HC Deb 16 December 1927 vol 211 cc2665-96

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Earl WINTERTON

The House is being asked to-day to consider another ecclesiastical matter, immediately after the historic Debate of yesterday, but there is this difference between the question which we are discussing to-day and the question which we have so recently debated, that to the best of my belief, no doctrinal issue is in dispute. But while this matter has a small direct importance as far as the Church of England in this country is concerned, it has very great importance indeed for the Church of England in India. In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading I can give the assurance as regards the Church of England in India, that its opinion upon this Bill is as nearly unanimous as it is possible to be in this imperfect world. The Bill is supported by all the Bishops of the Church of England in India and the voting upon it in the Provincial Council of the Church in India, which corresponds to the National Assembly in this country, in a House of 89 persons present, was 87 in favour and only 2 against. In addition, the Measure which was also required to give effect to the proposals contained in this Bill was passed unanimously by the Church. Assembly in this country and passed through this House about six weeks ago without a Division.

For many years past, notice has been directed to the fact that the status of the Church of England in India is markedly different from that of other Churches belonging to the Anglican Community in the self-governing Dominions or even to the Church of England in foreign countries like the United States, Japan or China. These Churches belong to the world-wide union of Federated Churches looking towards the Archbishop of Canterbury, but with their own independent life and organisation. The Church of England in India, on the other hand, is, in the eyes of the law, merely an extension of the Church of England separated from the rest of that body by nearly 6,000 miles, with the ecclesiastical law of England applied to it and with no representation of any sort in the National Assembly of the Church of England and in the Houses of Convocation in this country. That arrangement was natural enough in the early days when the vast majority of the members of the Church of England in India were Europeans, temporarily resident in India—mainly servants of the Crown together with some who were in India for private business reasons. To-day, the situation is very different. The Christian community in India is growing very rapidly. The numbers, I believe, are increasing at the rate of something like 100,000 or 200,000 a year and the total number of Christians in India is computed at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 persons. Of these, 500,000, roughly speaking, belong to the Church of England and of that 500,000, no less than 380,000 are Indians and 37,000 are Anglo-Indians—using the term in its present official sense—and the remainder are Europeans.

That shows clearly, to my mind at any rate, that the time has come to give the Church of England in India its proper-status—that is to dissolve its legal union with the Church of England and give it freedom to organise itself and develop along its own lines as a voluntary society legally entitled to manage its own affairs. The history of the relations of the Government of India and the Secretary of State with this matter is as follows. Five years ago the Government was tentatively approached with a view to this change, namely, the dissolution of union. They sympathised with the proposal but felt bound to assure themselves that the change was really and truly desired by those whom it would affect. That assurance was given by the voting figures which I have just mentioned, by the overwhelming majority in the Provincial Council and the support of all the Bishops of the Church in India. May I here interpolate the remark that when I speak of the Bishops of the Church of England in India it must not be supposed that all those Bishops are Europeans. One of them is an Indian. The very distinguished Prelate, who has been in this country this year and has spoken on behalf of this Bill, the Bishop of Dornaral, is an Indian, and, of course, those voting equally in the Provincial Council, and the Church Assembly of India were both Indians and Europeans. In addition to the opinion expressed by the Provincial Council, the Diocesan Councils—there are councils in each diocese—were also in favour of the Bill.

Now, how is the change of which I have spoken to be effected? Firstly, it will be brought about by the Church Measure to which I have already referred, which passed through this House without a division as a Measure under the enabling Act in this country. That will mainly effect the self-government of the Church after the change has been effected. Secondly, it will be brought about by this Bill, which repeals certain Sections of the Government of India Act and renders self-government possible. Notably it repeals a Sub-section which lays down that the Bishop of Calcutta, the Metropolitan Bishop in India, is subject to the general superintendence and revision of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The repeal of these provisions will take effect on what is called the date of severance, which will be fixed not less than two years or more than three years after the coming into operation of the Indian Church Measure. After this date, the Bishops will be appointed in accordance with the constitution of the self-governing Church, instead. of by the procedure which is necessitated at present, that is, by submission to the Crown.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

Will the Noble Lord give us the date of the Government of India Act to which he referred?

Earl WINTERTON

When I speak of the Government of India Act, I refer to the Consolidated Act. The Government of India Act has been amended, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, on a great many occasions, and after it is amended a fresh copy of the Act is placed in the Library of the House. Some difficulty arose over an earlier Amendment, of which a copy was not immediately available, for which perhaps I was responsible, but now, on each revision of the Act, copies of the consolidated, altered Statute are placed in the Library. When I speak of the alteration of the Government of India Act, I refer to one of the provisions in the amalgamated Act, but I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman afterwards the actual provision.

There is one special matter with which the House will be concerned. In fact, it is the matter, I think, with which the House will be much more concerned than with some of the other questions which arise under the Bill, and that is in respect to what, I venture to assert with confidence, are the obligations which this House has, as it has always had, towards those who are serving in that country as servants of the Crown. From the earliest time, since indeed the grant of a Charter by William III to the East India Company, it has been the practice, in the first decade of the East India Company, and afterwards of the Government, when the Crown assumed responsibility for the government of India by the Act of 1858, to provide chaplains and churches for British born subjects of the Crown in India. It is evident that under the new arrangement that privilege ought to be maintained, together with the rights of the chaplains, now 138 in number, as Government servants, because they are Government servants.

It is quite obvious that the problem with which the Government of India and the Secretary of State were faced when they had to consider this matter as a result of the first submission made to them by the Church of England in India for severance, the problem of, on the one hand, giving the freedom to the Church of England in India which they desired, and, on the other hand, of making proper provision for servants of the Crown, was a very formidable one, but the manner in which it was finally decided appears to all concerned to be very satisfactory. Rules will be made under Clause 5 of the Bill. The draft Rules, a copy of which I presented to this House in May last, represent an agreed and balanced scheme, arrived at after long consultation between the Government of India and the Bishops, who acted strictly in accordance with the mandate received by them from the Provincial Council in India.

The Secretary of State was, of course, consulted at every phase of the negotia- tions, and I may say that I, as his representative, was present when every rule was under discussion by a Committee of the Council of India, the Metropolitan of India, that is to say, the Bishop of Calcutta, and the Bishop of Bombay being present and taking part in the discussion, though not in the voting; and I can assure the House that the very greatest care was taken by both parties to go through every Rule and to discuss almost every word in the proposed draft Rules. These rules, which, as I say, were presented to Parliament in May last, represent the agreement reached to which I have just made reference. In saying that, I must not be taken as implying that circumstances may not necessitate some verbal alterations, because it must be remembered that these Rules will not come into effect until the date of severance, which will not be for two years, but what I want to emphasise is that there is a well understood honourable obligation, on the part of both parties to the agreement, to ensure that no alteration in principle is made without the concurrence of both parties. It is extremely unlikely that any such alteration will be made.

Having said that, let me emphasise the points which the agreement actually makes. British-born servants of the Crown in India are not to be deprived of the Church of England services to which they have been accustomed. Rule 15 in particular lays this down by describing the churches that will be maintained by the Government, which are to be called the maintained churches. It is also laid down that they shall be available for the service of the Church of England as contained in any Book of Common Prayer from time to time authorised in England. I need hardly say that this means that whatever services are authorised in England will be open to worshippers in the maintained churches—no more and no less. The Rules further ensure, in regard to Government chaplains, that there must be equitable treatment in such matters as the refusal of licence, posting to particular stations, or proceedings before Ecclesiastical Courts. The chaplains are represented on the Provincial Council and the Diocesan Councils in India, and there is full confidence that they will naturally take their place as a body under the new arrangement and give the same valuable services as they have rendered in the past.

British troops will have available for their use the maintained churches in all parts of India where there are such troops, and the Army Council assented to the Bill in draft before it was presented to the House. Rules have been carefully drafted to ensure that the authorities of the Church of England in India, after it has become legally separated from the parent Church, shall not withhold their licence from a chaplain except upon grounds upon which a licence would be refused in England. Rules have been made to bring in the aid or arbitration of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the last resort the Government have power to resume complete control of all or any of the maintained churches. The Government consider that in this matter they are in the legal position of trustees and are bound to provide against every contingency, however remote it may be, to protect the spiritual interests of the European Church of England members of the Services in India.

I come to one other point in connection with the authority which is behind this Bill. I think I have made it sufficiently clear that, while this Bill is a Government Bill, and represents the honourable agreement come to between the Government and the Church of England in India, the Bill originated with the demand of the Church of England in India for self-government. I am not afraid to state the position, which is, that that demand was for the same independence as is enjoyed by the Church of England in every one of the self-governing Dominions of the Crown, and every foreign country in which there is an Anglican community. The support for the Bill in India, as I have shown, is overwhelming. The Bill, to the best of my belief, is supported by the heads of all political parties in this country. Indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is, I understand, going to speak later in the Debate in support of the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER

Only in my private capacity.

Earl WINTERTON

I should have made that clear. At the same time, I am given to understand—I believe it is rather a delicate subject—from private inquiries, that there is no official opposition on the part of hon. Members of the Labour party, and I received a similar assurance from hon. Members who normally sit below the Gangway. I want to make the position quite clear, and to be perfectly frank with the House. If there should be much opposition to this Bill, it would be quite impossible to get the Bill through in the present Session. If that occurs, no damage will be done, either to His Majesty's Government or the Government of India, except in so far as they are deeply concerned, with every one responsible for the government of India, that the Church in India should have what it wants, and is entitled to have in their opinion. But if the Bill be delayed for another Session, the Government have every intention to get it through next Session. It will, however, involve the Church of England in India in heavy expense—heavy, at any rate, in comparison with its resources, which are not large. I am told that the cost of putting off a conference which was going to be held in the early part of next year to give effect to the change, will alone be £1,000, and I would make an earnest appeal to those hon. Gentlemen who, I understand, are going to oppose the Bill, to reconsider their position.

I think I know the grounds on which they are going to oppose it, and I am the last person to attempt to suggest for one moment that they are not absolutely sincere in their opposition. I am sure they are entirely sincere, but if, as I apprehend, the ground of their objection is that the money of the taxpayers is going to be spent in the future to support the service of the Church of England in India, let me point out that the position will be exactly the same as it is now, with this very important distinction as far as the Church of England in India is concerned, that they will acquire more freedom and far more self-government than they ever enjoyed in the past. But it will be impossible for this House to say at the same time as we agree to the severance, that we are going to wash our hands entirely of the obligation which we have had in this House for 300 years—for, after all, the old John Company was to a great extent under Parliament—the obligation of providing out of public moneys in India spiritual ministration for servants of the Crown. In fact, I myself am quite convinced that if we were to take that attitude, we should find it impossible to get a large number of people, both in important and in humble capacities, from the highest positions in the Civil Service down to the private soldiers in the Army, to serve in India at all. They would say, "We refuse to serve in a country where you refuse to provide us with religious service to which we have always been entitled, and to which we knew we were entitled when we joined a particular service."

So that I must warn the House that if, which is most unlikely to happen, the House as a whole took up the attitude that it is not prepared to see this money spent out of the taxpayers' money for the service of the Church, the Government would have to say, "Then we cannot agree to this freedom which is being conferred on the Church of England in India as a whole." I should have thought that it was a sufficient answer to that point of view to say that the members of the Church themselves, including Indians—because, after all, Indian members of the Church of England in India are taxpayers—have adopted this Bill almost with complete unanimity. I would like to mention another very delicate question, I admit. I would like to pay a tribute to the attitude which has been adopted by the great communities other than Christian in India. As far as I know, none of them has taken any exception either to this money being spent in the past or to it being spent in the future. On the contrary, I think there is a general feeling in a country like India that it would be very wrong to curtail the activities of any one community in that way.

In conclusion, I would like to add that my noble Friend and the Government of India are confident that they have done right in asking Parliament to implement this agreement—an agreement which is honourable to both parties, which has been entered into between the Church of England in India acting through its authorised episcopal representatives with their authority based on the almost unanimous opinion of those whom they represent and the Government of India. The Government believe that, on the one hand, this arrangement will enable the Church of England in India to fulfil all its functions in the same way as the Church of England in the Dominions and foreign countries is doing, with a sense of more freedom and initiative than it has hitherto possessed, and that, on the other hand, the spiritual welfare of servant® of the Crown for which, in a lay sense, the Secretary of State is undoubtedly legally and constitutionally responsible, will be adequately assisted and maintained after the severance has been effected. I very much hope that the House to-day will pass this Bill without a division, and thereby show to the very flourishing and growing community of members of the Church of England in India that it has for them a feeling of good will and of encouragement in the great task which they have undertaken.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

May I ask one question before the Noble Lord sits down?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Noble Lord will be able to answer, I am sure, by the leave of the House. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I listened carefully to the Noble Lord's statement about finance, but I am not quite clear as to the actual position. The point I want to be clear about, first of all, is, can he tell us by whom was found the money which supplied the actual fabric of the churches or any endowments, if there are any? Secondly, who is supplying to-day the means for the upkeep of these churches, and could he give us a rough figure of what it is? Thirdly, who has controlled hitherto the expenditure of this money, and who will control it if this Bill becomes law?

Earl WINTERTON

It is difficult to answer all these questions in detail. The hon. Gentleman asked me who supplied the money in the first instance for the endowments, and things of that kind. Some of it was supplied undoubtedly out of Government money as far back as the 17th century. Other money was supplied by pious benefactors, some of them Europeans and others Indian people, who died and left money to the Church. The Government will provide the money for the upkeep of the fabric of maintained churches and the Chaplains—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The Government of this country or the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON

The Government of India. The Government of this country only comes in in respect of the obligation of the Secretary of State to see that the agreement is carried out, and to see that the interests of servants of the Crown in India are safeguarded. The Government of India are solely responsible financially in respect of maintained churches. With regard to the churches which will pass to the Church of England in India, which were dealt with in the Measure which has been passed by the House, the money for them will be found out of the funds which the Church of England in India has at its disposal. Some of these funds will be made over to the Church of England in India, and others will be found from the pockets of worshippers and from supporters of the Church of England in India. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It is impossible for me to give a detailed account showing where the money came from. I doubt if any living person knows. It is like the money in the hands of the Church in this country or the Roman Church or any other Church.

Sir H. SLESSER

Before the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is moved, I wish to make my position clear. The Noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Labour party, as such, offer no official opposition to this Bill; it is equally true that the Labour party, as such, do not officially support the Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment are, so far as the Labour party is concerned, equally as entitled to move it as I am to support the Bill, because it is no party question at all. I wish, if I may, to join in the appeal of the Noble Lord and to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he has explained his position, as I am sure he will, to help us in facilitating the passage of this Bill. We know that, as a fact, in every one of the Dominions of the Crown there is now a self-governing Church, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend, who desires so much self-government for India, would have been among the first to welcome autonomy to India in the matter of ecclesiastical government. That is all that this Bill does. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has frequently demanded that India should be given the same rights of self-government as the other Dominions and Colonies, and now comes along an earnest or instalment of this very autonomy and freedom in the form of self-government to the Church.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

They have got to pay, whether they like it or not.

Sir H. SLESSER

I will deal with that point in a moment. The shackles which tie India compulsorily to this country are severed by this Bill. By this Measure the Church is allowed to conduct its own affairs. I really think that, were it not for this unfortunate misunderstanding about the matter of the money, my right hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) would not find it in their hearts to oppose the Bill. In fact, they would have welcomed it. By far the greater number of the members of the Indian Church are native Indians. This is not a case of supporting an alien Church in India, composed of persons who came originally from other countries. The Noble Lord gave us some interesting figures, from which it appears that the majority of the members of the Church are native-born Indians. Therefore, the last objection to allowing these Indian Christians and the Anglo-India Christians to conduct their own affairs seems to me to disappear. In addition, we are told that in the Episcopate in India you have Indian-born Bishops, and they also desire this Bill. We spent a considerable time yesterday in discussing the limitations of the powers and rights of the Church, but that was a case where the Church was disagreed. I have had a conversation with the Bishop of Bombay, and he assures me that the Church in India is absolutely unanimous in desiring this Measure. Really, in these circumstances, I should have thought that the Erastianism of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been sated yesterday.

In regard to the question of finance, the position, as I understand it, is that this Measure makes no difference whatever in the existing financial position. Not a farthing more will be paid in the future than is paid in the present. The only difference is that, whereas the money is now paid under conditions of which the Government here or in India are in control, the money given in future will be received by the Indian Church to spend at its own discretion; and I am amazed that. Members like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch should object that the Church should be freer to spend its money than it is at the present time. I never thought that I should have to come here and implore my right hon. and gallant Friend to allow a voluntary association to become free of State control. If I had been asked before we came here which Member of the House would be most anxious and active to see this Bill passed into law, I should have said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle under-Lyme. His attitude seems inconsistent with his whole philosophy of self-Government, and I hope that on this minor financial point he will give us the Second Beading, and, if it be not too much to hope, that he will give us the remaining stages also.

Sir CHARLES OMAN

There are two questions which I should like to ask the Minister. Will this Bill result in India in the remission of services in English in any scattered small communities, as apart from places where provision is made for the Army and the Civil Service? Does the Bill mean that any English residents in future will be more likely to have the Anglican service rendered into Hindustani or some other language instead of their own tongue? The other question which I want to bring forward is very much more important. This Church, which we are setting up by this Bill, is a very small thing indeed—a few hundred thousand members, of whom the greater number, as I understand the Noble Lord, are recent converts, and as we all very well know, these recent converts have been drawn in the large majority from very primitive elements.

Earl WINTERTON indicated dissent.

Sir C. OMAN

I know something about India. I was born there, my father was born there, and my grandson was born there, and, if the Noble Lord wants to imply that the majority of the Indian converts are not drawn from primitive classes and races, I must differ from him. Lastly, I would like to know whether the Noble Lord really thinks it is a wise thing to hand over for Indianisation a small community like this, after the experience which the centuries have given us of the position of small, isolated Christian Churches in the East? A small, isolated Christian Church in Eastern countries often falls into very strange ways. There is the case, for example, of the Abyssinian Church—I will not quote other cases in China, and elsewhere. We have a moral responsibility for this body in India. They were our missionaries who built it up, and it is upon our hierarchy at home that it depends at present. Have we a moral right to cut loose the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and to say that this small Church shall be autonomous and go on to rule itself, knowing its component elements and knowing what has happened in the past to similar small bodies? It raises a very grave doubt in my mind. The fact that the Church Assembly passed this Bill without comment does not count for very much in this House, I am afraid, after yesterday. I have received criticisms of the Bill from English people from India, particularly one from the head of a large English training college there, who is very strongly against it. I do not know how far that feeling of opposition is widespread in India, but it would be a great mistake to represent feeling there as absolutely unanimous, and to say that this Bill is approved by all the English in India. It is a move towards the Indianisation of India, no doubt, but we are still responsible for the Church, and considering how small that Church is, and in face of the fact that there is yet no large body of learned clergy nor any large body of educated laity, I have the gravest doubt whether we have yet the moral right to cut off the connection with the See of Canterbury.

Mr. THURTLE

I beg to move to leave out the word "now ", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said that yesterday the House spent a considerable time in considering another question which had been put forward by the Anglican Church. The House considered that question with a very happy-result, and I hope the Debate to-day will have similar happy results, although I am not exactly sanguine of it. This Bill proposes to create a self-governing, independent Church in India, and, at the same time, to take from the revenues of India certain moneys to assist in the maintenance of that Church. It is quite true, as the Noble Lord says, that in taking these moneys from the Indian Revenue it is merely continuing a longstanding practice, but the very fact that we are asked to give a statutory basis-to this practice affords us an opportunity of deciding whether it is desirable that it should be continued. My hon. and learned Friend said that an analogy might be established between this Indian Church and the Churches which exist in our various self-governing Dominions, but I submit that there is this vital difference between the proposed Indian Church and those other Churches, that in no case in the self-governing Dominions is any of the revenue of those Dominions taken for the purpose of maintaining those Churches.

I object to the very name of this Church. It is to be called "The Indian Church." What right have we to give a legal basis to a Church in India to be called "The Indian Church"? It will represent what is, after all, an alien religion in India. The Noble Lord said there are about half a million Anglicans in India at the present time. The total population of India is something like 300,000,000, which means that only 1 in 600 is an Anglican. How can we rightly and properly create a Church in India to be called the Indian Church on a basis like that? Suppose we were to reverse the position. Suppose some people were to bring to this country an alien form of religion and were to succeed, by great industry, in getting adherents to it to the extent of l-600th of the population, and suppose, further, that we had not got an English Church. Should we not consider it to be an outrage upon England if this alien religion, with an infinitesimal degree of support, were to ask this House for authority to call itself "The English Church"? We have there an exact parallel of what we are proposing to do in regard to India at the present time.

My main objection to this Measure, however, is in reference to the revenue which is to be granted to it from the poor people of India. It is said that the practice was begun in 1698; the Noble Lord said it had always been done. The argument of antiquity is never conclusive, so far as I am concerned. The fact that something has been going on for centuries is not necessarily conclusive that it ought to continue, and we ought to consider the question not on the basis of the practice having been in existence for three centuries but from the point of view of whether it is right and proper. Certainly it was done in the days of John Company, but many things were done in those days which have been abandoned since, and I think this is one of the practices established by John Company which ought to be reconsidered and, probably, changed. This money, amounting to £300,000, is to be taken from the revenues of India and devoted to two purposes, one the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the military forces in India, and the other the maintenance of chaplains and churches for the Civil Service in India The House should bear in mind that by far the greater proportion of the money is to be devoted to the Civil Service in India. Out of 310 maintained churches no fewer than 221 are civil churches, so that the great bulk of the money is to be used for the purpose of providing Anglican services for Civil servants in India. Really, there is no justification for expenditure of that kind. So far as the Army is concerned I beg leave to question the wisdom of spending money in India on services for the Army. I happen to have served in the Army, and I got to know something of the feeling of the rank and file about compulsory church services and chaplains, and my experience taught me that practically 99 per cent. of the men who were serving in the Army did not want any church services and did not want any chaplains.

Colonel APPLIN indicated dissent.

Mr. THURTLE

One always speaks, of course, from one's own experience, and I am speaking from the point of view which I learned from my experience in the Army.

Colonel APPLIN

You did not want to go.

Mr. THURTLE

I did not want to go, and certainly the great bulk of my colleagues did not want to go. I do not think that a strong case has been made out for spending all this money even on the military side, but there is absolutely no case for spending any of this revenue in maintaining an Anglican service for the Civil servants in India. I hope in a matter like this that I am as broad-minded as any hon. Member of this House, and if any man wishes to practice a particular religion I should be the last man in the world to interfere with him. If the British Civil servants in India wish to follow and practice the Anglican religion I would not dream of attempting to stop them, but if the degree of fervour amongst these Civil servants is so weak that they are not prepared to find the money to maintain their religion in India, they have no right at all to go to the poor poverty-stricken people of India and ask them to provide money for that purpose.

What a presumption it is to call upon the Indian people to provide money for the maintenance of the Anglican religion. Look at the number of religions which India has already. They are far more numerous than in this country, and. of far greater antiquity than the Anglican religion. Those Indian religions represent the faith of hundreds of millions of poor people as against 500,000 who hold the Anglican faith. What right have we to ask these people, whose religions are much more numerous and much older than ours, to provide money in order to maintain what they regard as an alien religion? This is not merely a question of the amount of money. I do not care whether it is 10 rupees or 10,000,000 rupees. The amount does not matter, but what we are concerned about is the principle of taking the money of the Indian people without their consent for the maintenance of an alien Church.

12 n.

When John Hampden objected to the payment of ship money, it was not the fact that he had to pay 20s. that he objected to, because he could have paid that amount without difficulty, and it would not have impaired his fortune seriously at all; but he objected to the payment of that money on principle. When the people of our American Colonies objected to the payment of a tax on tea, it was not the amount of the tax to which they objected. I believe, if my memory serves me right, the rebate that was allowed was only a paltry tax of 3d. on the lb. They did not object to that so much but they objected to the whole principle of the tax. That is what I object to in this case. Even if the amount had been £10,000 I would have objected to it in the same way because we have no right to ask the Indian people, to whom this religion is alien, to subscribe money out of their revenues for the maintenance of the Anglican religion.

I hope that within the next few years there is going to be a change in the Government of India. We have been led to believe that, as a result of the inquiries of a Royal Commission which is about to investigate the Indian question, there may be very great changes in regard to self-government in India in the comparatively near future. I hope that may be the case. I would suggest that we ought not to regard this question as being urgent at the present time, and we ought to defer action in regard to it until the people of India have received a larger measure of self-government. At the present time the Indian people regard the Anglican Church as an alien Church, as the Church of their conquerors, and as being the Church of a Nation which dominates over them. For these reasons, I think that before we give this Church a national status in India we should wait until the Indians have become the rulers of their own destiny. When the Indian people are free to decide for themselves, when they have control of their own national fortunes and national finance, then, if they think fit to create an Indian Church which in fact is the Anglican Church, no one can object to that course. Until that happens I say that we ought at least, defer action in this matter, and under the circumstances we ought not to proceed with the Measure before the House.

Mr. WELLOCK

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not believe that this Bill is quite such an innocent one as it appears to be on the surface. I am inclined to think that this Bill is very closely related to the Measure that was before the House yesterday in regard to which a considerable spate of literature was poured upon the Members of this House. My opinion on this point is strengthened by the fact that this Bill has received the support of the hon. Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser). I do not know that the hon. Member has shown any particular interest in Indian affairs, although he may have taken a general in that subject. We have been told to-day that this Bill has the support of the great majority of the Bishops in India. Yesterday we were told exactly the same thing with regard to the Measure which was then before the House.

My real objection to this Bill is that it does not allow the democracy of India to express its voice upon it. It has been stated that this Bill is really in sympathy and unison with the idea of self-government in India, but I think that in the present circumstances that point of view cannot be upheld. We must recognise that India has not self-government to-day, and the voice of the democracy of India cannot be registered in regard to this Bill. We may pass this Bill through this House during the present Session, but we know that, if that be done, whatever India thinks about this Bill will not be registered in the Legislature of India. The Bill will be passed, whatever India may feel and think about it. The name of the Bill also comes into consideration. We are going to establish in India an Indian Church. Let us think what we are doing; let us remember the feeling that was aroused in the country and in this House yesterday upon the question of the Prayer Book. The Indian people are just as religious as we are, and the disputes that have arisen in that country recently between Mohammedans and Hindus are only a proof of the strength of feeling there on the question of religion. It is now proposed that we, the British people, should impose upon India what we call an Indian Church. That will mean that the only Established Church in India, the only Church that goes by the name of Indian, will be the Church of an alien religion.

Considering the relationship between this country and India, and what is to come before the Indian people during the next few months, the time for bringing in this Bill is very badly chosen. It is bound to create antagonism in India, and, especially if it goes through the Indian Legislature without the people of India having an opportunity to register their voice, it will very deeply prejudice the feeling in India against the Commission that is going out to consider the future government of India. We may say that these are sentimental matters, but it was admitted yesterday that we are sentimental. If I were an Indian and a member of the Hindu community, with its 220,000,000 followers, or of the Moslem community with its 60,000,000 or 70,000,000 followers, I should certainly feel very strongly opposed to the introduction into my country of a Bill to establish a Church which carried the name of my country and yet at the same time was the Church of an alien religion. In view of these considerations, and particularly in view of the fact that this cannot be considered to be a democratic Measure in India today, and that it is certainly an attack upon Indian sentiment, I feel that the least we can do is to oppose the introduction of this Bill until India has at any rate a very much larger measure of Home Rule than she has at the present moment.

Lord HUGH CECIL

The hon. Member who has just sat down is an awful warning of the way in which, if you once yield to suspicion, it spreads over the human mind—it corrupts it altogether. The hon. Member has now reached a point which reminds me of the well-known story of Lord Bowen, who said, about a colleague of his on the Judicial Bench, "The decision of Mr. Justice So-and-so is like going to sea on a Friday—not invariably fatal, but very unfortunate." The hon. Member feels very much the same about Bishops. He thinks that there is a certain presumption, in regard to the Episcopate, that, if the Bishops are in favour of anything, it is probably wrong. That makes things very difficult in dealing with episcopalian churches. I could not help observing that the opponents of this Bill seem hardly to have read its opening words. This is An Act to make provision incidental to and consequential on the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. It goes on: Whereas by the Indian Church Measure, 1927 provision is made for the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India: And whereas for the purpose of giving effect to certain changes consequential on the said Measure it is expedient that the provisions hereinafter contained should be enacted by Parliament. The Indian Church Measure has passed; it has received the Royal Assent, and is the law of the land. Parliament, therefore, has adopted the principle of the dissolution of the legal union between the Church of England and the Church of England in India. As to its being called the Indian Church, it is not Parliament that calls it the Indian Church; it is the body itself that uses that name. All religious bodies choose their own title. The Church of Ireland is only the Church of a minority, but it calls itself the Church of Ireland; and there is a much smaller body which calls itself the Reformed Church of England, though personally I should not regard that as an appropriate title for that particular body. It is, however, part of the courtesy that passes among Christian people that they should be allowed to call the body to which they belong by any name that they please, and the Indian Church is so called because that is the name which has been adopted by the Bishops and other authorities who preside over it. My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) asked whether this would make any difference to the small scattered congregations. I cannot imagine that it would. They have to be provided for by the Church in any case. I am advised that there is the greatest possible anxiety not to do anything that would distress the ordinary English worshipper, and, at any rate so far as we are able now to foresee, there is no likelihood of any difficulty in that direction.

As to the question of money, this money is not to be given, as has been suggested, to maintain the Church; it is payment for services received. Religion, like other things, has to be paid for if you want it. The State has a large number of servants in India who need these ministrations. [Interruption.] We are happy in having, owing to the generosity of past ages, an endowed Church, but that does not exist in India, and, there- fore, provision must be made. Buildings have to be repaired, and chaplains who minister have to be paid for their services. The only purpose of this Bill is that the payments which are necessary, and without which, of course, those ministrations cannot be provided which are needed by the State for its servants, shall not be interfered with. A time may come when there are no Christian Civil servants in India, and, if that should ever be so, a new situation will, of course, arise; but at the present time there is this large body of State servants, and it is only reasonable and fair that the State needing this service should pay for the service.

The intention, both of the Measure and of the Bill, is that the Church should be absolutely independent, that it should be a voluntary association, distinct both from the State and also in law—though not, of course, spiritually—from the Church of England. Spiritually it is still to be united, of course, in full communion with the Church of England. Provision is made, rather quaintly, I think, for the contingency—and this, I hope, may satisfy my hon. Friend and colleague—of severance in the future. The Archbishop of Canterbury is to certify, and a good many other things are to be done, including the resumption by the Governor-General of the property which, as it were, has been loaned to the Church as long as it retains its present position. All that has been done in order—

Mr. WRIGHT

On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there is not a quorum present in the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I recently counted the House, and satisfied myself that there are forty Members present.

Mr. WRIGHT

On a further point of order. Will you declare to the House what interval it is necessary should elapse between one point and another at which your attention may be called to this fact?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

That is in the discretion of the Chair.

Lord H. CECIL

When I was interrupted, I was saying that, as long as the State has in India persons who need religious services, it is only reasonable that the State should make a contribu- tion for such services. It does not increase the charge on the Indian taxpayer, and there is no analogy, therefore, with the charge on the American Colonies which led to their severance from this country. It is only paying for what you get. If you buy stationery in India you have to pay for it in a shop. If you get religion in England you have to pay for it.

Mr. MONTAGUE

Why do you not pay for it?

Lord H. CECIL

We pay the expense of government, and this is part of the expense of government.

Mr. MONTAGUE

That is what we object to.

Lord H. CECIL

That is part of the much wider problem how India ought to be governed, and we cannot decide that on this Bill. It is quite clear that what the Bill does is not at all to invade the rights of the Indian people. If anything it rather increases them. Many are Christians and are united in this Church and they will henceforth be entirely independent of the State and of English control. Last night we were told that we ought to have disestablishment. This is a measure of disestablishment. I am amazed to find that whatever we do is always wrong. The Church Assembly can never do right. When it tries to adjust its affairs consistently with establishment, it is wrong. If we assent to the separation of the Church, by which it becomes autonomous, disestablished from all connection with the State, we are wrong. May I read the words used in the Indian Church Measure, which must appeal to every convinced liberationist. They could not be more definite and more explicit: As in the respects particularly in this Section mentioned, so in all other respects the Church of England and the Indian Church shall, as from the date of severance, be legally severed, separate and distinct, and every law and custom shall, except as in this Measure expressly provided, be interpreted and applied accordingly. Again: Any rule of the Indian Church made by any synod, council, assembly or officer thereof shall not, after the date of severance, be subject to any legal limitation in respect to scone or effect (whether arising from the operation of an Act of Parliament or other- wise) other than such as would apply to the like rule if made by a voluntary association altogether distinct from the Church of England. This raises no question of principle. The principle has been raised and decided. This merely carries out the necessary machinery, which has to be dealt with by a Bill, and I earnestly hope the House will not be so foolish as to shrink from the consequences of the Measure.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Noble Lord has given an admirable exposition of the advantages of disestablishment, but I cannot think it can have escaped his mind that this Bill as an example of disestablishment, of securing freedom from control, while yet retaining control over the cash—retention, shall I say, of the emoluments. I hardly think that is an exact parallel for the general argument in this country in favour of disestablishing the Church of England. He emphasised more clearly what he regarded as the advantages of establishment. He said we are bound, in India and in this country, to provide Church of England ministrations for the Civil Service, the Army, and indeed generally for the servants of the Crow6n throughout the world. I demur to that entirely. It indeed would be going beyond anything that has hitherto been suggested that the State should supply for Civil servants in this country Church of England ministrations. Many members of the Civil Service are Nonconformists; some are even Agnostics. Would the Noble Lord provide at the expense of the State ministrations for all the varieties of faith that go to compose the Civil Service?

I was interested in this Bill in the first place because, in spite of what the ex-Solicitor-General the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) said, apparently a large number of the members of the Church of England in India were afraid of this Measure because they thought directly the Church of England in India was severed from its connection with this country the disestablished Free Church would proceed to move along Anglo-Catholic lines and would develop on the Roman side of its character. That was the allegation of these people who wrote to me and of the 20,000 petitioners who sent in a petition against the Bill. I am satisfied, after discussing the matter with the Noble Lord, that there is no danger from that point of view, and indeed I think the whole House can see that, after the most emphatic vote yesterday of the Protestant under-world, there is no likelihood whatever of any Bench of Bishops, whether in this country or in India, ever again attempting to graft on to the Protestant reformed doctrine of this country the principles of the reservation of the Sacrament.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

This seems to be renewing yesterday's Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Perhaps I should explain how this is germane to the subject. We are setting this Church of England in India free. The principal opposition to it comes from those people who think that by setting it free they will move in the direction of the Roman Church, and I think we are justified in pointing out to these people who are objecting to this Bill in India that their fears, although they may have been justifiable before, are now no longer justifiable. The real criticism of this Bill must come not from those who object to it being set free from control—being subject to its own Bishops and laity—but from those who are doubtful as to whether we should continue indefinitely the practice of drawing upon Indian funds for the maintenance of this Church.

The main argument in favour of the Bill is that this has always gone on and therefore, on sound Conservative principles, because it has always gone on it always should go on. Let us realise that this is a question which every Member of Parliament must seriously consider. I do not remember any protests being made in the Indian Assembly against the moneys that are voted year after year for the upkeep of chaplains, not merely of the Church of England but Catholic and Nonconformist Chaplains with the Forces in India, but at any moment very reasonable objection to that may be taken, and I think we must face the fact that, this issue having been raised in this country, we shall in future have the matter raised in India. It is trifling with the matter to say, as the ex-Solicitor-General said, that this was merely giving to India the right of self-determination. Of course, if it were giving to India the right of self-determination as to whether they should find these funds or not. there would be no sort of financial opposition to the Measure, at any rate, but he knows, and we all know, that over the question of this fund, at the present time, India has no control whatever. To reduce the sum allocated to the Army is practically impossible. Really, the less we talk about self-determination in India at the present time the better, I think, for the subject is hardly one which comes with very good grace from us just now. We are in the position of trustees for not only the English Church but also for the Indian people on this question, and I would ask the Noble Lord, before he definitely asks us to vote for or against the Second Reading of this Bill, to tell us whether there have been any expressions of hostility from the Indian Legislative Assembly to the voting of this money in the past. If there have not been, I for one shall be quite content to support the Second Reading of this Measure. I do not believe that there are religious dangers, and as long as there have been no objections from India, from the people who pay, to the making of this payment, I do not feel that the matter is serious enough to force a Division. Do not let us attempt now to rush this Measure through the House. Do not let us attempt to take the Committee stage to-day. Do allow public opinion outside some slight opportunity of expressing itself on this question, which has never really seriously been discussed before in this House, and enable us to see more clearly, some day next week, whether we want to take the concluding stages of this Bill.

Colonel APPLIN

I find myself in an extremely difficult position. I do not wish to do anything to embarrass the Noble Lord on a Measure which deals with the financial support of the Church in India, but I am going to speak on this subject as one who served in India, in the Army, for many years and who was a lay reader in the Church of England, with a licence from the Bishop of Nagpur, when I had to take services every Sunday morning and evening for nine months of the year until the Bishop could come up into the hills for three months and take the services himself. I feel that we soldiers in India break our connection with the old country in every possible way. We go to an utterly strange land, with a climate totally different from our own, among an alien people, leaving our families and everything behind. There is just one thing which we have, and it is the Church of England, to which we march on Sundays. When we get into that Church and have that old service we feel ourselves back at home again. I differ entirely from the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), who spoke of his experience in India and expressed an entirely opposite view. My experience is that 90 per cent. of the men who march to the Church of England on Sunday desire to go to that Church. What they may not desire to do, and I agree with the hon. Member, is to have to clean their buttons and put on their full dress uniform, and march out in the sun in the morning. They may have a natural desire in their hearts to kick a football rather than sit and listen to a prosy sermon, but I do say that 90 per cent. of these men would feel it a very great hardship if they had not the Church of England service to which they are accustomed, giving them that connection with the old country which is so valuable out there.

I feel that we are passing a Measure without realising the fact—and it is in regard to the Clauses of this Bill dealing with finances that I have any doubt—that it is the separation, or, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), in front of me, said, the disestablishment of the Church of England in India. We in the Army, and they are some 35,000 of us, and the civil servants—and I think I am speaking for the Anglo-Indians also—would much rather that the Church of India remained in the Church of England and kept its connection with it. For that reason, I feel bound to oppose the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I reluctantly feel compelled to support the Amendment that has been moved. I do so, because I feel that it would be a great mistake to rush through this very important Bill at the tail end of this Session. To-day is probably the last day when we have even the pretence of having the full numbers of the House present. Next week large numbers of members will be away. It is quite a mistake to regard this Bill as a trivial and unimportant Bill. I do not think that the Noble Lord himself would take that view. The more the Bill is studied the more we shall realise that it is important in itself dealing with most important principles, and for that reason I protest against rushing it through in these last few days and claim that it ought to be considered when the House is able to give full consideration to it. I do not share the view of the hon. Friends who sit behind me with regard to the proceedings of yesterday. The more I think over what happened then, the more I am convinced that we ought to have devoted longer time to a question of such great; importance. It seems to me that in devoting only one day to a matter which had been dealt with at such great length and with such great consideration by the Church was totally inadequate. My reason for saying that is, that I want to avoid falling into the same mistake on this occasion. We have vital principles at stake in this Measure, and we ought to give to them proper thought, proper debate, and only after we have done all that to carry, if we desire it, this Bill into law. On the merits of this question, I am very much more uncertain, because I have not discovered, though I have taken some pains to do so, exactly what we are doing in this proposal. It seems to me that the position of the fund is completely changed if the status of the Church is changed.

My right hon. Friend made a point which I think was not fully appreciated in this Souse. He said that if we were going to ask for State funds for the support of churches of the English Church in India for the purpose of ministering to civil servants who were Anglicans, he did not see why the same argument should not apply to the support of all other churches to which other civil servants might belong. That seems to me to be a very vital question. So long as this Indian Church is a State Church, so long as it is definitely connected with the English Church and is a State organisation, there is a certain amount of ground for seeing that any State funds that are found are legitimately used for maintaining the State Church. But the moment that connection between the "Church of India and the Church of England ceases, then, it seems to me, there are no grounds whatever for using State funds to support the so-called Indian Church, that would not equally be arguable in support of other Churches to which a body of civil servants in a particular locality belong. You may have a Civil servant in an up-country station, and he and one or two in the immediate circle may be the only people really concerned in attending Church. It would be a very difficult matter to prove that you are in any sense ministering to his requirements if he be a Nonconformist by supplying him with an English Church when the Church has already ceased to be the State Church, as we understand it. I would like to press this point that we are undoubtedly on the eve of very important constitutional changes in India —some of us hope that that will be so in any case—and it seems to me that this is not the right moment to make this very grave change. For these reasons, without saying that I am against the Bill, I do say that we ought not to rush it through in the last few remaining days of a short Session.

Earl WINTERTON

I hope the House will forgive my asking permission to speak a second time.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is not necessary for the Noble Lord to ask permission in this case.

Earl WINTERTON

I am very much obliged to you for that assurance. I hope that I shall be in the pleasant position of being able to make some converts. I hope that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), when he has heard my statement, will vote for the Bill, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who put his views in a most moderate and reasonable way, although I think his premise was wrong, will also vote for the Bill. As I understand the hon. Member for West Leicester, his point was this; that the Church in India is to cease being a State Church; that so long as it remains a State Church there is reason for providing money and a case can be made out for providing money for servants of the Crown; but, when it ceases to be a State Church, there can be no such reason, because the people for whom we are intending to provide the services, European servants of the Crown, may not be members of the Church of England. The answer to that is two-fold. In the first place, provision is made for a very carefully chosen number of maintained churches in those places where there is a considerable Anglican community of servants of the Crown. In the second place, provision is made from Army funds and has always been made and will continue to be made for the spiritual ministrations of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. That is to say, the chaplains are maintained out of Army funds for this purpose. In that way we provide for the members of practically every Christian community in India who are in the service of the Crown.

An equally serious point was put by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) who moved the Amendment. His argument, if there was no answer to it, would be a powerful one. He said that the Anglican community in India, admittedly, only numbers half a million people out of a population of 300,000,000. The actual Christian community, as I have said on many occasions, is very much larger and is growing. He asked why should we provide any sort of State money, taxpayers' money for the needs of that Christian community. Apart from the fact that we have distinct obligations, despite what the hon. Member said, towards the servants of the Crown, the answer is that the Christian religion is not the only religion for which money is provided by the State in India. Probably the House is unaware that all the lands and sites belonging to the mosques and temples in India, and they are very numerous, are entirely free from land assessment. An enormous sum of money is provided in that way, and quite properly provided, if I may say so with all respect, for those great religions out of State funds.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Does that apply to the property of those religions in the Mosques and Temples?

Earl WINTERTON

The Mosques and Temples are entirely exempt from land taxation. That is a very valuable assistance to them. I think, I cannot say definitely, off-hand, that it applies to some extent to certain endowments. At any rate, the sum of money which they obtain in that way is enormous. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked a very reasonable question. He asked what has been the attitude of the Assembly in regard to this matter. I have made such inquiries as have been possible in the time at my disposal, and I learned that there has never been any Resolution passed or moved in the Assembly hostile to this Measure. There have been one or two questions on the subject. It naturally aroused curiosity on the part of Members when the Bill was on the tapis and was first mooted, but there has been no Resolution of any kind hostile to this proposal. I believe the reason for that is that there really is no opinion in India against assistance to the great religions of India, and I imagine that the Moslem and Hindu Members of the Assembly would feel that it would be a rather ungracious attitude on their part to object to this comparatively small sum of money being given in assistance of the Church of England in respect of the obligations of the Government to the European servants of the Crown, when at the same time their own religions were receiving great assistance in the way I have described.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has been very effectively answered by his fellow Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) is under a complete misapprehension. He spoke as if the dissolution of the legal and not, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University pointed out, the spiritual union between the Church in India and the Church of England in this country was going to make the position of the soldiers in respect of their religious services far different from what it is to-day. Nothing of the sort. They will continue to attend the parade services, and I believe that not one in a dozen will know that there is any difference. They will be in exactly the same position as they are now, because at very great trouble and after long deliberation the Government of India, the Church, myself and others concerned in the negotiations in deciding which churches shall be maintained, have made most careful provision for the spiritual welfare of the troops.

I am sorry that I must end on a more controversial tone. There is a point to which I must take exception in the phrase used by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock) which if it were not answered would cause consider- able feeling among Christians in India. He said that Christianity was an alien religion in India. I can assure him that Christianity has no frontiers. It belongs to no one country more than another. Every Indian Christian will feel as wounded by that phrase, which I hope was used inadvertently by the hon. Member, as will his own constituents. "An alien religion" is not the term to apply to Christianity in any part of the world. It has no frontiers any more than the great religion of Islam has frontiers.

Mr. WELLOCK

I only meant that it was an imported religion.

Lord H. CECIL

So is Christianity in this country.

Earl WINTERTON

I am sure the hon. Member used the phrase not in the sense in which the House took it. I am speaking on behalf of Indian Christians, who I am sure would be deeply wounded by the use of the phrase, just as a Mohammedan in this country would be deeply wounded if his religion was referred to as an alien religion because it is a religion which is follwed by millions of people in the British Empire. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. The House has shown great moderation in dealing with this matter, and, although there is only a small number of Members present, it has shown a high sense of responsibility. I hope that we shall pass the Bill without a Division.

Mr. MONTAGUE

The Noble Lord has drawn an analogy between the direct payment for services of religion for military and Civil servants in India and the indirect payment in the form of remissions of taxation on the land in which the temples of other religions in India are built. It does not seem to me to be an altogether clear analogy. In any case, the land upon which the temples are built happens to be Indian land, and the people of India surely have the right, as have the people in this country, to make whatever assessment arrangements they please. The Noble Lord also takes up the use of word "alien religion." I do not think it is an offence to the Christians of India, or to anybody else, to call the Christian religion in India, alien. It is alien in the sense that there is establishment, just as much as the Church, when it was established in Ireland, was an alien church, to that country, and because of that establishment and the forcing of a different religion upon a nation in its state and financial relations, it came to be considered a hardship from the material and spiritual point of view. If we have a vote upon this Bill this afternoon, it implies that this House may not sanction the payment of the small sum of £300,000, and it does raise the question of principle which is behind the Bill.

The point I want to put is this: If it is necessary for the troops in India or the Civil servants to have the ministrations of the Christian Church, it is far better for this country, which is predominantly Christian, to pay the expenses of that ministration. If the civil servants cannot be expected to pay for their own religion, surely it would be far better and more reasonable for this country to pay the expenses rather than make the Indian nation pay them. As for the troops, and their appreciation of the compulsory or semi-compulsory religious services in India, or anyhere else, there is a world of difference between being an officer in the Army and being a private. I have been both, and I am perfectly sure that the average officer does not know what the average soldier thinks about compulsory religion in the Army. The reason why religion and religious services are objected to by the troops, and bitterly objected to in spite of the nonsense of the 99 per cent., is not because of an objection to religion itself, but because every form of compulsion in religion is objectionable. The whole essence of religion is self-sacrifice and its spontaneous expression. If it does not come spontaneously, then religion is worthless. That is the principle involved, and because this expenditure, or the sanction of it, does involve that principle I shall support the Amendment rather than the Motion.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 19th December.—[Earl Winterton.]