BORDER PARISHES (BALLOT). (Hansard, 10 February 1915)

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I gave notice of my intention to raise the question of Border Parishes in reference to the administra- 678 tion of the Welsh Church Act, and I naturally expected that either the Home Secretary or somebody representing his Department would, as an act of courtesy, be present when I was raising this point.

§ Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury)
The Home Secretary will be here presently.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I do not know whether the Rules necessitate my continuing to speak, as I shall have to repeat what I say when the Home Secretary comes in.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean)
The hon. Member no doubt can diversify his remarks, but keep in order.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I hope as you are in the Chair you will not insist too strictly on the Rule. [At this point Mr. McKenna entered the Chamber.] I very much regret having to draw the attention of the House to a grievance which is felt very keenly by a number of people in reference to the Welsh Church Commissioners, who have acted in a manner of which I believe the House cannot approve. I have received complaints from several quarters, and the very fact that such complaints are possible, shows at any rate that the Suspensory Act does not ensure the truce which its supporters tried to make us believe it would. The complaints refer to the acts of the Welsh Commissioners in reference to border parishes. Members will probably remember that under the Welsh Church Act it is the duty of the Welsh Commissioners to determine by order, with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners, whether a parish which is situated partly in England and partly in Wales is to be treated as being wholly in England or wholly in Wales. The complaint which I have received from residents of several of those border parishes is that this inquiry is being conducted in a surreptitious, unsatisfactory, and irregular manner. From answers which I have been able to extract, some of them not very complete, from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think that there is no doubt that that complaint is justified. In the first place, no notice that an election was going to be held was given to the parishioners whose opinion had to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to questions asked him, admitted that no notice was given, but said that the voting papers which were handed to some person or other for each parish, 679 whose office is rather hard to understand, and whose selection seems to have been made on no particular principle, was sufficient notice to the rest of the parish that an election would be held. I would like to know how a person to whom those notices were not distributed was to know that an election was being held? It is obvious that the person entrusted with the delivery of those papers can deliver them or not as he pleases to any person entitled to vote. It is absolutely irregular to hold an election in any parish without giving proper notice that an election was going to be held. That is one complaint.
My next complaint is that the Register of Electors in this particular election which has been, or is being held, is a purely arbitrary one. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that voting papers were supposed to be issued to all resident parishioners of both sexes who have been in the parish for twelve months and were over twenty-one years of age—he will correct me if I am not properly representing what he says—and also to the ratepayers of the parish who were not resident. According to the Act, all the Commissioners have to do is to ascertain the wishes of the parishioners. Is a ratepayer who is not resident in the parish a parishioner? If he is, why is the tithepayer not to have a vote? After all, he is more concerned than anybody else in this matter, because the election is to decide whether he is to pay his tithe, as he has done before, to the service of religion, or to some secular purpose. Why was it not advertised what this register was? Why was it not posted up in the various parishes that persons over twenty-one of both sexes, who had resided twelve months in the parish, were entitled to vote? How were they to know that they were entitled to vote when no notice was given? That was the second irregularity. Then there seems to have been some irregularity about the way in which the distributor of these notices was selected. According to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon the services of the registrars in the different districts were made use of, and the registrar selected some person who is called an enumerator who was to assist in the distribution of these papers. I do not know on what principle these enumerators were chosen, or what qualifications or experience they have got of the business which they have to carry out, but I do know that this duty was entrusted to one 680 single man in more than one parish, and to one man in a very large parish, who lived on the Welsh side four or five miles from some the parishioners. To give one man the duty of distributing these papers in a very short time in a large parish is quite the wrong way to carry on an election of this kind.
Then, again, we are told that there has been no system of checking the votes given. Votes have to be returned in an envelope addressed to the Commissioners. But how is anybody to know that those votes have been properly given? There is no possible means of finding out that those votes have not been cooked. Supposing the distributor chose to mark all those things himself and send them up; the only safeguard is what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the power of appeal which any parishioner may have, not against the method in which the election has been conducted, but against the order, after the election is over, that the Commissioners may think fit to make. Then, again, there is complaint about the ballot papers themselves. The ballot papers contain no sort of explanation as to what is the effect of the voting one way or the other, except to say that a person who votes for Wales will come under the Welsh Church Act and the person who puts a cross against England will not. No effort is made to explain to the people what the effect of their vote is, and I do not suppose that the people have read carefully the Welsh Church Act. There is another point, I do not say a very important one, in the ballot papers themselves. It would not be important if there were not other unsatisfactory circumstances in connection with this election. In every election I have ever seen every ballot paper has the names of the persons to be voted for put in alphabetical order. In this particular case England comes before Wales, and, although the status quo came before any alteration, and although England was the more important of the two, yet Wales comes first in the ballot paper and England second. I attach some importance to this in connection with the other circumstances I have related.
I have always been told by every agent in connection with the elections that I have a great advantage myself in elections because my name begins with a "B." Although I have contested a large number of elections at various times, I do not think I ever had the misfortune to be the opponent of anyone whose name stood 681 higher in the alphabetical list than my own. Whether my place in this House is due to that fortunate circumstance, I am not prepared to say, but I do not think I will carry it quite so far as that. I do say, however, that every election agent that over I approached on the subject has told me that a certain number of votes are always given for the first name on the list. I think it will be found that that is the case; and, therefore, in connection with the other circumstances, I say it is a great pity that the ordinary practice should have been subverted in this particular instance. All these troubles might have been avoided if only the Commissioners had seen fit to obey the direction definitely given to them in the Welsh Church Act itself, in Section 11, Sub-section (4). I venture to differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it does not impose on the Commissioners the duty to make rules in regard to a matter of this kind. The Sub-section says:— The Commissioners shall make general rules for regulating their procedure under this Act, and procuring the due execution of their powers and giving effect to this Act. How are they duly executing their powers in holding this inquiry as to the border parishes? It is their duty to make rules for their procedure, and which are to govern the execution of their powers in giving effect to this Act. They have not done so. They have made rules for their procedure and submitted them to the King in Council, and at a late moment they were laid before this House. But those rules do not embody any sort of procedure with regard to the carrying on of an election of this kind. If only they had drawn up reasonable rules which could have been scrutinised by the Privy Council, and which Members of this House might have seen, and on which they might have had an opportunity of expressing their views privately, if not publicly, a great deal of this trouble might possibly have been avoided. But, after all is said and done, even if they had done that, I say that no election ought to have been held at a time like this, when everyone is said to be under a truce with regard to matters which cause great differences of opinion amongst us, and in this matter it is a religious one. In the short discussion we had a few nights ago my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) quoted the words of the Prime Minister on this point. The Prime Minister said that, "Subject to 682 such comparatively formal matters"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I am reading perfectly correctly—"as the institution of inquiries which prejudices nobody"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Are you going to tell me that inquiries of this kind prejudice nobody? Do not they prejudice the man who is away and cannot give his vote? Do not they prejudice the man out at the War giving his life for his country, and do not they prejudice the man in the camp because the voting paper has not been sent to him? It is perfect nonsense for hon. Gentlemen opposite to pretend that an inquiry of that kind, taken during the War, does not prejudice the men who are away, and those men probably the best of the people in those parishes. I say that it is a prejudice to the truce, a prejudice which has shocked Members on that side and members on Nonconformist bodies, as it has shocked Churchmen like myself. It should have been avoided; it could have been avoided, and I do not think the Government, and I do not think the Welsh Church Commissioners have ever actually realised the terrific strain that is being put upon Churchmen at this time, or the tension given to that strain by action of this kind.
It it almost impossible cordially to co-operate with people whom you regard as your persecutors. Co-operation has been as cordial as it could be under the circumstances, but I think that the Members of the Government and the Commissioners might realise the cruel effect their action has on people who feel very strongly over this matter. I do say this: that they never had and never will have an opportunity such as they have got now of bringing about harmony between people of different religious persuasions, either in Wales or on the borders of Wales. I appeal with some confidence to them to stop actions of this kind, and I would appeal still further to them to consider whether if they would only adopt a really magnanimous attitude towards Churchmen on this question, that they have got an opportunity which will never recur of putting an end absolutely, at a time when we are all trying to draw together if you will only allow us, for ever to that bitterness which has unfortunately existed for some considerable time, but which might by statesmanlike action on the part of the Government be put an end to, as I think for the rest of our lifetime, and probably a great deal longer.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
The speech of the hon. Member opened with a series of charges against the Welsh Church Commissioners, and it developed later into an attack upon the Suspensory Act, and at its conclusion on the Welsh Church Act. I am not quite sure that I understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by his concluding appeal. I am sure that if he means to say that he and his friends are prepared to accept the Welsh Church Act, and not to endeavour to repeal it, then I think his appeal will come with considerably more effect than it does, accompanied as it always hitherto has been accompanied, by the warning to us that at the first opportunity the Welsh Church Act will be repealed. I do not wish to enter into the much larger question of the Welsh Church Act, or even of the Suspensory Act. Those two Acts stand on the Statute Book, and I should have thought under the terms of the truce that they would have been accepted without at any rate public attacks upon them. For my part I will confine myself to replying to the actual criticism of the action of the Welsh Commissioners, and I think I shall be able to show both the hon. Member and the House that his criticism is not well founded. He speaks of the action of the Commissioners as a grievance. He thinks they have acted in a manner of which the House will not approve. He described their inquiry, which is a statutory inquiry, and which under the Statute they are bound to undertake as soon as may be after the passing of the Act, as surreptitious, unsatisfactory, and irregular. The Commissioners in the execution of their duty believe themselves bound to inquire of the parishioners in the border parishes whether they would wish to remain wholly in Wales or Monmouth shire, or whether they would wish to be placed wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire. They had to make the inquiry with regard to the general wishes of the parishioners, and this is the procedure they adopted: They invited the registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, who is a well-known official, and not some person whose office it is hard to understand—

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I did not say that the registrar's office was hard to understand. What I said was that it was hard to understand who the people were who had been chosen as enumerators.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I have no desire to misrepresent anything the hon. Gentleman has said. I must blame my notes. I took down his words, as I thought, as being "some person whose office it was hard to understand was selected on no principle." The hon. Member says he applied that to the other persons. But the person selected to carry out the inquiry was in every case, with a single exception, the registrar of the parish. In that single exception application was made to the Registrar-General because, as I understand it, the registrar of that particular parish is already fully occupied and unable or unwilling to serve. The Registrar-General in that case, not the Commissioners, secured the assistance of the registrar of a neighbouring parish.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
What parish was I that?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I think the hon. Gentleman gave the name this afternoon in a question.

An HON. MEMBER
Saltney.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, that is it. In that single case the registrar was unable to serve, and the Registrar-General asked the registrar of a neighbouring parish to serve. Then the duty of the registrar was to conduct an inquiry of the inhabitants, of the parishioners, and accordingly the registrar appointed a number of persons known as enumerators—that is to say, persons who had acted in a similar capacity under the Census Act of 1911. He appointed those persons to distribute to the parishioners in each parish a voting paper, the contents of which I will read in a moment, and which speaks for itself. I would ask the House what better method could there be of bringing to the notice of the persons concerned the necessity for expressing an opinion upon a matter upon which they were required to express an opinion by Statute than to bring to their individual notice in a printed document the requirements of the Statute? I should have thought that that was a far better method than pasting up public notices at police stations, church doors, and other places. The enumerators were instructed—and I believe they carried out their instructions—to distribute to every inhabited house the same number of papers as there were persons in the house qualified to vote. As I understand what happened, in calling 685 at each house they explained what the paper was, and handed in as many papers as there were parishioners in the house in order that each person should have a voting paper. In addition to that the registrar of each parish sent by post a copy of the voting paper to the non-resident ratepayers of his parish.

§ Mr. CURRIE
Did that go to non-residents who were away fighting?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I assume so. The registrar was instructed to send to all the non-resident ratepayers. I do not think that he would make exceptions.

§ Mr. CURRIE
Would that enable them to vote?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Member must understand that I had to get my information from the Commissioners. I had no personal knowledge of the matter; I do not administer the Act myself, and I have no personal responsibility for its administration. I can only inquire for information, and I shall be very happy to inquire for the hon. Member. I am informed by my hon. Friend (Sir J. H. Roberts) who is one of the Commissioners, that the papers were sent to the ratepayers' permanent addresses, and it would depend, no doubt, whether the letters were forwarded.

§ Mr. CURRIE
Would it have the effect of enabling the men who are away to vote? That is my point.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes.

§ Mr. CURRIE
Even if they were at the front fighting?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, certainly. If the letter was forwarded they would have every opportunity.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
If it was forwarded.

§ Mr. McKENNA
That is true of all letters to all persons. They are only received if they are forwarded.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Would they be delivered within the fourteen days' limit?

§ Mr. McKENNA
It was well within the limit.

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
How long, did the election last? Did the polling take place over several days?

§ Mr. McKENNA
They had fourteen days in which to return the papers. I will explain the ballot paper in a moment. That was the procedure adopted by the Commissioners in sending out the ballot papers and bringing the fact of the election to the notice of the parishioners. It seems to me to be a far more effective method than any other of bringing to the electors' notice the fact that they were called upon to express an opinion in regard to the border parishes. On reading the ballot paper, I am utterly at a loss to understand the criticism of the hon. Gentleman. I can only assume that he has never had an actual copy of the ballot paper placed in his hands.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
I have.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Then I am afraid he has read the paper with a jaundiced eye. The paper opens with the provision of the Act under which the ballot is required. Perhaps, unlike some other provisions in Acts of Parliament, this particular provision is perfectly clear. When the hon. Gentleman stated that a person, on receiving this paper, would not know what the ballot was about, I was bound to assume that he had not seen the paper. It begins with this statement from the Act:— The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire, by order determine, with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners, whether the parish is to be treated as being wholly within or wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire. To say after that that a person would not know what he was called upon to express an opinion about appears to me to admit that the passage in question had not been read. Then the Commissioners say:— The Commissioners have therefore decided, in accordance with the foregoing provisions, to ascertain the opinion, by means of the attached form, of inhabitants of the parish of twenty-one years of age or over, male or female, married or unmarried, who have been resident in the parish for a period of twelve months, and also of ratepayers of the parish, whether resident in the parish or not, on the question whether the 687 parish shall be treated either as wholly within or wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire. Once again the object of the ballot is stated. Then this statement occurs:— All such inhabitants or ratepayers are accordingly requested to fill in the attached form in accordance with the instructions printed thereon, and to return it to the Commissioners within fourteen days, after which period the Commissioners will proceed to make the order in respect of the parish. I should have thought that that was as clear a declaration both of the purpose of the ballot and of how the ballot was to be conducted as could possibly be made. Then follow corresponding statements in the Welsh language.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Are the Welsh exactly the same as the English?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I am afraid I am not sufficient of a Welsh scholar to say; but no doubt if they had not been the hon. Gentleman would have called attention to the fact.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Do the Welsh portions practically correspond to the English when the paper is opened?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Then follows the ballot paper itself. The hon. Member has, I think, made a little undue play with the fact that in the space for voting the word "Wales" appears in the top line and the word "England" in the second line. If he looks at the instructions he will see that the second instruction strictly follows the language of the Act. If a person desires the whole parish parish to be treated as wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire, and so to be brought under the provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, he or she should put a cross opposite the word "Wales.' It must be remembered that in the Act these words come first: If a person desires the whole parish to be treated as wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire. That is the first matter upon which a vote is to be given. In that case a person is invited to put a cross against the word "Wales." The second point upon which the Act desires an opinion is: If he or she desires the parish to be treated as wholly outside Wales or Mon- 688 mouthshire, and, consequently, to be excluded from the operation of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, he or she should put a cross opposite the word 'England.' In what other way, I would ask the hon. Gentleman in all fairness, could the statutory obligation be carried out? Is it proposed that you should refer first to persons who desire the parish to be treated as wholly outside Wales and Monmouthshire, and then, secondly, to those who desire the parish to be treated as wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire? To have done that the Commissioners would have had to alter the form of the Act, because the Act puts it in the other order. That is the whole of the point. The Commissioners were simply following the express terms of the Act when they put Wales as signifying wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire, and England as signifying wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire. The hon. Gentleman then complained that no rules under Section 11 had been made by the Commissioners with regard to taking a ballot. He says that there is a statutory obligation on the Commissioners to make such rules. If he is right, then the election is invalid. If there is a statutory obligation on the Commissioners which has not been fulfilled prior to taking the election, the election is invalid. But that is a point which will have to be decided by the Privy Council. I do not think it is a point which he and I should argue here.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Why did they not do it?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman asks why did they not do it? They thought they ought not to do it. The hon. Gentleman smiles. Really, I think I shall be able to persuade him upon the point. They thought, I understand, that Section 11, Sub-section (4), did not apply to the case of taking a ballot. I will explain why. If they had made rules for taking a ballot and those rules had been confirmed by the Privy Council, they would have had statutory effect, and no appeal would have been possible against them, provided that in the election the provisions of the rules had been carried out. The hon. Gentleman would have found that he, or any complainant, would have been deprived of the opportunity of appeal if in his judgment, or the judgment of anyone else, the rules were not calculated to give a proper election. What is the situation now in regard 689 to the rules? If the hon. Member's complaints had any substance in them, and he can find any single person in any of these border parishes to take up his case and appeal to the Privy Council, he could set the election aside. If it has not been a proper election, if persons have not had a reasonable opportunity of voting, if they have not had notice—in fact, if his criticism is just, let them appeal, let them go to the Privy Council, as is provided for in the Act! If he had had the rules for which he asks he could not have done that, because the rules would have been binding. There is no appeal against them. If the Commissioners had put what they have not put into the rules, and had carried out those rules, no appeal would have been possible. That very point was considered by the Commissioners, and they thought that Section 11, Sub-Section (4), which applied to general rules, did not apply to a case of this kind; but that, on the contrary, they would give a freer hand to any objecting parishioner if they did not make rules. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member will feel that his case has no substance, and that he is much better off without, than with, rules. Further, he will feel that if his case has any substance in it the right place to raise it is in the Privy Council and not here. I have, I think, dealt with all the objections which the hon. Member raised except one. He said, "Why ratepayer and not tithe-payer?"

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Absent!

§ Mr. McKENNA
Why non-resident ratepayer and yet not non-resident tithepayer? If the hon. Member thinks that is a good point, it is an excellent one on which to go to the Privy Council. I wonder if he has been advised by any of the legal authorities I see opposite to me that it would make the foundation of a good case? I doubt it! I think myself that the Commissioners have acted not only strictly in accordance with the Act, but with admirable good sense. I believe they brought the ballot paper and the purposes of the ballot to the knowledge of the persons concerned in the most effective manner possible. I believe that they have held the ballot under the fairest conditions, and I sincerely hope, whatever the issue of the ballot may be, that the hon. Gentleman on reflection will not think it necessary to carry the complaints to which he has given expression in this House to the Privy Council.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I want, if I can manage it, to conduct this Debate without any undue recrimination or heat. I should be very sorry indeed, however great the provocation—though I do not expect hon. Members opposite, or many of them, to agree with me, for we do feel that very, very great provocation has been afforded to us in this matter—if I said anything which would make it more difficult for all sections of the House to co-operate. I would like, if I can, to bring before hon. Members how this kind of proceeding appears to us. I do not in the least expect that they will agree, but I do want if I can, to show how it appear to us. We feel and believe—we may be wrong, but that is a matter to discuss on another occasion—that we had an absolutely binding undertaking that nothing would be done under this Act except mere formalities and things of no importance whatever, until after the War. I think myself that was the fair sense of the words of the Prime Minister. Certainly it was the sense in which I understood it, and believed it; so much so, that I did not actually trouble to attend further Debates on that particular question. I was not in the House again while the matter was debated. I was very angry with the Government at the time of the Irish business, but I thought, so far as the Welsh business was concerned—although of course it was not satisfactory—it was not a very unfair proposal made under the circumstances of the case. I thought it was quite clear that nothing was going to be done that would injure our position in any way. Now we find a number of things have been done; that, in fact, to use the language of the Home Secretary the other day, the Act is going on precisely at this moment as it would have gone on if there had been no Suspensory Act, and that no change has been made.
I do not expect hon. Members opposite to sympathise with my point of view, but I myself say, and say very warmly, what a serious disappointment such a state of things must be. Take this particular instance. Here is a preliminary to a decision which will at any rate be of considerable importance to the parishes concerned. It is being pressed on. I am not quarrel ling for a moment with the Welsh Commissioners; it may be their duty under the Act. But the fact is that it is being pressed on at a time when, for aught I know—I do not know the circumstances of these parishes—many Churchmen may be actually absent fighting.

§ Mr. WATT
There may be Nonconformists also.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
There may be Nonconformists also. I do not mean to suggest for a moment that only Churchmen are fighting battles for their country; I would not suggest, or desire to suggest, so ridiculous a slander on so large a number of my countrymen. I ought to have put it in this way—many Churchmen amongst others. That is the broad general aspect from which I approach this matter; but I do look at the actual methods by which this has been carried out. I dare say the Welsh Commissioners mean very well, but I cannot think they adopted the best methods of really arriving at a full and fair consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman said if there are any objections, go to the Privy Council. Parliament is above the Privy Council; we have the right to bring before Parliament, even at the present time, grievances where they exist, even if we may afterwards have a remedy in the Courts of Law. What is the broad grievance which my hon. Friend has put very clearly, as I thought? The first broad grievance is that inadequate notice was given to all the people who have a right to vote. I am told that in one parish, no fewer than 107 people had to apply before they got their voting papers.

Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
What is the name of the parish?

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I will give it to the hon. Member if he wants it. I do not want to get into a local dispute at this moment; that is what I am told with regard to one parish. It is clearly a case of very inadequate notice. My hon. Friend then said that there is no adequate explanation on the ballot paper as to the meaning of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman, if he will forgive my saying so, does sometimes appear to live in a world quite remote from ordinary human beings. He solemnly reads out the fact that in this ballot paper has been set out the Section of the Act of Parliament under which it is held, and says that that must be adequate protection for the voters. Really, what are they told? They are told that they are to vote, and that the Welsh Commissioners are to determine by order, with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners, whether the parish is to be treated as being wholly within or wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire." That is all![An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] 692 That is all so far as the Clause is concerned. I think I have read the substantial part of it.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I read the instructions.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I will come to them presently. A parishioner would be apt to say it is really a question of geography whether this comes wholly within or wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire. He is told afterwards that if he desires it the parish will be treated as wholly within Wales or Monmouthshire, and so be brought under the provisions of the Welsh Church Act, but he is not told the effect of the Act, For that purpose he has to go to the Act and study it. I do not say that it is very easy to make these things clear; I am not complaining of that, but I do say that, merely to fire these voting papers at the head of the rural population, and only some of them, is not to give an adequate explanation of the effect of the vote. There were other points raised by my hon. Friend, which I do not wish to repeat, which were made quite clear. We do feel that it was wrong to press the thing on at the moment—very wrong under the circumstances—that it was done inadequately and without sufficient tare, and I do not think the final words of my hon. Friend, when he ventured to make a kind of appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press their legal advantages to the uppermost, was really open to the kind of sneer, if I am permitted to say so, with which the right hon. Gentleman treated it. Surely at this time any appeal for political peace is entitled to respectful consideration, and I understood my hon. Friend merely made a suggestion to hon. Members opposite that it would be in the highest and best sense if they did not press their legal advantages to the utmost. That seems to me a statesmanlike attitude to adopt. We were told in reply, "Would you undertake not to repeal the Welsh Church Act?" So far as I am concerned, so long as the present legal position stands I quite admit I can give no such pledge. I must say quite frankly that, on the contrary, if the Act is to stand as it now stands, there is no political object I can imagine which is dearer to me than its repeal on the first possible opportunity, so long as it stands as it does at the present time. I would not be acting honestly if I did not say so. It ought to be repealed, and it will be repealed, unless we can come to terms in the meantime. For my part, I 693 will never shut the door to any approach to conciliation in this great matter. I wish earnestly for the great co-operation of Churchmen and Nonconformists. As I have always said, I have always wished it, and I have always shown it by my acts and votes. I believe the causes on which we are agreed are infinitely greater than the causes on which we differ, and I think it is a tragic error of political life that we should be divided by this question, which, 694 in my judgment, has no reality now, and depends on a historical situation of an ancient date, and on which, I think, Members opposite would do wisely if they would meet us and settle it once and for ever, and let us proceed together against the common foe.