CLAUSE 4.—(Further Provisions as to Welsh Ecclesiastical Property.) (Hansard, 18 August 1919)

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)
I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a question of the burial grounds, which has been discussed in this House quite fully. There was an attempt to come to an arrangement, but the attempt failed, and therefore it is quite apart from the settlement which this Bill includes. I, accordingly, ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I hope that the Government will reconsider this question, which affects only a very limited number of churchyards in Wales. These churchyards which fall under this Amendment are left to the incumbent for his life, and, after that, pass to the local authorities. Everyone is sensible that it is more desirable to remove all bitterness in regard to the burial of the dead. I know that bitterness is felt on both sides, and, having regard to the object which the Government have so often said that they have at heart, the object of allaying religious bitterness in Wales, it is most desirable to come to an arrangement which will prevent any bitterness arising in respect of the matter. 2099 If you take a churchyard away from the church and hand it over to the local authority, it will inflict a serious sentimental injury upon the feelings of Churchmen. It is not in the least indispensable to the policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment, because it was not done in Ireland. It is not in the public interest, or in the interest of the religious life of Wales, because it will produce a great deal of bitterness and ill-feeling. As far as I know, the Government are not themselves indisposed to make the concession, but they feel bound by this strange system of negotiation which went on behind the back of the House. I really do not think that is a satisfactory reply on a matter of this kind. A large body of people who cannot possibly have been represented on one side or the other are concerned in this matter, and there is a great deal of deep sentiment in connection with these churchyards. It is not desirable that these churchyards should go on being, as, unhappily, they have been in the past, a source of contention. The proposal of the Amendment is, not that they should remain any longer in the hands of the incumbents, who in some few cases may have acted indiscreetly, but that they should pass to the representative Church party, which, of course, is a responsible party which will act in a proper manner. I believe, if the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment, that they would really do a great deal to promote the peaceful and charitable settlement—which they so often assure us they desire. Therefore, I do suggest that they should reconsider their Motion to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

§ Captain ORMSBY-GORE
I am very much surprised at the line taken by the Home Secretary in asking the House to disagree with this Amendment. He did not defend this agreement on the merits of the question, and he did not explain to which churchyard the Amendment referred. He merely said that, because it was not part of a bargain which was made without the knowledge of the House and behind the back of the House, therefore the House must have nothing to do with it. The whole of this Bill has been the result of some negotiations without the knowledge of the vast mass of the Welsh people, either Church or Chapel, and it has been rushed through in a hurry. No argument is put 2100 forward from the Government Bench, and no argument is necessary. Under these circumstances, those of us who in the past took the line that these churchyards that have surrounded the churches since before 1662, the oldest churchyards in Wales, are the rightful property of the Church are bound to vote against the Government proposal in honour to all that we said before the War. We cannot accept an arrangement and a bargain made in this kind of way behind our backs. It is a perfect scandal the way that these negotiations have taken place, and in common honour I feel myself bound to vote in favour of agreeing with the Lords Amendment, because I honestly believe that these old churchyards are the most precious heritage of Churchmen in Wales, and because I am not yet convinced, although the Government may show the authority of the Bishop of St. Asaph. He does not care for these churchyards and he is quite willing to give them up as part of a bargain. Therefore, whatever he says, I am bound to stand by what I said before the War and demand the return of the churchyards to the Church.

Sir E. JONES
I think it is only right to say that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to the Bishop of St. Asaph are grossly unfair and uncalled for. The Bishop of St. Asaph, to my knowledge, has made a very strenuous and very strong attempt to get the best he could for his Church.

§ Captain ORMSBY-GORE
I am very glad to hear it.

Sir E. JONES
I could not let pass a frivolous remark of that kind against a gentleman who, in spite of all our differences, we Welshmen admire for his ability, and respect for his sincerity. The hon. and gallant Member does not know quite so much about this question as some of us who made an honest attempt in the beet possible spirit and utmost sincerity.

§ Captain ORMSBY-GORE
I did not know anything about that, and I certainly withdraw my accusation against the Bishop of St. Asaph. My hon. Friend has enlightened me for the first time.

Sir E. JONES
I am very glad. The hon. Member does not represent now a Welsh constituency, and he does not speak for Wales. The Bishop of St. Asaph and the chairman of the Parliamentary Com- 2101 mittee have right through the negotiations spoken for the Welsh Church. Why cannot English Members who are not representatives of Welsh opinion leave Welshmen alone to settle our own questions, instead of keeping the House here night after night discussing these points? This question is really exceedingly difficult. I personally unhesitatingly say I should have liked immensely to see agreement. There is no money in this on one side or the other. The question is complicated; it involves points of great complexity. The endeavour to come to the agreement suggested by the representatives of the Church broke down on its merits entirely through the complications involved in working it out. These were complicated trust deeds, and difficulties of that kind. I am very sorry we could not come to an agreement, but the fact we have not done so does not justify the words which have been uttered here to-night by people who do not represent Wales and who have no right to flout either the Bishops or the Nonconformists of the Principality who have tried and are trying to settle their own differences.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I do not want to continue the Debate, indeed I am anxious to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division. But I think the Government might have offered some reasonable explanation of the reasons for their Motion. This is the first time this particular question has been discussed here.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
It could have been discussed but it was not.

§ Lord R. CECIL
I think I am right in saying it has not been discussed on this particular Bill, and in my opinion, if only out of civility the Government might have given some reasons for their decision. It would be some consolation to know that it has in fact been considered.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I have been very loth to intervene in the discussion, but I can assure my Noble Friend and the others who have taken part in this Debate that we were exceedingly anxious to arrive at a settlement which would be satisfactory in spirit and in letter to both sides. The Noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Hugh Cecil) said the churchyards were not taken away from the Church of Ireland. But he must recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases. In Ireland they 2102 were substantially Protestant churchyards. The Roman Catholics in the main had their own burial grounds. That was the case in the vast majority of the parishes in Ireland. But in Wales the churchyards are really parish churchyards, and I should say that four-fifths of those buried in them were Nonconformists. At any rate, that was probably the case in the vast majority of the rural churchyards in Wales. Therefore the two cases are not comparable. I am exceedingly anxious not to enter into any discussion on this subject which would revive old controversies. Everyone knows how much the controversy has centred round the burial of Nonconformists in these churchyards, which they regard as parish churchyards. I was, therefore, extremely anxious to see a settlement that would be acceptable to both sections. I did my best. I took a good deal of trouble in the matter last week, and I should have been very pleased if something could have been done; but, for the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend (Sir E. Jones), they failed. I regret it very much. I do not blame anybody. I am perfectly certain that those who represent the Church will agree that those who represented Nonconformist opinion were exceedingly anxious to meet them, and that the failure was due to causes for which neither party was altogether responsible. It was due to the inherent difficulties of the case. I hope that my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. I should like to say a word about the other. This controversy has raged in Wales for fifty or sixty years. For certainly twenty or thirty years of my political life in Wales this seemed to be the main trouble in all platform controversies. We are trying to settle it. We tried to get a settlement in which Churchmen would feel that, at any rate, we had done our best. There are two different points of view—two absolutely irreconcilable points of view. Churchmen take the view that this is property which belongs to them. They honestly believe it. Nonconformists take the view that it is national property. They also honestly hold that view. You cannot reconcile them. The best thing that can be done in a case of that kind is to try to get the parties to make the best arrangement in the circumstances. What really matters is that Nonconformists and Churchmen should act together in the future. Here, I think, an arrangement has been come to.
2103 I remember that an attempt was made during the War. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) and I took practically the same view then. I failed to convince my own fellow countrymen on that occasion. I wish it had been settled then. Now we have succeeded in getting an agreement. It is one that is acceptable to the Church, and no one would regret it more than Churchmen if it failed to be approved. It is an advantageous settlement to the Church. That does not mean that it is disadvantageous to anybody else. The mistake often made is to assume that because an arrangement is good for one party, it must necessarily be a bad one for others. This is an arrangement which Welsh Churchmen, who are capable of looking after themselves in ordinary matters, think a good one. In these circumstances I hope, seeing that an arrangement has been arrived at, that these old controversies will not be reopened. I say that in regard to this Amendment, and these observations also cover the next one. I cannot refer to it, but it does re-open a controversy. If the Bill were wrecked I do not think my hon. Friends would receive the grateful recognition of Welsh Churchmen. I do not say that this is a matter entirely for ourselves. It is certainly a matter for the House of Commons, especially where public money is involved. I should have thought, as far as the controversy in regard to the churchyards and the controversy with regard to the organisation of the Church itself are concerned, that Welsh Churchmen would have been the authority which would have been accepted on questions of this kind by the House of Commons. I would, therefore, earnestly appeal to the House, after the protest which my hon. Friends have made—a very emphatic protest; they take a different point of view—to allow us to settle this old controversy among ourselves.
It is the earnest desire of both parties to have a settlement of a very old feud which has poisoned public life in Wales for thirty or forty years. It has entered into everything. It has entered into education, it has entered into social co-operation. Now that it has been settled, I implore the Noble Lord not to prolong even for five minutes a controversy which has done no good. I hope my hon. Friends will not persist in their Amendments. We are all running risks. I know perfectly well my hon. Friends from Wales and my- 2104 self who have supported the Bill are open to being told that we are Re-endowing and Re-establishing the Church. On the other hand, Churchmen will be subjected to the kind of accusation which has been hurled against them to-night. We are prepared to face that, because we know very big issues are involved, and we want the co-operation of all those who are charged with the spiritual welfare of the people in these very dark and trying times.