Lords Sitting of 8 May 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation* (50).
Second Reading—(£13,000,000) Consolidated Fund *.
Third Reading—Courts (Colonial) Jurisdiction * (48): Hertford College, Oxford * (46); Game Birds (Ireland)* (49), and passed.

RAILWAY COMPANIES.—RESOLUTION.
LORD REDESDALEcalled the attention of the House to applications which are now frequently made to Parliament by Railway Companies for power to construct short lines for the development or improvement of lands, mines, or manufactories, the immediate object and direct effect of such lines being to enhance the value of particular private properties. In his capacity of Chairman of Committees, such cases constantly came under his notice. His views were expressed in this Resolution, which he would ask their Lordships to adopt—
Moved to resolve, That whereas applications are now frequently made to Parliament by Railway Companies for power to construct short lines for the development or improvement of lands, mines, or manufactories, the immediate object and direct effect of such lines being to enhance the value of particular private properties, and as it has not been the practice of Parliament to give compulsory powers to one person to take the lands of another for his private advantage, it is unjust and inexpedient that powers which would be refused to individuals on their own application should be obtained by them indirectly through the intervention of Railway Companies.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
THE EARL OF DUNMORE, on the part of the Government, said, they, of course, concurred with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, in thinking that powers which would be refused to individuals on their own application should not be obtained by them through the intervention of Companies; but he desired to ask his noble Friend what would be the effect of the Resolution if adopted? If the object was to prevent Companies from taking lands for private advantage only, there should be an express direction to Select Committees to carry it into effect; but if it meant more, it should be expressed in definite language. But the Select Committees on Railway Bills had at present very ample powers, and he thought his noble Friend ought to submit his Resolution in the shape of a Standing Order before he asked their Lordships to adopt it.
THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDwas of opinion that the practice against which the Resolution of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was directed was one to be very much condemned. The power to take lands was always granted to Companies, but never to private individuals; and it was not desirable to enable private individuals to do through Companies what they could not obtain the power to do themselves. He should support the Resolution of the noble Chairman of Committees.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, the Resolution was drawn up in very ambiguous terms—it might mean very much, or it might mean very little. Individual benefit might be alleged in the case of some of the most useful Railways, and rival Companies might set up individuals to oppose, under the terms of the Resolution, a line which would confer a great public benefit. A public advantage was not to be measured by the length of a line,

1905
or the acreage required for its construction. As to public benefit from these lines, surely it was an advantage to London, and to the iron, cotton, woollen, and other manufactures, that fresh coalfields should be opened. It was also for the public advantage that large supplies of coal should be rendered available for the foreign markets. He hoped that the House would look carefully at the matter before they adopted the Resolution of the noble Lord.
EARL GRANVILLEconcurred in what had just been said by the noble Earl in opposition to the Resolution. If the Select Committees did their duty properly, he did not sec any necessity for a Resolution or Standing Order to embody a principle in which all their Lordships were agreed with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. No doubt his noble Friend had given full Notice of his intention to propose this Resolution; but there seemed to be some misunderstanding on the subject; therefore, if his noble Friend wished to have the matter more fully considered, he would recommend him to bring forward his proposal in another form.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDentirely agreed in the Resolution of his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) as an abstract proposition; but he would ask their Lordships what effect this Resolution, if adopted, would have? In his opinion, the question was one for the Select Committee which inquired into each particular Bill. If he were Chairman of a Select Committee on a railway, the mere expression of an opinion would have no effect whatever upon him. The question was for the Committee. If the line asked for was shown to be for the benefit of any particular individual, and not for the benefit of the public, no Committee would grant to the promoters of such a line powers to take the land of persons who did not want the line. An abstract Resolution of this kind would have no effect whatever; and it would be very difficult to draft it into a Standing Order. He concluded, therefore, that it would be unwise for their Lordships to deal with the subject at all, unless it could be put into some substantial form.
EARL GREYsaid, that Parliament ought not to over-ride individual rights for the sake of private advantage; and this was a grievance against which the Resolution was directed. He thought
1906
that if the House came to any Resolution on a subject of public importance, it would be the duty of the Select Committee to frame their proceedings so that they should be in accordance with the general rule so laid down.
LORD CARLINGFORDthought that this short discussion had at least shown this—that questions as to public and private interests were so nice, and varied so much in the individual cases, that they could not be concluded by any general rule, and that it was eminently a question for the decision of each Committee, and was not to be regulated by a Standing Order or Resolution of the House. He agreed with the suggestions which had fallen from the noble Duke.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHagreed with the noble Lord as to the difficulty of drawing a line between public and private interests. It might well be that in some of these lines, while there was much private benefit, there might be much public advantage also, and it must be the business of the Committee in each case to decide how far the proposition was brought forward for private advantage only, or would secure a public benefit. No doubt, most of the lines referred to would be for the public advantage by the cheapening the production of coal and minerals; but public grounds might very easily be put forward as a pretext for forwarding purely private interests. He thought the noble Earl (the Earl of Airlic) was wrong ill supposing that it would be for the interest of railway companies to put up individuals to oppose short lines under the Resolution now proposed.
LORD REDESDALE, in withdrawing the Motion, said, he had some satisfaction in this—that almost every noble Lord seemed to agree in the principle which he desired to carry out, and he thought that it would not be easy to word a Resolution in a more clear manner than he had done. He should, however, not divide the House upon a matter upon which they seemed to desire further information.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

AFGHANISTAN.—QUESTION.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government

1907
fully adopt the conclusions stated by Earl Granville in his despatch to Lord Augustus Loftus of the 17th of October, 1872, respecting the territories and boundaries of Afghanistan; and, whether Her Majesty's Government would grant the moral and material support of England to the Ameer of Afghanistan in case of unprovoked aggression upon his dominions? The noble Lord said that the records of India showed that the late Lord Mayo, from the time he undertook the government of India, had turned his attention to every part of our Eastern Empire; and his attention was directed very specially to the condition of the native States which, in India, interpose between the British territory and the territory of Russia. It was Lord Mayo'S opinion—as it was that of every other authority on the subject—that an intermediary zone of native States should be preserved between our territory and that of Russia—he did not mean a zone of neutral States, because Lord Mayo was too sagacious a statesman to believe that such States would not be to some degree under the influence of one or the other of the two great Powers, but States so strong as to be self-supporting, and not liable to be brought under the influence of either the one or the other. Lord Mayo's policy was a policy of demarcation, and he directed his attention specialty to a due distribution of power among those States; and his efforts in that direction having been followed up by his successor, there was every reason to believe that a satisfactory settlement of the question of boundaries had been arrived at. The intervention of Russia in this settlement was necessary only in the case of the northern boundary of Afghanistan; and, with the view of co-operation between the two Governments, a distinguished agent was sent by the Viceroy to confer with the Russian authorities. That agent was received with every courtesy; but after a time it appeared that the Russian Government was not inclined, or was not able, to come to an arrangement with England. Under these circumstances, the Government of India pressed on the Government in this country that the settlement of boundary of Afghanistan should be made as an act on our part singly, and that the conclusions at which we arrived as to that boundary should be communicated to
1908
Russia. After the lapse of a considerable time, there came the despatch of the 17th of October in last year, in which the Government of Russia was informed of the opinion of the English Government as to the just position of the northern boundary of Afghanistan. The despatch further stated that the opinion of the Russian Government had been asked in the first instance, and that, our Government having of itself come to a conclusion on the point, that conclusion had been communicated to the Ameer. Nothing could have been more temperate or more courteous than the terms of the despatch; and the Russian Government met the Government of England in a kind spirit—for, though its opinions on the geographical and political questions were not the same as those of our Government, it gave its assent to the settlement proposed by Great Britain. If the character of that negotiation had not been in some degree impaired by a declaration from other quarters, he should not now be addressing their Lordships on this subject. While the Government at home was advocating in Russia the case of Afghanistan, the Government in India was not idle. The good relations between it and Afghanistan were being drawn closer. The Ameer visited the Viceroy, and was received with the honours due to an independent Power. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he asked their Lordships to reflect on the responsibilities with respect to Afghanistan which we might fairly be held to have assumed. In the first place, we might seem to have pledged ourselves to defend it, because we had fixed its boundaries. He supposed it would not be contended that in fixing those boundaries we merely fixed a geographical fact—this might have been done by a Committee of the Geographical Society. The fixing of those boundaries was intended to be a political fact, and to have political consequence. Because it was a political fact we told the Ameer that he might defend the boundaries. Could it ever have been intended that our Government could tell a semi-dependent and semi-barbarous power that it might defend boundaries which we had fixed without by implication conveying to it that we would assist in the defence of those boundaries? We were bound to defend them not only by our engage-

1909
ments, but also by motives of general policy in connection with the defence of India. But he would not enter at length into that question. But if we were bound to defend the boundaries of Afghanistan we were also bound to control the Government of that State. The latter position seemed to him to follow from the former. We must see that the Government of Afghanistan conducted itself in such a manner that we should not be called upon frequently or lightly to enter on its defence. We had strengthened the Government of Afghanistan by our alliance; we had given moral and material aid by subsidies and by our arms; and he contended that our obligations to control and regulate the action of the Government of Afghanistan commenced with the first assistance that we gave to that Government. The Government of Russia was not slow to perceive this. There was another reason why we should acknowledge an obligation. If Afghanistan should prove a restless and aggressive neighbour she must be restrained by some one. If we did not restrain the action of Afghanistan she must, in the last resort, be restrained by Russia. Surely it was better that we should exercise that duty than that Russian forces should enter the territory of Afghanistan. There could be little doubt that if Russian forces entered the territories of Afghanistan on one side, English forces would enter the territories of Afghanistan on the other; and in all probability some worse results would arise from the conflict of these forces than could arise from an independent action on the part of England. This obligation, however, was of a distant and speculative kind, and he did not think the Government of Afghanistan would provoke such a conflict. The policy initiated by Lord Mayo had for its object to establish a powerful Government, independent in its internal affairs, but indirectly dependent on this country as regarded its external relations, and if the territory of Afghanistan were split up, the whole of that policy would be frustrated. The noble Earl now intrusted with the administration of Foreign Affairs, in the course of some observations he made in a debate on the Address last year, expressed a hope that no pretext, however plausible—no inducement or temptation—would lead our Govern-
1910
ment, under whatever disguise, to entertain an idea of an extension of our territory to the North or West of India. When the noble Earl gave utterance to those words he did not speak with the responsibility of an official, but he spoke with the responsibility attached to his natural position, and to the fact that he had already been placed at the head of the Foreign Office, and that in case of a change of Government he would undoubtedly be appointed head of one of the great State Departments. Such being the case, he (Lord Napier and Ettrick) confessed that he heard the expressions of the noble Earl with considerable regret and anxiety. If the noble Earl had merely said that he reprobated the notion of an extension of our territory to the North of India, he, for one, would have given his hearty concurrence to the opinion of the noble Earl; but it appeared, from the expressions of the noble Earl, that his views at that moment were absolutely and radically opposed to everything that the Government of India had done, and to the whole of their policy; for it seemed that he viewed friendly relations with anxiety and distrust, because friendly relations might lead to something worse than friendly relations—namely, to alliances—alliances might lead to protectorates, and protectorates to annexation. Now, the whole policy of our Government for the last seven years, originated by his noble Friend on the Bench below him (Lord Lawrence), and continued by the Earl of Mayo and by the present Viceroy, had been to contract with the Government of Afghanistan that friendship and that alliance which the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) deprecated, and which he seemed to believe might be pregnant with very unhappy consequences. These relations with Afghanistan seemed to him (Lord Napier and Ettrick) not only to have been weakened by the observations of the noble Earl, but also to have been seriously affected by an opinion expressed by the late Prime Minister in a speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 22nd of April, 1873, in reply to a Motion of Mr. Eastwick. In that speech there was a distinct declaration on the part of the late Prime Minister that we were under no obligation whatever to employ material restraint in regulating the conduct of the Government of Afghanistan, and

1911
the general tenor of his remarks vas that our undertaking did not extend beyond the exercise of moral influence. He held the opinions of Mr. Gladstone in the highest respect on every subject except that of Afghanistan, and he could not refrain from expressing deep regret that a statement, so impolitic and unnecessary, had emanated from so distinguished an authority. It was some consolation, however, that the noble Karl who, at the time that speech was delivered, had charge of our foreign relations had never, so far as he was aware, given utterance to the same sentiments, and therefore, perhaps, they need not be regarded as those of the Foreign Office. We knew the impression such a speech made in Europe, but could little imagine the effect it would have throughout Asia. No doubt it had been done into Persian, probably with very doubtful accuracy. There was, in all likelihood a Hindoo version, a Marathi version, a Tamil version. It might be assumed that in every Indian durbar it had been debated, and that in every bazaar it had been a topic of common talk. And what impression could it have had on the Hindoo mind? Probably it had given rise to a feeling that the Government of England was inconsistent and did not abide by its resolutions, or that it had come to no conclusion at all on the subject of Afghanistan. Any reference to the policy of Russia in Central Asia was quite apart from his intention in making these observations. That formed no part of his inquiry of the Government; and it would ill become him to create a bad feeling between this country and Russia, even if he had the power to do so, for he had passed four years of his life in Russia, and had always received the most distinguished consideration; therefore, it would be repugnant both to his personal and political feelings to cause strife between Russia and England. No one could be more deeply persuaded than he of the policy and necessity of maintaining as much as possible a cordial understanding with the Government of Russia. There was much in the character of the Russian nation which deserved our esteem, and it had a mission of civilization in Asia which accorded with our own. But if harmony between the two Governments was to be maintained, it could only be by conduct that would give rise to mutual respect, and
1912
nothing was more important than that this country should make a clear and consistent declaration of its policy, and be ready at all times to support it. He now wanted to know whether the Government would adopt the conclusions of the late Government as set forth in the despatch to which he had referred, and whether they would be prepared with moral and material support to the Ameer of Afghanistan. In case, however, that the Government had not had sufficient time to devote their attention to the subject—it being contained in a long Correspondence with Russia—he hoped that they would seriously consider it, and be able to disclose their views to the House at no very distant date, and that at that time they would be able to set forth a clear, intelligible, and consistent policy in regard to it.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord (Lord Napier) has addressed to me divides itself into two parts, and probably it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal with the two parts separately. The noble Lord asks me, in the first instance, whether Her Majesty's present Government "fully adopt the conclusions stated by Earl Granville in his despatch to Lord Augustus Loftus of the 17th of October, 1872, respecting the territories and boundaries of Afghanistan." Now, that is a very simple inquiry, and it is one which I have no difficulty in answering. The despatch to which the noble Lord refers, and of which he in part stated the purport, lays down the boundary of the territory which was regarded as belonging to the Ameer of Cabul, and proposes that the boundary so laid down should be recognized by the Russian Government. That boundary was—I will not say unfixed—but undoubtedly uncertain. Differences of opinion might fairly exist as to the line which ought properly to be drawn—at any rate, that line had not been determined by any international engagement. The Russian Government, after some Correspondence on the subject—in which it is but just to say they manifested a very friendly spirit—acquiesced in the proposals made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). The line of boundary submitted by us was accepted, and so far as Afghanistan is concerned, all danger of disputes upon the question of territorial sovereignty has thereby been avoided. Now, my Lords,

1913
I am bound to say that I see no reason for dissenting from the language of the despatch in question, or from the conclusions arrived at by the noble Earl who preceded me in the management of foreign affairs (Earl Granville). In any case I should hold that an incoming Government is bound by an international engagement of that character entered into by its predecessors. The inconvenience and complications that would arise would be extreme if, whenever a change of Administration occurs, questions of this hind were to be considered as re-opened. But, in addition to that, it is only fair to say that, as far as I have formed a judgment on the matter, I think the settlement of the boundary question obtained by the noble Earl opposite was as satisfactory as could be expected. I now come to the larger and much more difficult question to which the greater part of the noble Lord's speech was directed. He asks me whether the Government are prepared to give their moral and material support to the Ameer of Afghanistan in case of any unprovoked aggression upon his dominions. Now, I may observe that to every quarrel there must be two parties, and that every question has two sides. Whether therefore any given case of aggression is unprovoked or not is very likely to be a matter on which different opinions will be entertained, and the pledge for which I am asked is therefore a pledge which involves very little. But passing from that point, I must guard myself from saying that I, accepting as I do the despatch of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), feel myself in any degree bound by the conclusions which the noble Lord has drawn from that despatch. I do not think I ever knew so extensive a superstructure raised upon so small a foundation. The noble Lord says that we have contracted three distinct obligations towards the Ameer. He tells us that we have fixed the boundaries of his territory, and have thereby pledged ourselves to defend it against all comers. Now, that is to me a totally new theory of international obligations, and if the noble Lord can point to any authority or precedent for the views he has advanced on this subject, I shall be very glad to hear it. Then the noble Lord proceeded to quote some words of mine used last year, from which he drew certain inferences; but I think that if he will care-
1914
fully consider those words and their context he will find that I carefully guarded myself against expressing any definite opinion upon the subject until the Papers with regard to it, which were not at the time before us, were laid on the Table of the House. What I said on that occasion comes to no more than this—and I willingly now repeat it—that in the case of Oriental nations you ought always to watch with great care the engagements which you incur, because such engagements are apt to pass into alliances which bring with them somewhat difficult obligations. I must say that if anything could to my mind furnish an additional confirmation of the views then expressed, and an additional reason for caution in those matters it would be the speech to which we have just listened. If we are bound, as the noble Lord says, to defend the Ameer of Afghanistan against all comers we are, at least, equally bound to warn him beforehand if we think he is placing himself in a wrong position, and eventually we shall be undertaking the obligation of regulating the external affairs of that country. That involves a protectorate, and I venture to say such au arrangement would be one into which it would be most undesirable for this country to enter. It must be borne in mind that the people of a country themselves—whether in Asia or in Europe—will have something to say on the regulation of their own destiny; and to establish English control over Afghanistan against the will of the people—and I do not think we can do it with their consent—would be to engage in an undertaking which would probably result-in reducing Indian finance to a worse position than that which would be brought about by many successive famines. If it is merely meant that, in the event of the Ameer proposing to go to war with any neighbour beyond his own recognized frontier, we are bound to use our influence to prevent such a war—then in that limited theory of our obligations I should concur. That, however, falls very far within the obligations which the noble Lord desires that we should undertake. Then, the noble Lord asks us, what course we should be prepared to adopt under some hypothetical circumstances which do not at present arise? I will not complain of this inquiry, because I remember it has been

1915
said that there is no such thing as an indiscreet question, though there may be an indiscreet answer—but the noble Lord will, perhaps, take it as a compliment to his ingenuity if I tell him that he has put to me a Question which it is very difficult to answer without causing inconvenience to the public service in one direction or another. If I were to say to the noble Lord, "Your questions are vague, and we really cannot tell you what we shall do under circumstances which do not exist," he would probably meet us with the reply, "Well, that is a confession that, so far as the affairs of Afghanistan are concerned, you have no policy." If, on the other hand, I were to inform the noble Lord that I could make a good guess as to what it would be our duty to do, but that I did not think it would be desirable to state what that course was, he might turn round and say, "Then it is clear Her Majesty's Government have a policy, but it is also evident that it is a policy which they dare not venture to announce to Parliament or the country." If, again, I were to tell your Lordships in plain words that I thought it very doubtful whether, under such circumstances as those supposed, the Ameer of Afghanistan would have any reason to expect protection from us, the noble Lord will see—and I am sure your Lordships will see—that a statement of that kind would be a very plain and broad hint to the Ameer that he must not expect much from the alliance of England, and that he had bettor look out for allies in other quarters. Now, I do not think that is an answer which it is desirable to give. On the other hand, if I am to accept the challenge of the noble Lord, and to say that in any such case as has been supposed the Ameer is entitled to claim from us not only moral, but material support, then what I should be doing would be to give, in a casual and informal manner, in answer to a Question put to me from the other side of the House, a guarantee such as the Government of this country has given only in rare cases and under circumstances—as in the case of Belgium—where reasons of policy imperatively called for it. I need not remind your Lordships what and how great a responsibility is thus incurred. To give the guarantee of this country to an independent foreign nation is to take a step involving the gravest responsibility which
1916
can be incurred by an English Government. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not think that I am disrespectful to him if I decline to involve the Government or the country in such a responsibility, merely in order to gratify his quite natural and legitimate desire to ascertain the course which we may deem it to be our duty to take under circumstances which have not arisen, which may never arise, and which we are not in a position to foresee. Much will depend on the precise nature of the case, supposing it to occur—much will depend on the feeling of the Afghan population themselves—much must depend on the conduct of the Ameer, both in relation to his own subjects and to other States. All that I should be justified in saying—and it has been repeatedly said by my predecessor in office—is that to maintain the integrity and the territorial independence of Afghanistan in our judgment—and I am quite sure my noble Friend behind me, who is responsible for the administration of Indian affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) will concur in this expression of opinion—is, and ought to be, a most important object of English policy, and that any interference with the national independence of Afghanistan would be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a very grave matter, requiring their most serious and careful consideration, and as one which might involve considerable danger to the peace of India. I think, if such an interference occurred, to put the matter mildly, it is highly probable that this country would interpose; but there is a very wide difference between admitting this probability, and acknowledging the right of the Ruler of Afghanistan or any other person to claim from us, under circumstances and conditions which cannot be foreseen, material as well as moral support, not as a matter of policy or of expediency with reference to Indian or English interests, but as a matter of positive international obligation.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has left me hardly anything to say on this question—and if I had more to say I should feel reluctant to give utterance to it. But I entirely agree with the noble Earl that, while on the one hand it is the duty of Parliament to view with the most critical observation the conduct of those who administer the foreign

1917
affairs of this country, on the other hand nothing can be more disadvantageous than to require from those persons answers to questions of a perfectly hypothetical character as to occurrences which may never, and which probably will not, happen, and of which in any case, you cannot anticipate the particular circumstances. I wish, however, to thank the noble Earl for the expressions he has used in regard to the policy of the late Government on this subject, and the despatch to which reference has been made. The meaning of that despatch is not to be taken from any commentator, however ingenious and able—and the speech of the noble Lord who brought the matter forward (Lord Napier) was both—but is to be taken from the document itself. It is quite clear that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will do as we would have done; he will act up to the engagement undertaken in that despatch. As to our influence in Afghanistan, that is considerable; and I think we should be wanting in good faith to the Russian Government if we did not exercise the influence we have in furtherance of that for which we said we would exercise it. Further than that, as to a guarantee, I defy anyone to find in the words of the despatch anything laying us under any such international obligation. We are left perfectly free to adopt whatever measures we may be disposed to take on a most important question affecting our Indian interests, which I am sure will be considered by the noble Earl opposite and his Colleagues in a spirit which befits the Government of this country all the better for their not making any previous declaration defining the course they would take in a case which is purely hypothetical.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYexpressed his satisfaction at the reply the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary had given to the Question asked by the noble Lord.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—GELLIGAER SCHOOLS.

  ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN.
  THE DUKE OF BEAUFORTsaid, that he would not press the Motion of which he had given Notice for an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her Assent from the scheme of the
  1918
  Endowed Schools Commissioners respecting the foundation of Edward Lewis for a school at Gelligaer, provided the clauses which affected the religious teaching of the school were struck out. These clauses were the 55th and 56th, and were what were generally known as the Cowper-Temple clauses.
  Moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty 10 refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Foundation of Edward Lewis for a school at Gelligaer in the county of Glamorgan, and for other charitable objects.—(The Duke of Beaufort.)
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, he understood that under the Act of last year a clause might be expunged from the scheme without affecting the scheme itself. If that were so, his objections were very much removed. He had no hostility to the general scope of that scheme, the provisions of which, with the exception to which he was about to refer, would confer great benefit on the district. It was clearly the intention of the Founder that the school should be in connection with the Church of England, and that intention was as clearly violated by the introduction of those clauses. His objection to the introduction of the Cowper-Temple clause of the Education Act into this and another Welsh scheme was that—as acknowledged by the Commissioners—it had not been inserted in any English scheme; and though he accepted their disclaimer of any intention of treating Wales as an experimentum in corpore vili, it would be impossible to convince the clergy that this was not the principle adopted. He himself, and all the other members of the Board, had no idea of such an innovation having been made when they assented to the scheme. He also objected to another proposition of the scheme, that seven of the nine members of the new Governing Body should be elected by three school boards and the Board of Guardians, fearing that, as the remaining two would be co-opted members, the whole body would ultimately be of an inferior class. He denied that the Church of England was irrecoverably lost in Wales. People were not Dissenters from any distinct notion of the difference between the Church and their own bodies, but from circumstances not at present within control, and were they let alone, and

  1919
  not stimulated by political rather than religious feelings, many of them would entertain very different opinions. In spite of the increase of the population of his diocese since the beginning of the century from 107,000 to 503,000; of the existence of two languages, entailing double ministrations; and of the alienation of a considerable portion of the rent-charge, the position of the Church had greatly improved, and he saw no reason for exceptional treatment.
  LORD ABERDAREregretted that this difference had arisen, and was sorry to find himself opposed to a right rev. Prelate so attentive to his duties, consistent in conduct, and liberal in all that affected the interests of the Nonconformists. The objection taken by the right rev. Prelate was confined solely to the provision in reference to religious instruction and worship in the school. If their Lordships looked to the will of the Founder of the school they would not find in that part which related to the school one word which indicated what his religious opinions were, or one sentence from which it could be inferred that he desired that his school should be a purely Church of England school. No doubt he was a member of the Church of England, but of the seven trustees whom he appointed, at least two were Dissenters, and there was not a sentence in the will which implied what manner of religious instruction should be given in the school. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) the other evening laid down a principle which might properly and usefully be applied to all such endowments. It was this—that they should deal with such cases in the manner in which the Founder would if he were now alive. What would Mr. Lewis be likely to do now if he were alive and had an opportunity of studying the working of the Education Act, and seeing the present condition of the district he proposed to benefit? The circumstances were completely changed—he would now find himself in the midst of a working population of some 9,000 persons, four-fifths of whom were Dissenters. Would he be at all likely to seek to impose upon the children of his Dissenting neighbours the necessity of learning the Catechism of the Church of England? But it was said that there existed a "conscience clause," of which those who objected to such teaching might take advantage.
  1920
  For his part, he denied that the conscience clause was ever intended for such a case. It had never been applied, except for the protection of small minorities, and in the present case it would be wholly inapplicable. The right rev. Prelate would find that even in his own diocese some clergymen of the Church of England, from a sense of justice and propriety, and he might say decency, exempted the children of Dissenters attending their schools from the necessity of learning a Catechism to which—if they did not ridicule it—they were, at all events, indifferent. He hoped the noble Duke would not lend the authority of his high position to the assertion of a principle such as that which was contended for by the right rev. Prelate.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFobserved, that the will of the Founder did distinctly indicate what his religious opinions were.
  LORD ABERDARE: But not that part of it which referred to the school.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, that if the noble Lord referred to the will, he would find that the Founder of this charity, in leaving £40 for the purpose of building a school, had expressly declared that it should be built near to the church at the place in question, and he did so evidently with the intention that the children should go to that church.
  LORD ABERDAREreminded the right rev. Prelate that at the time the gift was made the whole population was small, and were collected together in the immediate neighbourhood of the church.
  LORD LYTTELTONconfessed that he did not, in the abstract, like the clause to which exception was taken, and which was known as the Cowper-Temple clause; but he knew no conceivable case in which it was more justifiable than in the one under consideration. As to the constitution of the Governing Body, he believed it was the best representative body that could be obtained.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the scheme in question had been brought under his notice some time ago by the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Beaufort), who had fully expressed the objections which he entertained to its provisions. He had given the subject his best consideration, and he found that the trustees, including the

  1921
  Bishop of the diocese, had informed the Endowed Schools Commissioners that they thought that the scheme was a good one, and ought to pass into law. On the whole, he did not think that there were sufficient grounds for asking their Lordships to advise Her Majesty not to give her assent to the scheme as a whole, and he therefore proposed to strike out the Cowper-Temple clause, and to allow the rest of the scheme to pass. Two school boards had already been established for the district, and he was informed that, in a very short time, they would be able to provide for all its educational wants.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then it was moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the proviso in the 56th clause of the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the Foundation of Edward Lewis for a School at Gelligaer in the county of Glamorgan, and for other charitable objects.—(The Duke of Beaufort.)
  Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL—INVOCATION OF SAINTS—ALTAR CARDS.—QUESTION.
EARL NELSONinquired whether the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury is prepared to communicate to the House any information he may have received in reference to a statement made by him on the introduction of the Public Worship Regulation Bill to the following effect:—"I am told by a clergyman, in whose veracity I have complete confidence, that while on one of these (altar) cards there is one prayer in accordance with the ritual of the Church of England lucre are several others which consist of invocations to the Virgin Mary and the Twelve Apostles." He put this Question in no spirit of hostility, but merely with the view of removing any misunderstanding that might exist on the subject. He could assure the House that in only three of the prayers on these altar cards was the name of the Holy Virgin and of the Saints referred to, and then by no means in the way of invocation.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for having given me an
1922
opportunity of making the explanation which he asks. The statement I made, on the authority of another person, may, perhaps, be regarded as not strictly accurate if the word "invocation" is understood in its technical and theological sense. But I wish to call attention to what I believe to be the real state of the case. The noble Earl seems to be possessed of more of these altar-cards than it has been my good fortune to obtain. One only has fallen into my hands, but I have received letters from various persons with regard to the whole subject. Among others I have received a letter from a most respectable firm who call themselves "Church furnishers," and who apologize for sending me one of these altar-cards, which they state are much approved by the clergy, and have a great sale. I may venture to say that my informant, though he might have been technically wrong, is substantially right, and that it is impossible for clergymen of the Church of England to use the words which are on the altar-card lying before me without justly incurring the very grave censure which I ventured to express when I addressed your Lordships formerly on this subject. The words which I find on this altar-card are—
"We offer to Thee this Sacrifice for the hope of those persons' salvation and safety who pay their vows to Thee, the Eternal, Living, and True God, joining communion with and reverencing the memory-firstly, of the Glorious and Ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and also Thy Blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, Simon, Thadeus, Linus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Laurence, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and all the Saints through whose merits and prayers vouchsafe that we may in all things he protected by Thy safeguard."
If this is not a desire expressed to God that the prayers of the Saints may be heard for the benefit of those who thus address the Almighty, I do not understand the meaning of language. The other case to which the noble Earl has alluded I think I ought also to read in full—
"Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we unworthy sinners offer Thee for Thine honour and the honour of Blessed Mary and of all Thy Saints."
Here is an act in which a clergyman of the Church of England, officiating in a congregation of the Church of England, desires that he and those who are

1923
with him may be aided by the merits and prayers of the Saints, and joins the Blessed Virgin with the Holy Trinity, as offering up the sacrifice of the mass in their honour. Now, my Lords, of course there are minute distinctions, which are well known to members of another communion as to the degrees of reverence and worship which are paid to Almighty God, to the Blessed Virgin, and to the Saints; but we in the Church of England do not generally enter into these minute distinctions, and when we have such expressions as these in prayers which are used privately by clergymen in our churches at the celebration of Holy Communion, I have reason to think that the words which. I used a few nights ago are not too strong to express our condemnation of these practices. My Lords, the gist of the correspondence which has been addressed to me on the subject has been this—It cannot be that there is any invocation of the Blessed Virgin in these cards because they are all taken from the Roman Mass, and in the Ordinary and in the Canon of the Mass there is no invocation of the Blessed Virgin. Technically. I grant that that is true. Practically. I do not allow it; and the instances I have adduced as taken from the Roman Service seem to me fully to justify what I have said. But one of my correspondents sends me a book to prove that the statement which I made is not correct. This book is The Ritual of the Altar, published in the year 1870. I do not mention the name of the author. The author, addressing me, says that all these altar-cards are taken from his book, and his book is this—an edition of the Communion Service of the Church of England dovetailed into the service of the Mass; and his object in publishing the book, as I understand, is this—that clergymen while officiating before their congregations, according to the Ritual of the Church of England, shall use these prayers from the Mass—privately I suppose and not publicly, before their congregations. And this gentleman thinks I must be mistaken as to the altar-cards, because he says that in his book, which is so fully taken from the Roman Service, there are no prayers to the Blessed Virgin. Now, I find in the close of this book directions to the clergy, of the Church of England—be it remarked—as to the mode in which they are to use
1924
the prayers in this book. In page 193 is the following passage:—
"The clergyman joining his hands and humbly bending forward says—I confess to Almighty God, &c., as in the ordinary of the Mass, and continues standing and bending forward until the servers or ministers have said certain other words, and when the confession is begun by the minister he stands upright."
I then turn from that to the prayer which he directs to be said, and which most unwillingly, but obliged by the circumstances, I shall now read to your Lordships—
"I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints, and to yon my brethren that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, [here he shall strike upon his breast] by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault."
And then he proceeds—
"Therefore I beg the Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, and you my brethren, to pray to the Lord our trod for me."
If that is not an ora pro nobis, I do not understand the meaning of the English language or the Latin words which are on the other side. These are books and these are altar-cards which are used by members of the Church of England. I put it to your Lordships whether the statement to which attention has been drawn was not fully warranted, and whether I was not justified in expressing a hope that the members of the Church of England—those more especially who are called Anglican and who are among her most devoted adherents—would rise against this introduction of the Mass into her service. I should be sorry to speak with harshness of any clergyman of the Church of England. We have heard a good deal about the desirableness of addressing paternal remonstrances. It certainly does seem to me that those who have been deceived into these practices have been led away by some unwise, and to me unintelligible desire of uniting Christendom by adopting the worst errors of one branch of the Christian Church, from which our Church is separated. But I would most earnestly call upon them, with whatever paternal authority my office vests in me, to think seriously of what they are doing when, in the face of congregations of the Church of England, they venture to use the service of the Roman Mass, and

1925
give no security that when they are speaking in a low tone to themselves they are not directly addressing the Blessed Virgin Mary and invoking her prayers on behalf of the worshippers present—who, I believe, if they knew what the minister was saying, would rise and leave the Church.

THE SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL DE LA WARRasked, If Her Majesty's Government could lay upon the Table of the House the Papers and recent Correspondence relative to the Suez Canal? The noble Earl said, that while he desired to abstain from pressing any question that would be inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, he was quite sure that the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office would understand that there was not unnaturally a wish—doubtless on the part of their Lordships as well as of the public generally—to be assured that some arrangement had been or would be made which would place the future management of the Suez Canal upon such a basis as would permanently secure the commercial interests of this country.
THE EARL OF DERBYwas understood to say that he had no objection to give the Papers for which his noble Friend asked, but that they were not at present ready for publication. They would, however, be laid on the Table before the close of the Session. He observed that there was a Motion which stood for next week in regard to the Suez Canal, when the whole question would be raised, and perhaps it was desirable that he should defer till then any remarks on the question to which the noble Earl had alluded.

THE SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1S70, relating to Birmingham, London, Newbery and Lamborne, Portsmouth, Wantage and Wirral—Was presented by The Lord DUNMORE; read 1a. (No. 50.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.