, because he will be liable. The pilot's authority will be set aside. The effect of that will be that all the benefits of compulsory pilotage will be done away with. What I invite the Government to do, if they seriously consider that this is a proper position to arrive at, is to abolish compulsory pilotage altogether. That is the solution in the case of every craft that comes into a tidal harbour where a

    2345
    pilot is wanted—to leave the master at liberty to take a pilot or not, and to leave him responsible for any damage he may do. That is the straightforward, reasonable solution.
    If you insist upon a pilot being taken on board and having absolute control of the ship, then the master ought not to be responsible. The suggestion about international negotiation ought to be put off for five years. The very fact of passing this Clause, if we are foolish enough to do it to-night, would be that the very weapon our people might have with a view to international negotiations and making a decent bargain would be gone. You are putting your cards on the table for them to be trumped! It is an exceedingly stupid thing in every direction to pass a Clause like this. A great new principle, which was not contemplated when this Bill was read a second time, is now sought to be introduced at the last moment without the opportunity for the interested parties to express their views, and this is so objectionable in itself that I join with my hon. Friends in opposing the insertion of this Clause.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I think there are one or two aspects of this particular question which I might usefully put before the House and which I am in a position to put before it. I had the honour of representing His Majesty's Government at the diplomatic conference abroad at which the Convention on Collisions at Sea was agreed: that was a Convention which contained the provision for the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage. It was discussed for a matter of ten years, and was finally agreed in October, 1910 at Brussels. The proposal for the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage was considered at very great length, by a large number of interested bodies in this country and also in foreign countries. It was the subject of discussion in that year and also in previous years on the Continent at International Conferences. The position was that we, and I think one, or it may be two other countries had the defence. All the other countries of the world which enforced compulsory pilotage regarded that fact as no defence to an action brought, against the shipowner whose pilot had been in fault. The view taken by those nations is that the pilot is put there by compulsion of law in order that the master of the ship may have the best possible advice in local waters, and the object of the compulsion is to make certain that the
    2346
    local knowledge is on board the ship. The pilot remains an adviser.
    And from that point of view there is an advantage in compulsion even although the master be not obliged to take the advice of the pilot, and the view was entertained by a large number of leading shipowners that it makes on the whole for the interest of safe navigation that the responsibility for what happens should not be entirely taken from the master. Under our present system whereever the pilot makes a mistake and the master does not interfere, the shipowner is free from liability. So the master necessarily to some degree loses that sense of responsibility which after all is ultimately the greatest safeguard for the good navigation of a ship. That view is taken by many leading shipowners in this country to-day who, from some points of view recognise the advantage of the defence of compulsory pilotage. The chairman of the Cunard Company, one of the best shipowners in this country, I know personally takes that view—he told me so himself—and it is a view frequently entertained. Therefore I ask the House to bear in mind that you may have advantage from compulsion by the presence of the pilot as an adviser, and yet there may be an advantage to consider in the balance of considerations in leaving the master responsible and keeping the pilot merely as an adviser. After all it is not to be ignored by any means that many other great Shipowning nations take that view—Germany, United States, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain—and have acted on that view in their legislation.
    It was upon those considerations and upon one other consideration that we came to the conclusion we did at the International Conference. The other consideration was this. It is quite true that the shipowner, when he is defendant, may sometimes get off on the plea of compulsory pilotage; he is sometimes the plaintiff and fails to recover when his ship is damaged because the other ship is in charge of a compulsory pilot, and from this point of view it may be said the risk is averaged, and that it is as broad as it is long, and the practice of insurance averages the risk still further, nevertheless there is one point of view from which the shipowner stands to gain. In a collision the shipowner may be either plaintiff or defendant. The cargo may be equally damaged with the ship but the cargo owner is always plaintiff. In the total money bill to be paid by shipowners

    2347
    that part paid in respect of cargo is one in which the advantage of the defence is always on the side of the shipowner. At the International Conference we did what we could after the most careful consideration to protect all interests. The agreement we came to was not made to protect the interests of shipowners, but in order to unify maritime law, having the same sea law all over the world, getting other nations to make alterations in their law while this country undertook to make certain alterations to meet them. We did try to get a sound system of law of the sea, and we came to the conclusion that this alteration in British law was one which ought to be made. Our Government having taken that view the shipowners of this country said we recognise the justice of that position, but there is another branch of maritime law which is now in process of negotiation in which we are greatly interested, and that is the question of the limitation of shipowners' liability. As this House knows all those acquainted with maritime law have recognised the necessity for the sake of encouraging commerce of limiting the risk incurred by shipowners who put their fortunes on the sea in charge of servants who pass entirely out of their control while at sea.
    That is a broad policy recognised by all nations, but the systems by which that limitation has been affected have varied greatly and at the present time there is very great divergence. Under existing circumstances British shipowners as compared with foreign competitors suffer a very considerable handicap. I need not go into details, but I may just say that the shipowners of this country say we want to come to an arrangement with regard to the limitation of liability, so that we may have the same law and be put on the same footing as our foreign competitors. They want us to give up the defence of compulsory pilotage, and we say we will do it if they will agree to a limitation of liability. With regard to the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage we reserved our right to postpone the change in our law. That was the course we adopted at Brussels. That is the present position, and it was for that reason that this Clause was not inserted in the Pilotage Bill when it was first introduced, and for that reason the shipowners did not take any particular steps to be represented on the Committee stage of the Bill by anybody conversant with their particular
    2348
    point of view. To that extent the shipowners have a strong case in saying that this Clause ought not to be added to the Bill at this stage. But in spite of that I want to say that we on behalf of the British Government did definitely inform the foreign nations in 1910 that we were of the opinion that the change of law contemplated by the Convention ought to be made and was a just change, and other Governments are anxious that it should be carried out as soon as possible. It is quite true that if we had not had that Clause we should have had a more potent bargaining weapon than if we only had the delay of five years. If we go, as we are intending to go at Easter, to Brussels to deal with limitation of liability, we shall then be able to say with very great force to the delegates of foreign nations we have made arrangements for carrying out the Treaty in regard to collisions made in 1910, as you asked us, and you must now meet us in the spirit in which we have met you, and help us to come to the arrangement we want over the limitation of liability. I agree it is a trustful attitude. All I can say is I believe we shall be met in that spirit. Though of course it is a matter upon which it is impossible to express an opinion with certainty, on the whole I believe it is better to allow the Clause to go through in the Bill as it is proposed.
    Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: My name is connected with this Clause, not because I am advocating one side or the other, but because in Committee I was partly responsible for a compromise. There are difficulties on both sides. There is some hardship, I admit, if this Clause becomes an operative one. Five years lie between the operation of the Clause and its passing, and we have heard sufficient from the last speaker to indicate that it is only a crude way of expressing an opinion that persons who are injured by ships should not suffer that injury and have no redress save the redress for damages up to £100 from the pilot. Owners of small craft are frequently men of small means. The owners of docks have a right to compensation in case of blundering navigation causing damage to their docks, and the evil which owners of small vessels in rivers and dock owners suffer is an evident and a practical one. Cases are continually occurring of damages to the extent of thousands of pounds entirely falling upon the owners of small craft and of the docks, and no kind of remedy has been found for it. These people are compelled even under

    2349
    this Bill to suffer for at least five years, should no arrangements be made in the meantime.
    It is impossible for the thing to be settled at the present time; negotiations are going on. An international agreement is required. We have much more at stake than other nations, and we cannot settle it on one side or the other, but we can indicate both to the shipowners of this country and other shipowners that this is not simply for the protection of shipowners as a class or to give a remedy to one shipowner as against another. We can indicate that a modification of the law is necessary. A Departmental Committee has recommended quite lately that this change should be made, so that the whole thing has been inquired into on evidence, and all the directions and instructions seem to point in this way. The addition of this Clause has not been concocted by two or three members of the Committee in the interests of one particular class. It has come out of the general consideration of the Committee. Those on one side and those on the other have agreed to this Clause, and it has the sanction of the Board of Trade, so it is a matter of compromise and of agreement, and not of sectional triumph. I believe there is every reason for allowing it to go through, although I quite admit it requires revision and some consideration as to the status of the pilot and his responsibility, and there are other considerations which were mentioned in the speech on the hon. Member opposite who represents Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott).
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Perhaps the House will allow me to explain my position in regard to this matter as the Minister in charge of the Bill. A Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the pilotage question, and it was agreed by that Committee that the legal defence of compulsory pilotage should be abolished. After consideration of that Report, I introduced a Bill in 1911 and I introduced a Clause under the operation of which the legal defence of compulsory pilotage would be abolished. That Bill disappeared and a difficulty then arose. This International Conference to which the hon. Member for Liverpool has referred and at which he represented the shipowners took place and in view of what had already occurred it was agreed that the International Conference should continue its labours until it arrived
    2350
    at the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Liverpool referred, and as this question of the abolition of compulsory pilotage formed an integral part of these negotiations it was suggested that the matter should be postponed until the Conference had met. That appeared to me to be a not unreasonable proposition on the part of the shipowners, and I agreed to it. The result was that a Clause abolishing the defence of compulsory pilotage did not appear in the first instance in this Bill. I took care to state that if the Committee put this or a similar Clause into the Bill I could not be held responsible for taking it out on Report.
    That was the position when we went into Committee. In the course of the discussion in Committee several Members raised this question of the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage. I was successful in resisting the proposal in the early stages of the Committee on the ground to which I have referred, which has been clearly stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, the question of awaiting the decision of the International Conference. But what was put to me was this: "Supposing the International Conference comes to nothing or through some misfortune that part of the programme is not dealt with? Was I not to include the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage supposing the liability of the shipowner was dealt with by the International Conference? and I was bound to state my view, in answer to that, that having introduced a Bill for the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage in the year before it was my own opinion that the question could not be held up indefinitely and that if the International Conference came to nothing, the question of the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage must be dealt with on its merits and apart from the other question altogether. I was not unnaturally pressed in the course of further discussion in Committee to give a more precise statement in the matter of time.
    I think every member of the Committee was in favour of the abolition of the defence of compulsory pilotage, but they were willing that the International Conference should have an opportunity of settling the question if possible in that way. But they were also clear that there must be some fixed limit beyond which that question could not be postponed, and in the course of various discussions the

    2351
    hon. Member from one of the Yorkshire divisions suggested that the Board of Trade should undertake to deal with the question within a year after the Conference, and the hon. Member for Falmouth suggested that it might be left to be done by Order in Council. Various other suggestions were made. I think that every Member of the Committee will endorse this view, that if I had raised the matter on its merits I should have been defeated, and the Committee would have insisted on putting into the Bill the Clause my hon. Friend has referred to which abolishes the defence of compulsory pilotage at once. It was suggested in various quarters that some compromise might be made, and considerable negotiations took place, and the parties expressed their willingness among themselves to allow this suspensory Clause for a period of five years to be inserted, but that it should come into operation at an earlier time if an international agreement was reached. That is the position and that is the reason why this Clause is now before the House.
    I do not feel that I ought to make this matter a Government question. I think it would be fairer to the House and to the Members of the Committee to leave it an open question to the House. That is the position in which the Bill now stands, and undoubtedly the feeling of the Committee was that it is a matter which ought to be settled at an early date, and that it ought not to be hung up indefinitely. At the same time full opportunity ought to be given to the International Conference to settle the question in connection with the other matter, and I hope they will be able to do so. So far as I am concerned I shall give them every support in my power as representing the Board of Trade, in order to enable them to arrive at a satisfactory solution, and an international agreement. If the suspensory Clause is now inserted I think the Members of the Committee and the House will feel that they ought to give a sympathetic reception to the other Bill which will be necessary to carry out the International Convention when it comes into being. They will then have dealt with the question with due consideration from the point of view of the shipowners. That remark also applies to the dockowners, bargeowners and others interested in the matter. I hope that the House, looking at the matter all round, especially after the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, will allow this Clause to be inserted in the Bill. I do not
    2352
    think it will prejudice the International Convention, which I hope will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion within a short time.
    Proposed Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power of Board of Trade to make Pilotage Orders.)
    (1) The Board of Trade may, by Order made under this Act (in this Act referred to as a Pilotage Order)—

    (a) make such rearrangement of pilotage districts and pilotage authorities as they think necessary or expedient; and

    (b) establish new pilotage districts and new pilotage authorities and abolish existing pilotage districts and existing pilotage authorities in cases where it appears to the Board necessary or expedient; and

    (c) define the limits of pilotage districts, distinguishing as respects any pilotage district in part of which pilotage is compulsory and in part of which pilotage is not compulsory, the part of the district in which pilotage is compulsory; and

    (d) provide for the incorporation of any pilotage authority, and make such alteration in the constitution of any pilotage authority with reference to their powers and duties as pilotage authority, and such provisions as to the appointment of committees (including, if it is thought fit, persons not members of the authority), and as to the relations between the authority and the committee, as the Board think necessary or expedient; and

    (e) empower a pilotage authority to delegate to a committee thereof any of its powers and duties, and provide if it seems necessary or desirable that the decisions of the committee on questions so delegated shall not require confirmation by the pilotage authority; and

    (f) make such provision for the direct representation of pilots and shipowners on any pilotage authority or committee of a pilotage authority as the Board think necessary or expedient; and

    (g) in cases where a pilotage authority have powers and duties as to other matters as well as pilotage, provide for their accounts as pilotage

    2353
    authority being kept separate from their accounts in relation to other matters; and

    (h) provide that pilotage shall be compulsory in any area where it has previously not been compulsory; and

    (i) authorise, where it appears expedient, any pilotage authority to make byelaws providing for the grant of certificates (in this Act referred to as deep sea certificates) certifying that persons are qualified to act as pilots of ships for any part of the sea or channels outside the district of any pilotage authority, so, however, that a pilot holding such a certificate shall not be entitled to supersede any other person as pilot of a ship; and

    (j) provide that any Act (other than this Act), order, charter, custom, byelaw, regulation, or provision shall, so far as it relates to pilotage, cease to have effect within any pilotage district or as respects any pilotage authority, but may reenact the whole or any part thereof so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and

    (k) provide for compensation being paid to any pilots for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of any order abolishing or rearranging any pilotage districts; and

    (l) make any provisions which appear necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the Order.

    (2) Provision shall be made by Pilotage Order for the direct representation of pilots either on the pilotage authority or on the committee of the pilotage authority of any district where there are not less than six licensed pilots if a majority of the pilots licensed for the district signify in writing to the Board of Trade that they desire such representation, and, where such provision is made, provision shall also be made for the direct representation of shipowners on the authority or committee, as the case may be.
    (3) A Pilotage Order shall not be made by the Board of Trade except for any of the purposes of Part I. of this Act or on the application in writing of any person interested in the pilotage of any pilotage district or in the operation of the laws relating to pilotage in that district or the administration of those laws.
    (4) A Pilotage Order shall require con firmation by Parliament—

    (a) if it is an Order made for the purpose of carrying into effect any scheme under Part I. of this Act submitted to them by the pilotage authority, or recommended by the Commissioners for the purpose of the reorganisation or improvement of organisation of pilotage at any port; and

    (b) if, whatever the purpose for which it is made, a petition is presented to the Board of Trade against the Order by any person appearing to the Board of Trade to be interested in the administration of pilotage in the district within six weeks after the Order is published and the petition is not withdrawn.

    (5) A Pilotage Order which does not require confirmation by Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
    (6) The provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to Pilotage Orders.
    Sir HOWELL DAVIES: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) paragraph (h) after the word "compulsory" ["where it has previously not been compulsory"], to insert the words," or provide that pilotage shall not be compulsory in any area where it has been compulsory."
    I am anxious to get restored to this part of the Clause words which were originally in it when the Bill went into Committee. The object of the Clause was to give power to the Board of Trade, in certain circumstances, to hold inquiries as to whether the Act of Parliament, which applies generally to the various parts, is working satisfactorily. In leaving out the words I propose to put in, half the object of the original Clause was lost. If it is desirable to make pilotage compulsory in areas where it has not been compulsory, it ought to be equally possible to turn compulsory areas into non-compulsory areas. The Port of Bristol became a compulsory area as far back as 1807. In 1861 an amending Act was passed which excluded from the compulsory area East of Lundy the ports of Cardiff, Newport and Gloucester. In 1891 the Bristol compulsory area was still further restricted.
    It is a remarkable fact that in the compulsory waters of Bristol, Gloucester steamers can go up and pass through our waters, which are compulsory to Bristol, while Bristol ships have to lie

    2355
    up or wait to pick up pilots. So far as Bristol ships are concerned, that area of the Bristol Channel is not always a convenient place to take pilots on board ships Bristol bound by reason of currents and inclemency of the weather. Two ships may be coming up upon the same tide, one to Sharpness and the other to the old Port of Bristol. One can proceed through the compulsory area to Bristol Old Port while the other might not be able to get a pilot for the reasons I have stated, and the Bristol bound steamer runs a considerable risk with the underwriters in consequence of going into compulsory waters without taking a pilot. I should be the last person in the world to wish to do anything to injure the Bristol pilots. I have the highest respect for them, but at the same time we cannot allow an authority with £6,000,000 of capital to be stereotyped into a worse position than that enjoyed by Gloucester, Cardiff, Newport or Sharpness. In the next place if in the wisdom of this House they were to agree to the addition of this Clause and the Board of Trade after due inquiry were to relieve the Port of Bristol from being a compulsory port within the area of which I have spoken, there is power in the same Clause to give compensation to the pilots for any variations of their present pilotage privileges and it is only fair that the words which I propose should be agreed to so that there should be elasticity given to the Board of Trade to deal with this question.
    Colonel GIBBS: In supporting the Amendment I would point out that, contrary to what my hon. Friend near me said, the Committee, instead of being agreed upon this matter, cut out the words which it is now proposed to insert. As has been said very properly, it is obviously absurd that we in Bristol should stultify ourselves by allowing the Sub-section to remain as it is. The two ports of Bristol are the only ports in the Bristol Channel where pilotage is compulsory. We are willing to leave matters as they are at the present time, but we are certainly not willing to allow this Sub-section to go into the Bill.
    Mr. JOYCE: I desire to oppose the insertion of these words. When this matter came before the Standing Committee there was a long and exhaustive debate, and all sides were heard. The Committee came to the conclusion it would be wise
    2356
    that these words should not remain in the Bill. I was anxious to hear the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment give some good and sufficient reason for it. All I could gather from what he said was that he was anxious not to hurt the pilots in any way. I judge a man not by his words but by his deeds, and I say that if this Amendment were carried, he would do all that he possibly could to injure the interests of the pilots. How do the pilots stand in this matter? In the first portion of the Debate I heard some extraordinary statements made with regard to the pilots by an hon. Member opposite, and also by another on this side—statements which I could with truth contradict flatly. I think I know something about this subject. In dealing with the question of compulsory pilotage has it entered the head of the hon. Member who so lightly proposes to sweep away the Bristol pilots to consider what is the position occupied by the pilots of this country? Has it entered into his head that if you wish to keep an efficient service of pilotage in this country, you should make the men understand that their interests are safeguarded by the State.
    It is most important to have efficient men to perform the arduous duties of the ser vice in a proper and systematic manner. I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that their duties are arduous. I am not going back on what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill as to the importance of the pilotage service as a national asset, but I do not think hon. Members ought to forget that the pilots in other countries are servants of the State. They are looked after and protected by the State, and they must abide by the rules and regulations applied to them by the State. But in this country the rules and regulations are enforced against pilots as strictly as in other countries, but the pilots are not the servants of the State in the same sense as in other countries. It is a shame for any Government to be in power and not to safeguard the pilots. They should not be at the whim of the shipowner—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is dealing with the matter rather too broadly. This is a limited Amendment.
    Mr. JOYCE: With great respect I think that every word which I have said is pertinent to this Amendment. I know the subject with which I am dealing, and must

    2357
    deal with it in this way in order to show that this Amendment would work badly for the pilots and may not work very well for the interests which the hon. Member is supposed to represent. In the interests of an efficient service of pilots you want what the Grand Committee decided on having carried out in the Bill, and we ask for no more. I am quite willing to leave it to this House to decide between the pilots and the hon. Member who has proposed the Amendment and I ask the Government not to interfere as between us and to let it be a fair, straight vote and I will abide by the consequences. Owing to the position created by this Bill various pilotage services in the country where great changes are about being made have been hung up. The pilots in conjunction with their authorities have been expending a great deal of money in order to provide a steam service where the old cutter service existed, and these things cannot be carried out until this Bill becomes law. If a blow such as this Amendment would deal is dealt at the pilots then you will do a disservice to the pilotage and to the mercantile marine of this country.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): This Amendment proposes to put back in the Bill a provision that was originally there. We defended that provision, but the hon. Member for Limerick was able to defeat us upstairs by two to one. Being defeated in this way, the Government have no wish to set themselves against such a clearly expressed opinion of the Committee upstairs. On the other hand, as this provision was our own provision, we are not going to declare ourselves against the Amendment of the hon. Member (Sir W. H. Davies) because we considered that if there was to be a power one way, it is only right that there should be a power the other way. The plain fact is that it is not a matter of such very great importance. We actually have at present under the Merchant Shipping Act power by Provisional Order compulsorily to change a district. So far as I know, we have never used the power, and though it was proposed to be inserted as a matter of logical symmetry and of conceivable necessity in some cases, we do not regard it as a matter of vital importance, but are willing to meet the wish of the hon. Member for Limerick by leaving it to the House.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the House allow me to call attention to the point that if the
    2358
    Clause is put into the Bill it will be impossible to readjust the bounds to the smallest extent in the way of reducing the amount of compulsory pilotage? If you are going to have an inquiry the Commission ought to have the power of recommending a larger or smaller area of compulsory pilotage, just as they think suitable. Under this Bill the Order enlarging or reducing the compulsory area would have to be confirmed by the House, for it could not possibly pass into law if it was objected to by any person.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Under the provisions of this Bill, the first part of it directs or enables certain inquiries to be made under the Pilotage Acts; then this Clause enables the Board of Trade to make a Pilotage Order. As the rule was originally framed the Pilotage Order was in the direction of either enlarging an area, or converting a non-compulsory area into a compulsory area, or in converting a compulsory into a non-compulsory area. That is a very desirable power for the Board of Trade to possess, because in the instance of Bristol you have one comparatively small part of a big area which stands alone as a compulsory area, and which, I think, when an inquiry has been held, might properly be converted into a non-compulsory area. The manager of one of the important lines of steamers using Avonmouth told me only a few days ago that he had had a great deal of difficulty with the pilots who, in piloting his ships into Avonmouth docks, on three occasions hit the pier head. They were pilots accustomed to handling small ships, and they had no idea how to manage big ships. This is a perfectly proper subject for inquiry by the Board of Trade, and I certainly think that they should possess the power, which the Bill in its original form gave them, of converting this one small fraction of a large area, over a long period of years a compulsory portion, into a non-compulsory area.
    Mr. KING: There have been only four speeches in favour of this Amendment and one against it, but really there are four times as many arguments against the Amendment as there are for it. This Bill is supposed to be founded on the Report of the Departmental Committee on Pilotage, which reported eighteen months ago. That Report was unanimously in favour of compulsory pilotage all over the Kingdom, and compulsory pilotage is the rule for all ports in other countries, especially France.

    2359
    We ought not to fly against the example of other countries, and go against the Report of the Departmental Committee. I am entitled to speak for Bristol too as I represent two of the most important wards and all the pilots of Bristol are within my Constituency. They are very impartial men, but I am sorry to say they do not all vote for me. They have instructed me with a wealth of language and illustration which I will not reproduce, that I must oppose this Amendment and ask the House to do the same.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: There is one fact the House ought to bear in mind and that
    is when this provision was originally in the Bill and before it was taken out there was a provision giving to the pilots whose area was made non-compulsory, compensation if they suffered by the change. When the Clause was taken out that Compensation Clause was taken out and if the Clause is put back now the Compensation Clause should go back too.
    Mr. BUXTON: If the House agree to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I propose to add those words as to compensation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 137.

    Division No. 577.]

    AYES.

    [12.5 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Hayward, Evan

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Shortt, Edward

    Butcher, J. G.

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutherland, John E.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Munro, Robert

    Tennant, Harold John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Falconer, James

    Necdham, Christopher Thomas

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Gladstone, William G. C.

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

    White, James Dundas (Glasgow)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcester, N.)

    Gulland, John William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Howell Davies and Mr. Gibbs.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Rea. Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Allen, A. Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Field, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, S. George)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lundon, Thomas

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gilmour, Captain John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Black, Arthur W.

    Goldstone, Frank (Sunderland)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Boland, John Pius

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meagher, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gretton, John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hall, Douglas B. (Isle of Wight)

    Morison, Hector

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. (Ashburton)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hancock, John George

    Muldoon, John

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    dough, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hodge, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hogge, James M.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Kelly, E. P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Donelan. Captain A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Doris, William

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Keating, Matthew

    Parry, Thomas Henry

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pointer, Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    King, Joseph

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kyffin-Taylor, Gerald

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Reddy, Michael

    Sheeny, David

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Webb, Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Stewart, Gershom

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Sutton, John E.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Rowlands, James

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joyce and Mr. Brace.

    Sandys, George John

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow)

    Walsh, S. (Lancashire, Ince)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "direct" ["direct representation of shipowners"].—[Mr. Holt.]
    In Sub-section (2) at end add the words: "(3) A Pilotage Order establishing a pilotage authority for any pilotage district shall provide for the representation on the pilotage authority of any dock or harbour authority having jurisdiction within the district which was represented on the pilotage authority for the district at the time of the passing of this Act, and which desires to be so represented."
    In Sub-section (4) paragraph (a) leave out the words "for the purpose of carrying into effect any scheme under Part I. of this Act submitted to them by the pilotage authority, or recommended by the Commissioners for the purpose of the re-organisation or improvement of organisation of pilotage at any port; and" and insert instead thereof the words "for any of the purposes of Part I. of this Act."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 9.—(Power to Appoint Advisory Committee.)
    (1) The Board of Trade may appoint an advisory committee for the purpose of advising them with reference to the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties under this Act, consisting of such persons as they may appoint, being pilots, shipowners, representatives of pilotage authorities, or other persons representing the interests principally affected, or having special knowledge of the subject-matter.
    (2) There shall be paid to the members of any such Committee out of moneys provided by Parliament such allowances and expenses as the Board of Trade may fix with the consent of the Treasury.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "authorities" ["representatives of pilotage authorities"], insert the words "representatives of dock and harbour authorities."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Continuation of Existing Compulsory Districts and Abolition of Existing Exemptions.)
    (1) Subject to the provisions of any Pilotage Order, pilotage shall continue to be compulsory in every pilotage district in which it was compulsory at the time of the passing of this Act, and shall continue not to be compulsory in every pilotage district in which it was not compulsory at the time of the passing of this Act, and as from the commencement of this Act all exemptions from compulsory pilotage in force before that date shall cease to have effect.
    (2) Any reference in this Act to a pilotage district in which pilotage is compulsory shall, in the case of a district in which pilotage is compulsory only in part of the district, be construed, if the context so requires, as a reference to that part of the district only.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "as from the commencement," and insert instead thereof the words "subject to the provisions."
    Leave out the words "before that date," and insert instead thereof the words "at the date of the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 12.—(Exemption from Compulsory Pilotage of Strips belonging to certain Public Authorities)
    The provisions of this Act with respect to compulsory pilotage shall not apply to tugs, dredgers, sludge-vessels, barges, and other similar craft—

    (a) belonging to or hired by a port, dock, harbour or river authority whilst employed in the exercise of the statutory powers or duties of the authority and navigating within any pilotage district which includes within its limits the whole or any part of the area of the authority; or

    (b) belonging to a local authority whilst employed in the exercise of the statutory powers or duties of the authority and navigating within the

    2363
    pilotage district within which the port to which they belong is situate.

    Mr. JOYCE: I beg to move at the end of paragraph (b) to add the words: "Provided that where in any pilotage district any of the classes of vessels aforesaid were at the time of the passing of this Act in practice subject to compulsory pilotage, the pilotage authority may by bye-law provide that any of such vessels shall continue to be so subject."
    This is an agreed Amendment and is intended to get over a difficulty that exists in shipping in Liverpool districts. Without this Amendment great hardship would be inflicted on the men there.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Provision with respect to Ships calling at a Port for the purpose only of taking Pilot.)
    A ship calling at a port in a pilotage district for the purpose only of taking on board a pilot belonging to some other pilotage district shall not, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act relating to compulsory pilotage, be deemed to be navigating in the first-mentioned district for the purpose of entering, leaving, or making use of that port.
    Amendment made: After the word "board" ["taking on board a pilot"] insert the words "or landing."—[Mr. Holt.]

    CLAUSE 16.—(Power of Pilotage Authorities to Make Bye-laws.)
    (1) A pilotage authority may by bye-laws made under this Act—

    (a) determine the qualification in respect of age, physical fitness, time of service, local knowledge, skill, character, and otherwise to be required from persons applying to be licensed by them as pilots, provide for the examination of such persons, and fix the term for which a licence is to be in force, and the conditions under which a licence may be renewed; and

    (b) fix the limit (if any) on the number of pilots to be licensed, and provide for the method in which and the conditions under which the list of pilots is to be filled up; and

    2364

    (c) provide generally for the good government of pilots licensed by the authority, and of apprentices, and in particular for ensuring their good conduct and constant attendance to and effectual performance of their duties, whether at sea or on shore; and

    (d) determine the system to be adopted with respect to the supply and employment of pilots, and provide, so far as necessary, for the approval, licensing, and working of pilot boats in the district, and for the establishment and regulation of pilot boat companies; and

    (e) provide for the punishment of any breach of any bye-laws made by them for the good government of pilots or apprentices by the infliction of fines not exceeding twenty pounds (to be recoverable as fines are recoverable under the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1907), without perjudice to their powers under this Act to revoke or suspend the licence in the case of any such breach of bye-law; and

    (f) fix for the district the rates of payments to be made in respect of the services of a licensed pilot (in this Act referred to as pilotage dues), define the circumstances and conditions under which pilotage dues may be payable on different scales; and

    (g) if and so far as it appears to the authority to be generally desired by the pilots, provide for the collection and distribution of pilotage dues, or for the pooling of pilotage dues earned by the licensed pilots or by any class of pilots in the district; and

    (h) provide for a deduction being made from any sums received by pilots of any sums required for meeting the administrative expenses of the authority, or any contributions required for any fund established for the payment of pensions or other benefits to pilots, their widows or children (in this Act referred to as a pilots' benefit fund); and

    (i) provide, if and so far as it appears to the authority to be generally desired by the pilots, for bonds being given by pilots for the purpose of the provisions of this Act limiting pilots' liability; and

    2365

    (j) establish, either alone or in conjunction with any other pilotage authority, pilots' benefit funds, and provide for the direct payment to that fund of any contributions by pilots towards the fund, or of any part of the ordinary receipts of the pilotage authority, and also for the administration of any such fund and for the conditions of participation in any such fund; and

    (k) provide for the method of conducting the examination of masters and mates applying for pilotage certificates; and

    (l)prohibit the grant of pilotage certificates to masters or mates who do not hold at least a mate's certificate of competency recognised under Part II. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and

    (m) provide that a pilotage certificate shall not be renewed without re-examination unless the master or mate has made not less than a specified number of visits to the port as master or mate of any ship in respect of which the certificate is granted; and

    (n) if the pilotage authority are an authority authorised to grant deep sea certificates by virtue of a Pilotage Order made with reference to that authority, provide for the grant of deep sea certificates; and

    (o) apply any bye-laws made under this section for the good government of pilots and the punishment of any breach of any such bye-law, with any necessary modifications, to masters and mates holding pilotage certificates; and

    (p) require the owners of ships, whose masters and mates hold pilotage certificates, to contribute towards the pilot fund or account of the pilotage district, and require the holders of such certificates to make a periodical return to them of the pilotage services rendered by them; provided that the contribution so required from an owner shall not exceed such proportion of the pilotage dues which would have been payable in respect of the ship if the master or mate had not held a pilotage certificate, as may be fixed by the Board of Trade.

    2366

    (q) provide for any matter for which provision is to be made or may be made under this Act by bye-law.

    (2) A bye-law shall not take effect unless it has been submitted to the Board of Trade and confirmed by them with or without modifications.
    (3) Notice of any bye-law proposed to be submitted for confirmation under this section shall, before it is so submitted, be published in such manner as the Board of Trade direct.
    Amendment made: In paragraph (f) after the word "dues" ["referred to as pilotage dues"] insert the word "and."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Peto)—after the word "dues" in paragraph (f) to insert the words "and the rates of payments to be made to masters or mates possessing pilotage certificates and acting as pilots under the provisions of section twenty-two of this Act, and"—is not in order as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. May I point out the Bill is one for consolidating and amending the law relating to pilotage and in Clause 16 powers are conferred upon the pilotage authorities to make bye-laws, for the district rates of payment and for the licensing of pilots, and in Clause 22 there are provisions for the examination of masters and mates and the certificates they shall receive from the pilotage authority to act as pilots. The Bill is for consolidating and amending the law relating to pilotage and should take into consideration all relevant subjects. It provides for the payment of fees to persons acting as pilots and in another section it provides that masters and mates in certain circumstances shall have granted to them pilots' certificates. I am speaking on behalf of a body of 50,000 men who have no votes and this is the one opportunity they have of having their grievances heard. Therefore I ask that in the exceptional circumstances you should allow a discussion on this point as this is the only occasion on which the question is likely to be discussed at all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought not to make his speech upon a point of Order.
    Mr. NEWTON: On the point of Order. May I remind you, Sir, that Clause 2 provides that an attempt shall be made, as far as practical, to secure uniformity. I suggest that this Amendment more than anything else would perhaps secure that uniformity. If you think that the Amendment would cast a burden upon the shipowners I would point out other Sub-sections that cast a burden on the shipowners, and an Amendment ought not to be ruled out for that reason.
    Mr. BUXTON: On the question of uniformity this Clause deals simply with a matter of administration. This Amendment, if carried, would throw upon the pilotage authority the necessity of fixing the rates of payment of masters and mates possessing pilotage certificates. There is no machinery under the Bill to enable that to be done. Even if this Amendment were carried it would be quite impossible for the pilotage authority to deal with the question at all and therefore I think it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. BUTCHER: It has been suggested that this provision might be put into the Merchant Shipping Bill, but that is no reason why it should not be put into this Bill. There is already a good deal of overlapping in both Bills. The Marine Shipping Bill deals with compulsory pilotage, which is one of the subjects dealt with by this Bill. The title of the Bill sets out its object as a measure "to consolidate and amend the law relating to pilotage." Clause 11, which deals with the obligations where pilotage is compulsory, provides that a ship must be either under the pilotage of a licensed pilot of the district or under the pilotage of a master or mate possessing a pilotage certificate. In a later Clause, you provide for payment to a licensed pilot, and surely it would now be in order to provide for payment to a certificated master or mate. I ask you, Mr. Whitley, to rule that this comes within the words of the title and deals with matters which are partially dealt with by this Bill already.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I submit to you, Mr. Whitley, that the position of masters and mates and pilots are entirely different. A pilot is engaged to pilot a ship but masters and mates are engaged for the duty of navigating vessels on the high seas. They are engaged by shipowners for duties exclusive of pilots and therefore the position is not on all fours.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Gravesend has correctly interpreted my view on this point. I took a great deal of trouble to go into this question, and nothing that has been said by hon. Members has shaken my view on this point.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move in Subsection (f), after the word "scales" to insert the words "and provide for the collection and distribution of pilotage dues, and." In the Bill it is provided that the pilots may place an absolute veto on the method of collecting the dues. That is quite an impossible state of affairs and one which you cannot expect the various pilotage authorities and those engaged in commerce to accept. We have a proper system of collecting these dues through the same authority as collects other dues and it would be a great inconvenience if the pilotage dues had to be collected by any authority not of recognised standing.
    Mr. WALTER REA: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BUXTON: This matter was discussed in the Committee and certain objections were then raised. I think however that I have obtained satisfactory securities and I understand that there is no objection to this Amendment.
    Sir G. PARKER: It was, I think, my Amendment upstairs which stipulated that distribution and pooling should be with the assent of the pilots in any district. That was done largely from my experience in the River Thames. It seemed to me to be necessary that the collection, distribution and pooling should be within the veto, or at any rate within the will of the pilots who earn the money and who should have a voice in the matter, but the President of the Board of Trade has given an assurance that the present conditions will not be altered in the Thames where the pilots employ on their own terms their own agents who effectively carry out the work, and on the condition that assurance is given definitely—
    Mr. BUXTON: In writing.
    Sir G. PARKER: By Trinity House. I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. JOYCE: I agree with regard to the Thames, but I also brought under the notice of the President of the Board of Trade several other large ports—there is

    2369
    one at least, and I think there are others—in which the work is effectively done by an agent of the pilots and where the pilot authorities would have no objection whatever that it should continue to be so done. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not interfere with that which is effectively done at present.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the last Amendment disposes of the next on the Paper — to leave out paragraph (g) and to insert instead thereof the words "provide for the pooling of pilotage dues earned by the licensed pilots or by any class of pilots, and (if and so far as it appears to the authority to be generally desired by the pilots) provide for the collection and distribution of pilotage dues; and."
    Sir HOWELL DAVIES: It is not quite covered, but I do not wish to press it if the President of the Board of Trade or the pilots have any strong feeling against it. The port of Bristol are anxious that the pilots should not have the right to prevent pooling where it is necessary in large ports, and I do not know that it would be possible to get a pooling system if the pilots were themselves absolutely to stand out unless it is inserted in this Clause now. I should therefore like to move my Amendment formally in order to hear what the Board of Trade have to say about it.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Government Amendment made: In paragraph (g) after the word "pilots" I" desired by the pilots"] to insert the word "concerned."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to move in paragraph (g) to leave out the words "for the collection and distribution of pilotage dues, or." This is purely consequential on the previous Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move in paragraph (k) after the word "certificates," to insert the words "so as to obtain a proper standard of efficiency."
    This is to meet a point which ought to be provided for, and is raised in the Amendments on Clause 22, which says that "A
    2370
    pilotage authority may grant a certificate (in this Act referred to as a pilotage certificate) to any person who is bond fide the master or mate of any ship if that person applies for such a certificate, and if, after an examination conducted substantially in the same manner as the examination of persons applying to be licensed as pilots for their district, they are satisfied that, having regard to his skill, experience, and local knowledge, he is capable of piloting the ship of which he is master or mate within their district." On that Clause the question is raised as to the character of the examination which ought to be required for certificates for masters and mates. The Mercantile Marine Association of this country take the view, and I think properly, that for masters and mates it is not necessary to have exactly the same examination as for pilots. Masters and mates know navigation. When a pilot comes up for examination, of course it is right in the first instance that he should pass an examination in seamanship. It is not necessary for masters and mates, and therefore the examination has to be different. But it is necessary—and I am certain the Mercantile Marine Association would concede it—that the examination should be one which would secure an adequate standard of efficiency. I therefore propose this Amendment. It will facilitate consequential amendments which I hope will meet the general approval of the master and mates.
    Sir G. PARKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BUXTON: Members of the Committee will remember that this point was raised on Clause 22 and the opinion was entirely in accord with the view just expressed by the hon. Member, namely, that while we cannot have exactly the same examination for pilots and masters, because the masters have already qualified in a certain degree, at the same time we want to have the same standard of efficiency. That being so I shall be very glad to accept this Amendment.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (p) leave out the word "and" ["whose masters and mates hold pilotage certificates"] and insert instead thereof the word "or."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    CLAUSE 17.—(Power of Board of Trade on Representation to Revoke or vary Bye-laws or Require Pilotage Authority to Make Bye-laws.)
    (1) If at any port either—

    (a) a majority of the licensed pilots belonging to the port; or

    (b) any number of persons, not less than six, being masters, owners, or insurers of ships using the port; or

    (c) a dock or harbour authority not being the pilotage authority,

    object to any bye-law in force at the port, or desire that any bye-law should be in force at the port which is not in force therein, they may make a representation to the Board of Trade to that effect, and the Board of Trade if the representation appears to them reasonable after giving the pilotage authority, and, if they think fit, any other persons, an opportunity of making representations on the subject, may, by order, revoke, vary, or add to any bye-law to which objection is made, or require the pilotage authority to submit to them for confirmation a bye-law for the purpose of giving effect to the representation.
    (2) Any bye-law revoked by any such order shall cease to have effect, and any bye-law to which additions are made or which is varied or added to, shall have effect with the variations or additions made by the order.
    (3) If a pilotage authority fail to submit to the Board of Trade for confirmation a bye-law in accordance with an order made under this Section, the Board of Trade may treat the bye-law which they have required the pilotage authority to submit to them as a bye-law submitted to them by the authority, and confirm it accordingly, and the bye-law so confirmed shall have effect as if it had been made and confirmed in accordance with this Act.
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move in paragraph (b) to leave out the word "ships," and to insert instead thereof the word "vessels."
    The object of this Amendment is to allow barges and vessels of that sort to be brought under the operation of the Clause. It does not exclude ships, but the word "vessels" will include both.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Receipts and Expenses of Pilotage Authority.)
    (1) All receipts of a pilotage authority in their capacity as such (other than any money received by them on behalf of and paid over to any pilot, or if the authority administer a pilots' benefit fund, any sums received by them as direct payments for that fund), shall be paid into a separate fund or account, to be called the pilot fund or account of the pilotage district.
    (2) All expenses incurred by a pilotage authority in the exercise of their powers or performance of their duties as such authority shall be paid out of their pilot fund or account, and, except so far as may be provided to the contrary by bye-law subject to the payment of those expenses, the balance shall in each year be applied for the purposes of any pilots' benefit fund established in the district, and so far as not required for that purpose shall be applied for the benefit of pilots in such manner as may be determined by the pilotage authority with the approval of the Board of Trade.
    (3) A separate account shall be kept by any pilotage authority who administer a pilots' benefit fund of all moneys received by them as payments to that fund, or for the benefit of that fund, and money standing to the credit of that account shall not be applicable to any purpose other than the purposes of the fund.
    (4) Nothing in this section shall prevent a pilotage authority which owns the pilot boats for the district from keeping at separate account in respect of such boats.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4) after the word "owns," insert the words "or hires."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 22.—(Grant of Masters' and Mates' Certificates by Pilotage Authorities.)
    (1) A pilotage authority may grant a certificate (in this Act referred to as a pilotage certificate) to any person who is bond fide the master or mate of any ship if that person applies for such a certificate, and if, after an examination conducted substantially in the same manner as the examination of persons applying to be licensed as pilots for their district, they are satisfied that, having regard to his skill, experience, and local knowledge, he is capable of piloting the ship of which he is master or mate within their district:—
    Provided that—

    (a) A pilotage certificate shall not be granted to the master or mate of a ship unless he is a British subject, except in the cases for which special provision is made by this Act; and

    (b) In any district where a bye-law is in force prohibiting the grant of pilotage certificates to masters or mates who do not hold at least a mate's certificate of competency recognised under Part II. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the pilotage authority shall not grant a certificate except to a master or mate holding such a certificate of competency.

    (2) A pilotage certificate shall be in a form approved for the time being by the Board of Trade, and shall contain (in addition to any other particulars which may be prescribed) the name of the person to whom the certificate is granted, the name and draught of water of the ship or ships in respect of which it is granted, the limits of the district in respect of which the certificate is granted, and the date on which it was granted.
    (3) A pilotage certificate shall not be in force for more than a year from the date on which it is granted, but may be renewed annually by the pilotage authority, subject to the provisions of any bye-law made by that authority as to re-examination.
    (4) A pilotage certificate may be granted so as to extend to more than one ship belonging to the same owner, while the master or mate is acting as master or mate of any such ship, provided that they are ships of substantially the same class.
    (5) A pilotage authority may, on the application of the master or mate of a ship, alter his pilotage certificate so as to relate to any other ship or ships of a not substantially greater draught of water or tonnage than to which the certificate formerly related, to which the master or mate may be transferred, or so as to cover any ships of substantially the same class and belonging to the same owner as the ships to which the certificate already relates.
    (6) For the purpose of this section ships under a time charter shall be deemed to be owned by the persons by whom they are chartered.
    Mr. WALTER REA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "may" ["authority may grant a certifi-
    2374
    cate"], and insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    The effect of this Amendment is to put the Bill back in the form in which it went into Committee before meeting with the persuasive eloquence of my hon. Friend opposite, who managed to induce the Committee to make this permissive instead of mandatory, and so upset the whole of the previous custom. Hitherto it has always been the custom for pilotage authorities, without, I understand, having any option in the case, to license masters and mates on coasting steamers, and this is a most important concession to smaller vessels running in keen competition with railway companies, not only in the matter of expense but also of efficiency, because these vessels are running as a rule from one definite place to another. The masters and mates, therefore, are often more competent than the pilot to do the particular job required, and it would be a most serious interference with the trade of the country if this facility were put a stop to. I do not think it was the intention of the Committee—indeed I am advised by some of my hon. Friends that "may" does mean "shall." If that is so, of course I am satisfied, but I am sorry there is not a Law Officer present. If I can be satisfied there is no intention of withdrawing this pilotage licence for masters and mates I will accept it as it stands, but I do think the shipping community are entitled to be satisfied on that point.
    Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend will see by the rest of the Clause that it will be obligatory on a pilotage authority to grant a certificate after satisfactory examination.
    Mr. WALTER REA: Upon that assurance, I will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WALTER REA: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "an examination conducted substantially in the same manner as the examination of persons applying to be licensed as pilots for their district," and insert instead thereof the word "examination."
    It is quite obvious that an examination substantially the same is totally unnecessary for a master who already holds a Board of Trade certificate and has proved his capacity in seamanship.
    Sir G. PARKER: I would recall to those Members who were on the Committee upstairs that we discussed this question, and understood that the words

    2375
    "substantially in the same manner" had not reference to the subject matter but rather that there should be the same quality and nature of examination apart from the questions asked. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Member that he would do well to leave the matter as it is, because it only has reference to providing an examination of such nature and quality as shall secure to masters and mates sufficient qualifications.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: It is very interesting to hear that the Committee came to the conclusion that that was the meaning of the words. All I can say is that as a lawyer I should not have come to that conclusion, and I am afraid the Courts would not. I would suggest to the House that probably it is enough simply to leave those words in accordance with the proposed Amendment, relying on the words that have been put in by the House in Clause 16, Sub-section (1), paragraph (k), which provides for the making of bye-laws as to the method of conducting examinations of masters and mates applying for pilotage certificates so as to maintain a proper standard of efficiency. Sub-section (2) of Clause 16 says that a bye-law shall not take effect unless it has been submitted to the Board of Trade and confirmed by them with or without modifications. It would therefore come under the Rules Publication Act, of 1893, and all persons who were aggrieved at the form in which the bye-law was proposed could be heard on it, and, if necessary, modifications could be permitted. So I think, for practical purposes, it always would be possible to modify a bye-law if necessary, for the purpose of changing the customs and conditions, and everybody, it seems to me, would be satisfied under that arrangement.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "his" ["they are satisfied that having regard to his"], to insert the word "character." That is necessary for carrying out this arrangement. This word is required in regard to the examinations for masters and mates in Clause 16, and it is only right it should be put in here, because the point is not covered by the Clause as drawn.
    Mr. HOLT: I beg to second the Amendment. In my experience, as a member of the pilotage authority of the Port of Liverpool, we have had persons who have come
    2376
    up who have been quite capable of passing examinations, but whose past would lead everyone to know that they ought not to be in charge of a ship.
    Sir G. PARKER: I would point out that I made the same proposal in Committee upstairs, and it was rejected by the President of the Board of Trade, and by the sense of the Committee. I should like to hear what reasons the President of the Board of Trade had for declining to accept it.
    Mr. BUXTON: In justice to my hon. Friend, I ought to say that the reason why I suggested to the Committee that they should not accept this was that the word appeared rather unnecessary—we were only dealing with masters and mates. I do not think there is very much in it, but I think perhaps it is better left as it stands. The Merchant Shipping Act, I think, covers this point.
    Mr. PETO: I should like to say a word after what the President of the Board of Trade has said. In dealing with these men who hold masters' and mates' certificates, it surely is unnecessary to insert here, on the Report stage, a provision that it must be people of good character, or of sufficiently good character, who can hold a pilotage certificate. I claim that the words are entirely unnecessary, and are derogatory to the character of masters and mates in the mercantile marine. I should like to oppose the proposal that the word be inserted.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Will the House allow me to withdraw the Amendment, on the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that it is effectively covered, although I cannot remember the words of the Merchant Shipping Act.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It can be negatived.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "is" ["while the master or mate is acting"], insert the words "boná fide."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (6) and to insert instead thereof the words "A pilotage authority may, for the purposes of this section, treat ships which are shown to their satisfaction to be boná fide under the management of the same person as manager, managing owner, demisee, or time charter, as being ships owned by that person."
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the meaning of the word "demisee" which appears in this Amendment? I have been in the law forty years, and I have seen a good many astounding and technical and other expressions, but I have never before come across the word "demisee."
    Mr. BUXTON: I have never met the word before. I understand, however, that it is a time-honoured phrase, and I hope the hon. Member will not object to it.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I do not object; I only want to know what it means.
    Mr. HOLT: Before we pass this Clause, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade can explain exactly what the "manager" means? We know perfectly well what a "managing owner" is, but what is a "manager"?
    Mr. BUXTON: What we want here is to find the bonâ fide owner, and there are cases in which, instead o£ a man having one fleet or one ship, he has two or three ships or fleets in different companies virtually under his own control, and practically, therefore, he is the owner. The Sub-section is put in this way so that the pilotage authority shall be the officials who have to decide who is the owner, and the person in question has to show that he is bonâ fide the owner in this matter, so that the onus of proof lies on him to show that he is entitled to the certificate.

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO LICENCES AND CERTIFICATES.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Suspension or Revocation of a Pilot's Licence or a Pilotage Certificate.)
    A pilotage authority may suspend or revoke any pilot's licence or any pilotage certificate granted by them if it appears to them, after giving the holder thereof an opportunity of being heard, that he has been guilty of any offence under this Act or of any breach of any bye-law made by the authority, or of any other misconduct affecting his capability as a pilot, or that he has become incompetent to act as pilot; and a licence or certificate, if so revoked, shall cease to have effect, and, if so suspended shall cease to have effect for the period for which it is suspended.
    Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, insert the words "Provided
    2378
    that in any case where pilots are directly represented on the committee of the pilotage authority, that committee may, until a pilotage order is made, regulate the relations between the authority and the committee, and exercise the powers conferred on the pilotage authority by this section with respect to pilots' licences as though they were the pilotage authority."—[Mr. J. M. Robertson.]

    CLAUSE 27.—(Appeal by Pilot against Action of Pilotage Authority in Suspending, etc., Pilot's Licence.)
    (1) If a pilot is aggrieved by the suspension or revocation by the pilotage authority of his licence, or by the refusal or failure of the pilotage authority to renew his licence, or by the refusal or failure of the pilotage authority who have obtained possession of his licence to return it to him, or by the imposition upon him by the pilotage authority of a fine exceeding two pounds, he may either appeal to a judge of county courts having jurisdiction within the port for which the pilot is licensed, or to a metropolitan police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate having jurisdiction within that port.
    (2) For the purpose of hearing the appeal, the judge or magistrate shall sit with an assessor of nautical and pilotage experience selected and summoned by the judge or magistrate.
    (3) Objection may be taken to any person proposed to be summoned as an assessor, either personally or in respect of his qualification, and by either party to the appeal.
    (4) The judge or magistrate may confirm or reverse the suspension or revocation of the licence, or make such order in the case as may seem just, and his decision shall be final, unless special leave to appeal from the same to the High Court on a question of law or a question of mixed law and fact is given by the judge or magistrate, or by the High Court, and in such case the decision of the High Court shall be final.
    (5) The costs incurred by a pilotage authority under this section shall be payable out of any fund applicable to the general expenses of the pilotage authority.
    (6) Rules with respect to the procedure under this section (including costs and the remuneration of assessors) may be made, as respects county court judges, by

    2379
    the authority having power to make rules of practice under the County Courts Act, 1888, and as respects metropolitan police and stipendiary magistrates by a Secretary of State, but in either case with the concurrence of the Treasury as to fees.
    (7) In Scotland the appeal under this section shall be to the sheriff having jurisdiction at the port where the decision is given, and may be heard by the sheriff sitting with an assessor as provided in this section, and rules may be made by the Court of Session by Acts of sederunt with respect to the procedure in case of those appeals in Scotland (including costs and the remuneration of assessors), subject to the concurrence of the Treasury as to fees.
    (8) In the application of this section to Ireland—

    (a) The expression "judge of county courts" and "judge" shall respectively mean a county court judge and chairman of quarter sessions, and include recorder;

    (b) The expressions "stipendiary magistrate" and "magistrate" shall respectively mean a magistrate appointed under the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836;

    (c) Rules with respect to the procedure in case of appeals under this section (including costs and the remuneration of assessors) may from time to time be made, as respects county court judges and chairmen of quarter sessions, by the authority having power to make rules and orders for regulating the practice under the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, and as respects stipendiary magistrates, by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council, but in either case with the concurrence of the Treasury as to fees.

    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (4) insert the words "In the application of this Sub-section to Scotland references to the Court of Sessions shall be substituted for references to the High Court."—[Mr. Buxton.]

  RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSED PILOTS.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Sight of Licensed Pilot to Supersede Other Persons.)
    (1) A pilot licensed for a district may supersede any person not so licensed who is employed to pilot a ship in the district.
    (2) Where a licensed pilot supersedes another person piloting a ship, the master
    2380
    of the ship shall pay to that other person a proportionate sum for his services, and shall be entitled to deduct the sum so paid from the sum payable in respect of the services of the licensed pilot. Any question as to the proportion payable to the licensed pilot and to the person whom the licensed pilot has superseded shall be referred to the pilotage authority by whom the licensed pilot has been licensed, and their decision on the question shall be final.
    (3) If in any pilotage district any person except a pilot licensed for the district, or except the master or a mate or other officer being bonâ fide one of the crew of the ship, pilots or attempts to pilot a ship after a pilot licensed for that district has offered to pilot the ship, that person shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    (4) If the master of a ship knowingly employs or continues to employ any person to pilot the ship within any pilotage district after a pilot licensed for that district has offered to pilot the ship, or in the case of an outward bound ship, without having taken reasonable steps (proof whereof shall lie on the master) to obtain a pilot, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    (5) If any person other than the master or a seaman being bonâ fide one of the crew of the ship is on the bridge of a ship, or in any other position (whether on board the ship or elsewhere) from which the ship is navigated, that person shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be piloting the ship unless the contrary is proved.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "person" and insert instead thereof the word "pilot."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "another person piloting a ship" and insert instead thereof the words "an unlicensed pilot."
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "that other person" ["shall pay to that other person"] and insert instead thereof the words "the latter."
    In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "any person except a pilot licensed for the district, or except the master or a mate or other officer being bonâ fide one of the crew of the ship," and insert instead thereof the words "a pilot not licensed for the district."
    In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "that person" ["that person shall be

    2381
    liable"] and insert instead thereof the word "he."
    In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "any person" ["to employ any person"] and insert instead thereof the words "a pilot not licensed for the district."
    In Sub-section (4) after the word "a" ["to obtain a pilot"] insert the word "licensed."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 31.—(Provision as to Ships Within a Harbour, Dock, etc.)
    (1) A ship while being moved within a harbour shall be deemed to be a ship navigating in a pilotage district, except so far as may be provided by bye-law in the case of ships being so moved for the purpose of changing from one mooring to another mooring.
    (2) A ship whilst being navigated within any closed dock, lock, or other closed work in a harbour shall notwithstanding anything in this Act be deemed to be navigating in a district in which pilotage is not compulsory.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "harbour," insert the words, "which form part of a pilotage district."—[Mr. Buxton.]
    Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words "or of being taken into or out of any dock provided that a bye-law shall in every case be made for the purpose aforesaid in any pilotage district where any class of persons other than the licensed pilots were in practice employed at the date of the passing of this Act for the purpose of changing the moorings of ships or of taking ships into or out of dock."
    Sir G. PARKER: I should like to Bay one word about this because I do not quite know what the effect of the Amendment is going to be. For instance, in the Thames district, will it be necessary to pass a bye-law in order to allow those who have moved ships to continue the work? I have not had time to consider the Amendment as it is a manuscript one. I think it is a very serious question. It may be that a pilotage authority may not pass a bye-law, and the men who have been able in very large numbers in the Thames district to do this work may be prevented from doing so. I should like to hear the President of the Board of Trade upon that point.
    Mr. BUXTON: The object of this particular Clause is to make it compulsory
    2382
    where this system exists that they shall pass a bye-law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "harbour" and insert instead thereof the words "pilotage district."—[Mr. J. M. Bobertson.]

    CLAUSE 39.—(Pilotage Order not to Diminish Powers of Pilotage Authorities as to Pilot Boats.)
    A Pilotage Order in dealing with any Act, order, charter, custom, bye-law, regulation, or provision shall not provide for abolishing or diminishing any power of a pilotage authority to acquire, own, build, renew, maintain, or work pilot boats.
    Amendment made: After the word "own" ["authority to acquire, own, build, renew"], insert the word "hire."—[Mr. Buxton.]

    CLAUSE 42.—(Obligation to Display Signal for Pilot in, Certain Limits.)
    (1) The master of a ship (other than an excepted ship) shall when navigating in circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory under this Act, display the usual signal for a pilot, and keep the signal displayed until a licensed pilot comes on board.
    (2) The master of a ship, whether navigating in circumstances in which pilotage is compulsory or not, which is being piloted by a person other than a pilot licensed for the district, or the master or a mate or other officer being bonâ fide a member of the crew of the ship, shall display a pilot signal and keep the signal displayed until a licensed pilot comes on board.
    (3) If the master of any ship fails to comply with this Section he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding £20.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "by a person other than a pilot," and insert instead thereof the words "in a pilotage district by a pilot not"
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or the master or a mate or other officer being bonâ fide a member of the crew of the ship.—[Mr. Buxton.]

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PROVISIONS AS TO PILOTAGE ORDERS.
    1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule the Board of Trade may make

    2383
    rules in relation to applications for Pilotage Orders, and to the payments to be made in respect thereof, and to the publication of notices and advertisements, and the manner in which and the time within which representations or objections with reference to any application are to be made, and as to the publication of Pilotage Orders.
    2. Notice of an application for an Order shall be published once at least in each of two successive weeks in the month immediately succeeding the date of the application in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Board of Trade.
    3. The notice shall state the object which it is proposed to effect by the Order.
    4. The Board of Trade on receiving any application for an Order shall refer the application to the pilotage authority of the district, if the authority are not themselves the applicants, and shall consider any objections which may be made to the proposed Order whether by the pilotage authority or by other persons appearing to the Board of Trade to be interested, and for that purpose shall allow at least six weeks to elapse between the date on which the application is referred to the authority and that, on which the Order is made.
    5. The Board of Trade may submit to Parliament for confirmation any Order which requires confirmation by Parliament.
    6. If and when a Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to that Order, may be referred to a Select Committee, or if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee of those Houses, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of private Bills.
    7. Any Act confirming an Order under this Act may be repealed, altered, or amended by any subsequent Order made under this Act.
    8. The Board of Trade may revoke, either wholly or partially, any Order made by them before the Order is confirmed by Parliament, but such revocation shall not be made whilst the Bill confirming the Order is pending in either House of Parliament.
    9. The making of an Order shall be primâ facie evidence that all the require-
    2384
    ments of this Act in respect of proceedings required to be taken previously to the making of the Order have been complied with.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "and to the payments to be made in respect thereof." This is a very wide power to give. It is giving carte blanche to send in any Bills.
    Mr. BUXTON: My impression is that in the first instance this charge will not be thrown on these bodies, but I must not be held as expressing that opinion definitely. At all events, the cost to them will be very small, and I am inclined to think, in the first instance, the payments will not be enforced. In any case they will not be great, and, so far as I am able to say off-hand, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance I understand he desires.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    57 & 58 Vict. c. 60.

    The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

    Sections five hundred and seventy-two to six hundred and thirty-two inclusive.

    60 & 61 Vict. c. 61.

    The Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage) Act, 1897.

    The whole Act.

    6 Edw. 7, c. 48.

    The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.

    Section seventy-three.

    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move, after the word "inclusive" ["six hundred and thirty-two inclusive"], to insert the words "and the twenty-first schedule."
    This is dependent on one of the Sections to be repealed, and, of course, after the repeal of the Section, the twenty-first schedule would become of no effect, and would be virtually repealed. This is really formal.
    Mr. BOOTH: I believe this is the last Amendment, and it is a manuscript Amendment. I just wish to give my candid opinion about this kind of legislation. I do not think it is treating the

    2385
    House fairly to keep putting Amendments, in manuscript form, which we have not had the chance of studying, particularly where we are repealing Acts of Parliament. I venture, with all respect, to make a protest against our going on with Bills in this fashion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think any intimation was given that this Bill was to be read a third time to-night. I know there is a desire to pass the Bill and get rid of it; everybody is sick and tired of this way of legislating. I do not disguise from the House that I do not believe in this Bill. After what has taken place to-night, I am almost certain that an amending Bill will be needed in the next twelve months, as was the case in the Shops Bill, and with other legislation. I will not pursue
    2386
    my objection to this Bill; it is well known, but I am surprised at the whole Conservative party taking it so easily, but it affords an opportunity for the appointment of new officials, and no doubt they are hoping that the majority of them will be Conservatives. I venture again to renew my protest against the Bill being brought forward so late in the Session.
    The Orders for remaining Government business were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th. October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after One o'clock.