Lords Sitting of 15 September 1914

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not thought it necessary to preface the moving of the Second Reading of this Bill by any explanation of the extraordinary course which the Government are taking. I do not know whether, after the brief discussion which took place last night, His Majesty's Government consider that they have made sufficient case for going on with this Bill, but I hope your Lordships will pardon me if, on behalf of those sitting on this side of the House, I advance some reasons why we should not in any circumstances proceed with the Bill at this moment. What is the position? There is absolutely no precedent in the whole of the past history of Parliament for the position in which this Bill stands. We had in May last the confession by the Prime Minister that this Bill could not stand alone but must have attached to it an Amending Bill. That Amending Bill was introduced by the Government in this House, was carefully considered by your Lordships, and went down to the other House containing not only the proposals of the Government or the alternative proposals which were pressed upon the Government by this side, but a number of other proposals which were accepted by the Government and admitted to constitute a real amendment of the Bill as they had introduced it.
The original promise of the Prime Minister is still before us. On May 12 Mr. Asquith said—
"Our object is that if, as we hope and believe, that Amending Bill, possibly not in the shape in which it is originally introduced, by the result of concerted and co-operative action by persons in all quarters of the House who desire a settlement of this matter, if that Amending Bill can be brought into shape so as to pass this House, the two Bills shall become law practically at the same time."
634
That Amending Bill has never yet been considered by the House of Commons. Your Lordships' Amendments, even those which were accepted as an advantage to the Bill by noble Lords opposite, have never yet gone through even the farce of consideration by the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister's pledge, that the two Bills should be presented to His Majesty at the same time remains a dead letter—I do not wish to put it higher. If we are to be told that the Prime Minister's expectation that there would be an Amending Bill arrived at by agreement has been disappointed, then I refer your Lordships to what fell from the noble Marquess last night. Lord Crewe told us with regard to the Amending Bill—
"It is clear that that Amending Bill would have been passed into law in some form, representing some compromise— it is not easy to say what."
The passing into law of the Amending Bill with some compromise having been prevented by incidents which have supervened, we are asked, in the face of the Prime Minister's pledge, to go back and pass the Home Rule Bill without the Amending Bill to which the Government are pledged. In regard to that we have also to allude to a second pledge which has been violated.
The Prime Minister put off the Amending Bill in the House of Commons six weeks ago on the definite ground that it could not be pursued as a subject of controversy in the present crisis. Why is the most controversial measure ever introduced into Parliament—a Bill which was to have been amended and which the noble Marquess says could have been amended—why is that Bill being pressed upon us at a moment of great national crisis? I listened with astonishment to the noble Marquess's presentment of his case last night. I do not think, if I may say so, that he carried much conviction to himself when he asked us not to pile up a fictitious grievance that the Government, were taking advantage of the existing situation. I hope I may not be misunderstood. I do not mean to make the suggestion—I would repudiate it if it were made—that in their conduct of the negotiations affecting the greatest crisis in which this nation has found itself for one hundred years the Government had the smallest consideration of the effect which that crisis might have on domestic politics. I not only do not make that

635
charge, but I guard myself from being supposed to make it. But, on the other hand, I say that no Government at any time ever obtained out of a great national crisis such a relief from pressing embarrassments as this Government has obtained.
The noble Marquess has forgotten the position in which the Government stood. They were within a few days of the declaration of a Provisional Government in Ulster; they were absolutely unable to deal with that crisis—they could not go forward and they dared not go back; they were unable to carry their Bill, and they were unable to conclude the session without violating their pledges. Then came this great upheaval. And now the noble Marquess goes into a number of details and says he is afraid that Home Rulers might feel that the next General Election might be in some way influenced by the course of the war, or the failures of the Government if they occurred, or the taxation which must follow. I am not going into all this sensitiveness about General Elections. I could say a good deal as to how far the Government had a mandate for this Bill. I might remind the noble Marquess that we have pressed over and over again for a distinct referendum or election on the Bill alone without regard to other matters. But what is much more material is to recollect that, if there has been any gain on one side or the other, we at least have been wholly losers by what has occurred. The noble Marquess says that after this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book there will be a better feeling in Ireland and that that will be to our advantage. It is puerile to ask your Lordships to listen to that sort of statement. There is a better feeling, no doubt, in that Ulster has said that for the present she would rather fight the enemies of His Majesty abroad than consider her own position at home. We listened last night to the noble Marquess's declaration that no responsible Government could ever entertain the idea of imposing a political Constitution upon Ulster by force. We heard that declaration before when it was made from the Woolsack, and we read with less respect the modification of it which shortly followed in order to bring it within the limits of the conscience of the Cabinet.
But what I would ask the Government to do is not to dole out to us petty considerations of Party advantage at a General
636
Election, but to grapple with this question which I venture to put to them, Has not this Bill already done sufficient injury to the nation without pursuing it further? In how many debates during the last seven months have members on this Front Bench and from behind us warned the Government that the continued unrest in Ireland and the fear of Civil War would re-echo far beyond these shores? How many times have we pointed out to the Government that if they choose to press an operation against which half the nation is opposed and which excites such feelings as have not been found in this country for a century and a-half—how many times have we suggested that that would have a had influence on our position abroad as well as in our own Dominions? The Government have chosen through all these months to be deaf to our expostulations. They have derided our fears and put aside all our objections. I wonder if there is any one who has perused Sir Edward Grey's Des-patches in the White Paper and read side by side with them the impassioned appeal of the Prime Minister that there should be national unity at this crisis, or any one who has known what have been the feelings of our diplomatists throughout the world, who does not realise that the prolongation of this unrest and the fear of Civil War led not merely those who are now our allies but those who are now our enemies to count almost with certainty on the fact that it would be impossible in our then domestic dispensation that we should be able to view in the same light our foreign engagements; and I suggest to your Lordships that we have a heavy reckoning against the Government, on that score alone, for keeping this sore alive so long. I would not have made that charge except for the position in which the Government are now placing us by asking us to go a step forward on the same ill-omened course.
From our side of the House we repudiate going at the present moment into the details of the domestic discussion which is involved in this Bill. We think that it would be indecent for us to enter upon a domestic controversy when our whole energy should be devoted to the furtherance of the war. And we charge the Government with this, that if they pursue the course which they propose, if they force this Bill on to the Statute Book, they are building upon our patriotism and taking advantage of the fact, which they know

637
well, that no action that they can take will prevent us from doing anything which will acid to our solidarity as a nation. We know how great is the issue. So far as we are concerned—I believe I speak for every noble Lord on this side of the House—whatever action the Government may take on this question or on any other domestic question, there will be left undone nothing that we can do, whether with regard to men, to money, or to material, to forward the war or release the country from the position in which it now is. But if we stand for the Government now, we can never stand beside them again in the same sense if they continue on the course which they ask us to undertake to-night.
I feel that, whatever may be the intention, the Government are advancing a party measure under the cover of a national danger; and if they persist in doing so having regard to past pledges, having regard to their promise of an Amending Bill, having regard to the moratorium in domestic differences which was proclaimed by the Prime Minister six weeks ago, they will be making the most scandalous abuse of Government power that has ever been witnessed in connection with any measure within living recollection. It is because, even now at the eleventh hour, we would appeal to them that they should not cast a slur on their own fame by taking the course which they now propose, that I venture to move that this debate be adjourned.
Amendment moved—
That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount Midleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, your Lordships will not suppose that I rise for the purpose of adding fuel to the flames. So far from that, my purpose is to draw your Lordships' attention to the real situation in which we stand. I am anxious to keep out of this discussion all Party acrimony. I will begin by saying that nothing could be more admirable than the way in which the Opposition, like the nation, are supporting the Government in the most difficult crisis of a great national trial. And if I rise to speak it is for the purpose of bringing home to your Lordships' minds, if I can, that we are doing not only the best we can in this situation but the only thing that it is practicable for us to do.
638
The noble Viscount who has just spoken suggested that in the course we are taking we are availing ourselves of the situation to obtain some advantage in regard to the passing of the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills. But let me recall your Lordships' minds to the facts. These Bills were virtually decided upon when the Parliament Act was passed three years ago, and the House of Commons have, in consecutive sessions under the provisions of that Act, again and again affirmed that they should pass into law. Their going on to the Statute Book has become a matter of legal form. On the Prorogation they must inevitably become part of the law of the land, not by any new decision of the Government, not by any step which your Lordships could avert, but because Parliament and the nation decided three years ago that that should be the course of events. I refer to that not for the purpose of going back on controversial matter, not with a view to stirring up new issues, but in order to bring home to your Lordships' minds what is the exact situation.
It was said by the noble Viscount, and said with truth, that the Government had endeavoured to pass a Bill which would have amended the Bill now before the House, and which, if it had passed, would have effected certain modifications in the main Bill. But need I inform your hardships of the history of that Amending Bill? An attempt was made—I believe a most honest attempt—on both sides to find terms on which a settlement could be arrived at. It turned out that there was a difference which for the time at least was irreconcilable. I am not one of those who have ever believed that it is impossible to come to an adjustment about this Bill. I am not one of those who have thought that it passed the wit of man to come to such an arrangement as might at least get over the difficulties in which we stand in regard to the future government of Ireland. But before the war broke out it turned out that that was not to be. The Prime Minister at no time pledged himself or suggested that the operation of the Parliament Act should be interrupted. What he said was that he would endeavour by every means in his power to introduce a Bill which should bring about such an amendment of the Home Rule Bill as would make the state of things to which I have referred possible. The Government did everything in their power with that object, and, as I

639
have said, I believe that after a lapse of time some adjustment would have been reached. But a great calamity suddenly came upon the nation, a calamity which we have to face with our united strength, and the question, the only question, which remained was how we could best face that calamity.
I beg your Lordships to remember that this is not a case of opinion and strong feeling on one side only. I do not underestimate in the least the strong feeling of the great majority in this House about what must be the future government of Ireland. But there is another great body of opinion which affects us vitally, a body of opinion on which we must rely for our strength in that struggle which is before us. I am not speaking solely of the majority of Irishmen in Ireland; I am speaking of that larger body of Irish opinion beyond the sea, which is at present supporting us loyally and to which we look to support us in the days ahead, and if we clash the en p front their lip, if we take from them what the procedure of the Parliament Act has given them, what the decision of the nation has given them, then what will be our position? I have said this for the purpose of coming to what I think is the real point on this occasion. The Prime Minister is not taking advantage of any emergency into which the nation has been brought by the war—I have told your Lordships how these Bills were bound automatically to become law—but what be is doing is endeavouring by every means in his power to hold the scales justly. These Bills had passed beyond the decision of your Lordships' House or of Parliament itself, and were bound to go upon the Statute Book automatically. That is one side of the case.
That conclusion being reached, what was the right course to take? The right course was to maintain the status quo, and the Bills being placed on the Statute Book is the status quo. When that had been reached, then the duty of the Government was to take every step in their power to preserve the balance so that during the war nothing should be done which should add to or aggravate this controversy. I wish with all my heart that agreement could have been arrived at before the war broke out. I wish it could be arrived at at this moment. But that is not to be. In those circumstances what can we do? What we can do is to postpone the coming
640
into operation of the principle, the virtually-established principle which must become the law of the land, until the war is over. Surely that is a reasonable course in a condition of things like this. If I may call it so, the fallacy of the argument of the noble Viscount is that something is being done which is advancing the situation. It is said that in a moment of national emergency we are taking advantage of that emergency to carry matters a stage forward; but I have shown your Lordships that that is not so, and that the placing of these Bills on the Statute Book is automatic. It is well that this concession of principle should be made, because otherwise the disappointment of Irish opinion might well bring bitterness which might affect our fortunes in the days that are ahead.
Speaking from my heart, I do not believe that any course could have been safely taken by this nation which would have gone back on what has already been virtually accomplished. It is not a question of giving something. It is a question of not taking something away which is in substance there. That being so, the course which the Government seek to take is to place their Bills in such a position that nothing shall be clone under them pending the conclusion of the war. My noble friend who leads the House said yesterday that it is not the policy of the Government, that it is not their desire, that it is a thing they do not intend to do, to force Home Rule upon Ulster by coercion. We cannot however tell what disturbances may take place which may require the ordinary protection of the life and liberty of the citizen. That I trust will not occur. But it is not part of our policy to use force, and we do not intend to do so, with regard to the pressing of the operation of this measure upon Ulster. We should, indeed, be ungrateful if we did. No one recognises more than I do the admirable appeal which was made by Sir Edward Carson to the Ulster Volunteers to enlist and serve their country. We are grateful for that, and we are conscious of it; we know what it means, and we should be ill requiting that if we were to take any advantage by force, when Ulster by virtue of that patriotism is not in such a good position as she was to resist that force.
But it is not only Ulster that we have to consider. We have to consider the

641
Irish people here and beyond the sea, and I say again that we cannot clash the cup from their lips. Therefore what we seek to do is to preserve things in the balance, and that, to my mind, is a state of things which may well be attended with good results. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that this war can leave things in this country as they are to-day. I do not for a moment; entertain the idea that after perhaps a year of hard struggle, in which Irishmen of all shades of opinion are fighting for their country, things can be as they are at the present time. Before this war is over I believe there will be a spirit of something more than compromise, a spirit animated with a sense of common purposes and common aims, which will bring the two parties together. If we place this Bill on the Statute Book now it is not because we believe that the Home Rule Bill in its present form— inapplicable as it is, I admit, to Ulster—could come into force without a further attempt at a settlement.
Never were the prospects of agreement so good as I believe they will be after we have had six months of this common struggle, with men of all shades of opinion and in a common patriotism fighting side by side for their country. It is to that I look. The appeal which I make to your Lordships is this, to recognise that in the action we have taken we have done our best in the situation, which is one of great difficulty, to preserve the balance so that on the one hand there shall be no chance of the cup being dashed from the lip, and on the other no chance that Ulster should have something forced upon her which otherwise would not have been there. As I have said, we are face to face with a decision that was given long ago; and all that we who are responsible for trying to keep the nation together can do is to rest on the principle already virtually established and preserve that period of peace and consideration which I believe will lead in the long run to a settlement of this difficulty.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two with regard to the Amendment for the adjournment of the debate upon this Bill. Your Lordships must not think, and I hope the people outside will not think, that because my noble friend did not move the rejection of this Bill we have in any
642
way receded from our opposition to it; but my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, who last night brought in a Suspension Bill, thought it more advisable that the adjournment of the debate should be moved than that the Home Rule Bill should be rejected. But my detestation of the Bill and the detestation of those who work with me in Ireland and of the Unionist Party as a whole is in no way weakened because we only move the adjournment of this debate.
I confess that it was with great surprise that I noticed that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House moved the Second Reading of this Bill without any preface at all. The course which the noble Marquess adopted left my noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton) in a somewhat difficult position, because he had nothing to answer. But I can fully understand the situation and the feeling of the noble Marquess opposite. He no doubt felt that any speech he might have made in moving the Second Reading of the Bill would have been an absolute repudiation of speeches he made in your Lordships' House a short time ago. Speaking in August last the noble Marquess said—
"We propose to adjourn for a fortnight, and it is our hope that when the House reassembles We shall be able to arrive at a conclusion, which I trust may prove to be an agreed conclusion, with regard to the winding up of the session."
Then he went on to say—
"It is impossible for me to say more than that at this moment, but I hope that when we meet again after the adjournment we shall be in a position to consider the question of concluding the session, and, as I say, I trust we may be all agreed as to the method of doing so."
I should like to have heard the noble Marquess explain at length the statement he made then, because to my mind that statement is in direct opposition to the lines upon which he and his colleagues are proceeding at the present moment.
I hope I shall say nothing discourteous to the noble Marquess when I state that I was very incredulous when I heard him make the statement which I have quoted. I subsequently spoke to some of my colleagues on this Bench and to some of my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I said "I put no trust whatever in the statements or in the political honesty of His Majesty's Ministers." Why did I say that? I did so because my mind went

643
back to the most extraordinary performance I have ever known in this House when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, secretly hoping that it would not be noticed, altered for Hansard an important statement in his speech as reported in The Times. Since then I have never had any confidence whatever in the political honesty of His Majesty's Ministers. More than that, I say that a more extraordinary action by any one occupying the Woolsack has never taken place in your Lordships' House, and I go further and state that if I thought any of my friends behind me could have been guilty of such action I should be ashamed to be a member of the Unionist Party. What has happened? My suspicion has proved to be absolutely correct. The noble Marquess has gone back on everything which the Government said. In the House of Commons the two leaders, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Bonar Law, agreed that during the war there should be no controversial matter raised, and that everything should be done without prejudice. There was an understanding also that there should be joint meetings of Radicals and Unionists on public platforms for the purpose of recruiting, that there should be no by-elections, and that political meetings should be abandoned. Every one of those conditions has been carried out by the Unionist Party.
But now we find that, in spite of the promise that nothing controversial should be entered upon, the Home Rule Bill is to be placed on the Statute Book. Is it possible that there could be a more controversial measure placed on the Statute Book than that of home Rule for Ireland? I. it had not been for the war a Provisional Government would have been set up in Ulster some five or six weeks ago, and in probability the setting up of that Provisional Government would have resulted in Civil War. Consequently, can the noble Marquess contradict roe when I say that nothing more controversial than to propose to put the Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book at the present moment could possibly he imagined? Remember also that for two years past Ulster has been preparing to resist Home Rule. She has organised an army, a very strong army. For what? In order not to be driven out of the Union between England and Ireland. She has an army of something like 100,000 volunteers, and now, after all these efforts, she is to be told that this Bill is to be
644
carried through as a non-controversial measure and put on the Statute Book. I consider that to endeavour to place this Bill on the Statute Book when something like seventy Unionist members of the House of Commons are either at the front or working in connection with British Army arrangements is nothing more nor less than a scandal. I regard it as an act of the grossest treachery to take advantage of the loyalty of Ulster to endeavour to put this measure on the Statute Book at the present time.
My noble friend behind me has said with absolute truth what is going to be the attitude of Ulster. Ulster knows she is betrayed. I knew she was going to be betrayed. But, in spite of that betrayal, she is going to be absolutely loyal to the Empire and to England. I was present at a meeting in Belfast the other day when my right hon. friend Sir Edward Carson made a speech which should never be forgotten, and I wish it had been more publicly known. In that speech he represented entirely the views of the loyalists and Unionists of Ulster. He said—
"England's difficulty is not Ulster's opportunity."
Very different from what the Nationalists used to say in the old days—
"England's difficulty is our difficulty, and England's sorrows have always been and always will be our sorrows. I have sometimes seen it stated that the Germans thought they had hit upon an opportune moment, owing to our domestic difficulties, to make their bullying demands against our country. They little understood for What we were fighting. We were not fighting to get away from England; we were fighting to stay with England; and the Power that attempted to lay a hand upon England, whatever might be our domestic quarrels, would at once bring us together, as we have been brought together as one man."
From that day to this I and my colleagues and the whole of the Unionist Party and the Unionist Press have kept the truce in the interests of the Empire.
Can the noble Marquess tell me that he and his colleagues have kept the truce? No. He knows full well that they have taken advantage of the loyalty and devotion to England of the Ulster people to put this measure on the Statute Book. I came back from Ireland a short time ago, and I think I am justified in saying that the Ulster Volunteers will send out at least one Division to the front; I am not sure from what I hear that it may not be more.

645
How many are the Nationalist Volunteers in the South of Ireland going to send out? If we in Ulster send out one Division, if not two Divisions, surely a Division ought to be recruited from each of the other Provinces. We heard the speech of Mr. Redmond. I should be very glad to be contradicted, but I doubt very much whether a Division will be sent out from any of those Provinces. I ask the noble Marquess to tell us what has been the response from the South of Ireland in regard to recruiting and whether a Division has been raised.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Has the noble Marquess finished his speech?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No. I want an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the noble Marquess must see that it is quite impossible, to expect me to answer a question relating to the Irish Nationalist Volunteers. I have no knowledge of them and their proceedings beyond what I see in the public journals. I expressed the opinion yesterday, to which I adhere, that the passing of this Bill into an Act will be followed in the South and West of Ireland by an enthusiasm for joining His Majesty's Forces, but I am afraid I cannot oblige the noble Marquess with any figures. If I bad them, they would be entirely at his disposal. I am afraid I can give him no other answer.
THE MAEQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I imagine from what the noble Marquess says that the Volunteers of the South and West of Ireland require a bribe before they offer their services. I read yesterday in the Daily Chronicle, which is, I believe, the leading organ of noble Lords opposite, the following—
"Lord Kitchener, with the blind directness of a soldier, has told the Irish people that he is very disappointed at the slowness with which the Irish Division of the new Army is filling up. What is happening, of course, that the young manhood of Nationalist Ireland is holding back because it fears that the aspirations of the Irish people for self-government may even now, after the victory has been won, be frustrated by Parliamentary manœuvres."
What does that mean? Ulster is going out in spite of betrayal, but you cannot get the Nationalists to go out unless you bribe them.
646
I have often wondered why some arrangement was not arrived at by His Majesty's Government with regard to the settlement of this question. To my mind there were two courses open to His Majesty's Government. One course was to carry out what my noble friend the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition proposed yesterday and maintain the status quo, suspending all operations until the war is over and then resuming where we were. That would have been a fair course to take. The other course they might have taken was to state to Mr. Redmond that he must be content with the three Provinces, excluding Ulster. But the Government dared not do that. Mr. Redmond would not let them. At the present moment it is Mr. Redmond who is the ruler of His Majesty's Government. It is Mr. Redmond who has prevented any arrangement of that sort being made. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are simply a cipher in Mr. Redmond's hands, and Mr. Redmond is not going to send out any man to the war unless he gets the compensation to which I have referred. I have quoted Sir Edward Carson's speech as representing the feelings of the loyal Unionists of Ulster. They are prepared, as I have said, to stand by England and by the Empire and to shed their blood for their King and their country. To pass the Home Rule Bill at the present moment in the face of these men is nothing more nor less than a scandal and an outrage. The historian of the future will be able to write that Ulster proved itself at the present time, as in the past, loyal, honest, and patriotic; but of His Majesty's present Government it will be written that they were guilty of the basest treachery and betrayal ever shown by a responsible Government.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in this debate and arguing whether the Government are justified or unjustified in letting the two Bills take their automatic course, but I scarcely like to remain silent when in my opinion a rather unfair attack has been made upon the Nationalist Volunteers in Ireland. My noble friend told us that he has just come back from Ireland and believes that a Division, or possibly two Divisions, of Ulster Volunteers will offer themselves for service abroad. I hope he is correct, and I dare say he is. At the same time I am rather tempted to follow his example and ask for an answer to the

647
definite question whether he can give us figures to support that statement. I should be happier in my own mind if we had the information endorsed in returns from the War Office. I have not been in Ireland lately, but I heard to-day from a reliable source in the County of Kerry that recruiting was going on very well in that county, and I heard the same from Cork. I do not attach any particular importance to that, because I do not know how far it is correct.
What I want to point out to your Lordships is this, that between the position of the 'Ulster Volunteer and the Nationalist Volunteer in the rest of Ireland there is an enormous difference. In the first place, the Ulster Volunteers are thoroughly armed, equipped, and drilled; they have any amount of money behind them, and they have a large urban population to fall back upon. But the Nationalist Volunteers are neither armed, equipped, nor drilled. They have not large sums of money to support them; they have to rely almost exclusively upon an agricultural and rural population, and, as is evident to all who know anything of Ireland, there is no superabundance of rural population in Ireland to draw upon. That is a considerable difference, not the least important one. The Ulster Volunteers who volunteer for service abroad know for an absolute certainty that when they come back from the war, however long that war may last, they will not find themselves subject to a Dublin Parliament. They have sworn that they will not permit themselves to be subject to an Irish Parliament. They know perfectly well that when they come back from the war they will not be subject to an Irish Parliament because there will not be any Parliament in Dublin for them to come under. They know also—we heard it stated categorically last night—that under no circumstances will they be coerced into accepting the constitutional change to which they object. So that every Ulster Covenanter, however strong his political opinions may be, is absolutely assured that if he goes out to the war and comes back none of his ideals will be imperilled, none of his political aspirations will be affected in any way, and the whole political circumstances will be just as they are now. But that is not the case—any fair-minded man must allow that that is not the case—with the Nationalist Volunteers. It is absolutely impossible to give
648
them the same assurance that in all the Party changes and vicissitudes that may take place during the continuance of a long war their ideals may not be imperilled. I do not think any one can be prouder than I am of the patriotic conduct of the Volunteers in Ulster, but I do not think it is treating the Volunteers in the rest of Ireland justly or fairly to say, as practically my noble friend did, that the Ulster Volunteers have offered to serve without a bribe and that a bribe is necessary for the Nationalist Volunteers. That is not stating the case truly.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I quoted from the Daily Chronicle.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I think the noble Marquess might have checked the quotation. As to the general question, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with any observations. I think that the course which my noble friend has pursued in moving the adjourment of the debate is, in the circumstances, the best course that could be taken. I rose only because I considered that it was not fair and just that an invidious distinction should be drawn between the Ulster Volunteers and the Volunteers in the rest of Ireland.
*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, no one, I think, can rise to take part in this debate without a feeling of great diffidence, and I had some hesitation as to whether I should intrude my views upon the House at all. But some of the points which were made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack seemed to me to make it necessary, or at any rate reasonable, that some one on this side of the House not closely connected with Ireland should say a word or two upon the matter at issue. The noble and learned Viscount spoke with sincerity and depth of feeling, but, if he will allow me to say so, he seemed to me not to lay sufficient importance upon the difference which undoubtedly exists between the Bill coming into operation and going upon the Statute Book but not coming into actual operation.
The position as I understood it two months ago was that the Prime Minister gave a promise that no Party in any quarter of the House should gain advantage or suffer prejudice owing to the suspension

649
of domestic controversies. At that time it was practically common knowledge that the Home Rule Bill could not go on to the Statute Book without some form of Amending Bill. That Amending Bill might or might not be an agreed Bill; it might take the form of the exclusion of some part or of the whole of Ulster, or some other form; but it was common knowledge that the Prime Minister and the Government had made it a definite understanding that the Home Rule Bill was not to go upon the Statute Book without an Amending Bill in some form or another. Now, my Lords, what is the case at the present time? The Amending Bill has never even been discussed in another place. I do not say that that is the fault of the Government. I merely state the fact. No one can say that those of us who dislike the Home Rule Bill—we may be right or we may be wrong—are not put in a worse position by the course which is now being pursued by the Government. It seems to me absolutely impossible to take up that position. No arrangement has been come to. No Amending Bill is going to be put on the Statute Book at the present time; and we are left to the vague hope of an Amending Bill, whether wholly agreed or not, being put on the Statute Book before this Bill comes into operation. Beyond all question that is not the same position as if we had an Amending Bill and the Home Rule Bill going on to the Statute Book at the same time.
I should like to allude to one other point in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Towards the end of his speech he made an impassioned appeal as to what would be the effect, not only in the South and West of Ireland but all over the Empire, if this Bill were not put on the Statute Book; and he told us, as I understood, that if it wore put on the Statute Book these feelings of gratitude would be such that there would be much less difficulty in coining to an arrangement in the future. The same point was made by Lord MacDonnell in the debate here yesterday, and both noble Lords referred to the speech made by Mr. John Redmond. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Redmond means all that he says. I believe him to be thoroughly acquainted with the British feeling on this subject, and I believe he means all that he says. Whether he has the power of speaking for and
650
of controlling all who are behind him is another matter, on which, for fear of bringing a fresh subject of controversy into the debate to-night, I shall not express my opinion. But would not this contest in which we are engaged, welding us together in the way which the noble and learned Viscount thinks it will and bringing out a hope of future unity, be much more likely to have that effect if we could be all kept as nearly as possible in precisely the same position as we are in now in the difficult circumstances in which we are placed? I say fearlessly that the proposal of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is much more nearly keeping us all in the same position than the proposal of the Government, and that it would be a much wiser and a more statesmanlike course to take.
I am one of those who are keenly desirous of seeing a settlement of this long controversy. I do not like the Bill. I am not going to discuss it. I think there are many points on which, if there had been a free House of Commons, it would have been amended before now. But let that pass. My point is this, that we are much more likely to come into a position a few months hence when agreement for a United Ireland, which is what I am sure all of us desire to see in the future, will be attained if this Bill is not put upon the Statute Book at the present time. I suppose we all think we try to look at the thing from an impartial point of view, but looking at it with such intelligence as I have been able to bring upon the matter I venture most respectfully still to say that the proposal of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition much more nearly keeps us in the same position as that in which we were two months ago than the proposal of the Government. And I will say this one last word. Surely if this Home Rule Bill is a sound and statesmanlike proposal it would survive the delay. But the suspicion in the hearts of many of us is this, that if the country had a chance of giving a vote upon this issue separate from any others the Home Rule Bill of the Government would not survive; and it is because of that feeling that we look with the gravest suspicion on the course which the Government; are asking this House to take. That being so, I for one shall certainly record my vote in favour of the adjournment of the debate.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, made it a matter of some complaint that in moving the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill I had not accompanied the Motion by a speech. But it seemed to me, in the general statement that I made yesterday, that I had covered most of the ground which I could possibly cover in making such a Motion, and that therefore it was better to defer any observations that I might have to make until other noble Lords had taken part in the debate. The noble Marquess also complained that, supposing we were not prepared to agree to the proposition of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, we had not faced the possibility of an arrangement, even though a temporary one, instead of placing the Bill on the Statute Book in its present form. I endeavoured yesterday to point out the practical difficulties in taking that course. I confess that the course appealed to me, as it did to many others, as one which we should have been glad to take. I do not think that in any case the exclusion of the whole of Ulster, which the noble Marquess airily spoke of as an easy and simple manner of arriving at agreement, could have been accepted by those who act with us; and when I say that I am not speaking, of course, only of the Nationalist Members who support us on this measure, but of our followers generally.
I should like to be quite clear what the real attitude of the Opposition is on this question of our not attempting to come to an agreement, because from the speech of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition I arrive at a diametrically opposite conclusion from that which Lord Londonderry seemed to hold. Lord Lansdowne said in the course of his speech yesterday that this is not a moment when you can discuss things like the question of the County of Tyrone, vexed matters of that sort, and that the only possible course to take was the one he proposed—namely, that of stopping our proceedings altogether. I do not want to trouble the House by again producing such arguments as I can for showing that in our case the course which the noble Marquess proposes would be the one which would be regarded as giving a marked advantage to the
652
Opposition and something in the nature of a defeat to the Nationalists. I do not hesitate to say that if the noble Marquess's Bill became the law of the land it would be quite reasonable that every Unionist in Ireland from Moville to Cork and from Dublin to Belmullet should light a bonfire in order to celebrate the defeat of Home Rule. That at any rate is the view we take, and I am quite certain it would be regarded in Ireland, if not as a final defeat, at any rate as a most severe reverse and set-back to the course of Home Rule, more severe than anything which could have been supposed to happen if matters had followed the course that was expected, and even if, as Lord Londonderry told us, a Provisional Government had been set up in Ulster.
I confess that I am somewhat surprised at what seems to us on this side the amazing audacity of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, in throwing upon us the whole burden of the effect produced in other countries by the condition of Ireland. The noble Viscount gave us to understand, and I do not altogether dispute his statement of the facts, that those who at any rate were our potential enemies abroad—namely, the Germans—were greatly encouraged in believing that we could not take part in this war by what they heard of the condition of Ireland, which was supposed to be on the brink of revolution, torn in two, and likely to occupy all the energies of the British Army, which would therefore be prevented from taking part in any operations on the Continent of Europe. I can well believe that the stories that the German Government may have heard of the condition of Ireland may have weighed with them to some extent in forming the belief that we should be in a poor condition to give help to an Ally. But when the noble Viscount places upon our shoulders the whole of that blame he adopts what I have ventured to call an audacious course. Who were the first people to talk of Civil War? We always deprecated the use of that grand but alarming term. It is quite evident that an attempt to force Ulster now under a Dublin Parliament might have led to serious conflict, to some loss of life, and to a general condition of disturbance. But "Civil War" is a very big phrase. In the whole of English history, so far as I know, there have only been two wars called Civil Wars—namely, the Wars

653
of the Roses and the Civil War of the seventeenth century. The operations which included the Battle of the Boyne are not, so far as I know, historically spoken of as having constituted a Civil War. Therefore the phrase is rather a large one to use for the kind of resistance which might have been offered by Ulster to being placed under a Dublin Parliament; and what is more, if that effect was produced upon the Continent of Europe, it was produced quite as much by the very big talk that was used and the terrible threats which were uttered from Ulster as by any action of ours.
The noble Lord who has just sat down drew attention, as Lord Londonderry also did, to the difference, which ought to be carefully noted, between plaiting this Bill on the Statute Book and bringing it into operation. It scents to me that nine-tenths of the criticism that -me have heard on this subject arises from a refusal to recognise the important difference that exists between the two. It is that difference which makes reason of what was said just now by the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, with regard to the Ulster Volunteers. Like hint, I am very glad that the Ulster Volunteers should join the Regular Forces and volunteer for foreign service. I will not attempt to imitate either him or the noble Marquess by asking to be told what the actual figures of enlistment have been.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You can get them from Ireland. I wish you would give me the same information about the others.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I can get the figures from the War Office, and I have no doubt that the contingent would be a considerable one. But what the noble Earl pointed out, and pointed out I think with great truth, was that those Volunteers run no Ulster risk by volunteering. They run the risk of brave men who go on active service, but so far as the future of Ulster is concerned, knowing what we know, they run no risk by volunteering at this moment instead of staying and drilling or manœuvring within Ulster itself. The Act, as I have stated, when it is an Act, cannot be brought into operation until the close of the war, when, ex hypothesi, these men will be back in Ulster and able to take any steps that then seem good to them. It is because of the crucial difference which
654
in our minds exists between the mere placing of the Bill on the Statute Book and its coming into operation that we consider such strictures as those which the noble Marquess made unfair to us, because we do not, for that very reason, consider that we are taking any advantage of the Opposition in placing this Bill on the Statute Book. If there were a question of bringing it into operation, I quite agree that an advantage would be taken of the state of war; and that is precisely the reason why we do not propose to bring it into operation until such time as we believe it can be brought into operation in fairness to all parties concerned.
We are giving, if you like, an advantage to the Nationalist Party by the Bill being placed on the Statute Book, but it is a purely moral advantage. On the other hand, there is no disadvantage to Unionists of a practical character, which is, after all, all that matters. Certainly as far as regards Ulster it must be all that matters. Actually being placed under a 'Dublin Parliament is what they fear. They are not placed under a Dublin Parliament in any degree or respect by the Bill being placed on the Statute Book; therefore we contend that they are not by that simple fact placed at the smallest disadvantage. And I do not think that Lord Balfour was quite fair when he spoke of the "vague hope" of an Amending Bill being brought into operation and being also placed on the Statute Book. What is important to fulfil our pledge is not that the Government of Ireland Bill and an Amending Bill should be placed on the Statute Book at the same time, but that they should come into operation at the same time. Whether they are placed on the Statute Book by the Royal Assent being given at an identical Royal Commission surely can be a matter of no importance to anybody. What is important is that no attempt should be made to bring this Government of Ireland Bill into operation without an Amending Bill having passed.
I was told yesterday by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in terms somewhat similar to those which were used by Lord Balfour, that my forecast of an Amending Bill was a vague one. It appeals to me that it is an advantage that we should not attempt to lay down for a year or more hence what the precise terms of an Amending Bill

655
ought to be. I repeat once more that I cling to the idea that an Amending Bill need not necessarily be an Exclusion Bill at all. Noble Lords opposite can hardly object to that statement, because one after another they have stated that they consider exclusion an odious and an unsatisfactory thing in itself. Therefore the pious hope which I have ventured to express can hardly grate on their feelings. It is impossible at this moment, particularly in view of what fell from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack as to hopes that we entertain of the effect upon Ireland of common action and interest brought about by this great European conflict, to set any bounds to the possibilities of a Union in Ireland itself of a different kind which may be brought about by time. But I must not subject myself to the charge of further vague prophecy, and therefore I will leave that branch of the subject altogether, although it is one, as I believe, of the greatest hopefulness and of the most profound interest.
Before I sit down there is one question which I should like to ask of noble Lords opposite, and in particular of the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, began by making some observations as to the difference between voting against the Second Reading of this Bill and moving the adjournment of the debate. He told us that the noble Marquess his Leader had thought that the latter was the better course but he did not say why. Perhaps I may venture to ask noble Lords opposite what is the reason for preferring that course? Noble Lords know that the automatic action of the Parliament Act in respect to the maturing of a Bill in its third session here arises equally whether the Bill is rejected or whether there is a failure to consider it. I can hardly suppose that noble Lords opposite in taking this particular course are desirous to evade in any way, or imagine that they can evade in any way, the provisions of the Parliament Act by this kind of constructive rejection rather than by a simple refusal to read the Bill a second time. The process, then, becomes a somewhat more elaborate one, but it is equally certain it is quite simple. As I need hardly point out to noble Lords, it is quite simple for us to go on putting down the Bill for further consideration, day after day, until it is obvious that such a refusal to consider it as would undoubtedly comply with the terms of the
656
Parliament Act has been arrived at. But I am quite certain that the noble Marquess opposite has no desire to put the House into such a position as that. I am bound to say that of the two courses open to him I think the simpler one would have been for him to move the rejection of the Bill, and to reject it, as he is numerically well able to do; and perhaps he will forgive me if I ask him for his reasons for not taking that course.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Midleton has stated so clearly and so completely the manner in which we regard the position which has arisen as to this Bill that I shall only detain your Lordships for a very few moments. I should like, in the first place to make one observation as to the speech just delivered by the noble Marquess and the speech 'delivered earlier in the evening by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I hope they will forgive me for saying that both their arguments appeared to me to be vitiated by a very fallacious assumption which I observe often runs through the speeches of those who differ from us on this subject. Both of them assumed that the effect of the passing of the Bill which I introduced last night would be to take away from the Nationalist Parts in Ireland something which is virtually already theirs. The noble and learned Viscount more than once spoke of "dashing the cup away from the lips of the Nationalist Party," and he said that we were taking away from them something that is already theirs. I venture to say that these arguments leave altogether out of account the seriousness of the obstacles which, before the war broke out, stood in the way of the full realisation of the Nationalist hopes. I said something upon that point last night, and I will not repeat my observations. I will only sum them up in a single sentence by saying that in our belief it would not have been in the power of the Party opposite and their Nationalist allies to obtain the realisation of their hopes without a prolonged and difficult struggle which might have caused, to say the very least of it, most serious political embarrassment to His Majesty's Government. And our complaint is that what you are now going to do will enable the Nationalist Party and their friends to obtain without a struggle what would, but for the war, certainly have cost them a very serious struggle indeed.

657
Then may I notice an observation that fell just now from the noble Marquess opposite? He said that the Bill which I had introduced, so far from being an attempt to hold the balance evenly between the disputants, was so obviously one-sided that if it had passed into law the effect would have been that throughout the Unionist districts in Ireland bonfires would have been lit in celebration of the triumph. It is impossible for me to say what the Unionists of Ulster might or might not have done in the circumstances. My own conviction is that they would not have been so foolish as to regard as a great triumph to be celebrated by the lighting of bonfires the mere postponement of the Home Rule Bill for a certain number of months. But, my Lords, I should like to make a different suggestion to the noble Marquess. What does he imagine will be the effect in the other three Provinces of the putting of the Home Rule Bill upon the Statute Book this week? Does the noble Marquess think there will be no bonfires? I will undertake to say that there will be an abundance of them; and I think the people who light the bonfires will be perfectly right because they will have discovered that, thanks to the cooperation of His Majesty's Government, they have been able to obtain a success to which they could not possibly have looked forward a few weeks ago.
In regard to the Bill upon the Table there seems to me to be two reasons why we should treat it as my noble friend behind me proposes to treat it, and to my mind either of those reasons would by itself be sufficient to justify us in asking for the adjournment of the debate. In the first place, we hold that, considering the circumstances of the moment, a prolonged and minute discussion of these Irish questions would be—I think the epithet was used by my noble friend—indecent; it would be either futile or mischievous. It would be futile unless you got to close quarters with the matter; it would be mischievous if you did get to close quarters. That is the first reason. The second reason is this. We on this side of the House are deeply committed to the view that we ought not to be asked to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until we have reasonable security that its passage into law will be accompanied by the passage of an Amending Bill. I am not going to weary the House by
658
recalling the numerous pledges which have been given upon that subject. The noble Marquess will not contradict me when I say that we have been told again and again that it was the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government that the two Bills should proceed simultaneously and be submitted simultaneously to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. Well, how do we stand this evening? There is no Amending Bill in existence. We are told that one may be heard of by and by; and the noble Marquess has told us again that so uncertain is he as to the course which he and his colleagues are likely to adopt that he thinks it quite possible that the new Amending Bill may be some measure which sonic of us have not as yet dreamed of. That is not really good enough for us. And in those circumstances the objections which we have raised again and again against the Government of Ireland Bill as it stands, objections which extorted from His Majesty's Government the promise of an Amending Bill, still hold the field.
One word as to our attitude. Throughout this long controversy, even up to the very last, we have hoped that His Majesty's Government would be able to approach us with some reasonable offer which we might be able to accept. And I may say that when I talk of a reasonable offer I do not for a moment suggest that we should have, looked at nothing less than the complete exclusion of the Province of Ulster. That was what, in our opinion, was the proper solution. But, in the circumstances, if we had been met in a reasonable spirit we should have been prepared to consider proposals from His Majesty's Government. And the noble Marquess will not contradict me when I say that within the last few days we were formally given to understand by His Majesty's Government that certain alternative proposals which had been made to us—it is quite true subject to reservations—would be considered by them as forming a proper basis for a compromise; that we intimated very distinctly that one of the proposals so made to us would be favourably considered by us; but that that proposal was subsequently withdrawn by His Majesty's Government because, I suppose, they knew that they could not obtain for it the consent of their supporters. Failing such a compromise, admitting that His Majesty's Government were unable to persist with a proposal which evidently they themselves considered as not wholly unreason-

659
able, surely it followed logically that the only reasonable thing to do was to put off the discussion of the Home Rule Bill altogether in accordance with the proposal which we have ventured to make to your Lordships' House. In these circumstances, as we are refused both a postponement and a reasonable offer, we have no course open to us but the one which my noble friend behind me has suggested—I mean the adjournment of this debate.
This leads me to answer the question put to me a moment ago by the noble Marquess opposite. He said, If these are your feelings about the Bill, why do you not reject it instead of merely moving the adjournment of the debate? My answer is this. We do this because the simple rejection of the Bill would not correctly represent the attitude of this side of the
Resolved in the affirmative, and debate
House. Our attitude has been, on the contrary, one of readiness to pass the Bill if it were accompanied by an adequate Amending Bill. It is because that Amending Bill is not forthcoming that we have upon former occasions desired to postpone the debate; and it is for that reason that we propose to adjourn it to-night. The noble Marquess suggested that our action might raise some interesting points under the Parliament Act. Upon that I am not able to enlighten him. But I have given him a reason which seems to me to be a perfectly obvious one, and which in my view justifies us in voting for the Amendment of my noble friend.
On Question, That the further debate be adjourned?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Canterbury, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Bedford, D.

Chilston, V.

Dinevor, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Rutland, D.

Esher, V.

Erskine, L.

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

Farquhar, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Hill, V.

Hawke, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donouqhmore.)

Kenyon, L.

Abingdon, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Amherst, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Latymer, L.

Camperdown, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cathcarr, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Leconfield, L.

Coventry, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Dartmouth, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Methuen, L.

Dartrey, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Eldon, E.

Aberdare, L.

Newton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Addington, L.

Parmoor, L.

Haddington, E.

Aldenham, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)

Harrowby, E.

Balfour, L.

Howe, E.

Barrymore, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rathmore, L.

Londesborough, E.

Bolton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Manvers, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Sanderson, L.

Mayo, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Sudeley, L.

Powis, E.

Braye, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Waleran, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cheylesmore, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Verulam, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Wolverton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberconway, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Hollenden, L.

Charnwood, L.

Islington, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Colebrooke, L.

Lucas, L.

D'Abernon, L.

Lyveden, L.

Denman, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Emmott, L.

Marchamley, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Eversley, L.

Pirrie, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Farrer, L.

Rotherham, L.

Glenconner, L.

St. Davids, L.

Allendale, V.

Haversham, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

adjourned accordingly sine die.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have the gravest difficulty in saying what I feel I must say to-night. There is a pathetic unreality in the discussion of the measure which is now before your Lordships on the adjourned debate. The country is rightly and patriotically absorbed in a vast struggle involving the life and honour of the Empire. Our thoughts are far away, and matters of home policy which were stirring us deeply a few months ago create no very widespread interest now. And yet what is being done to-night? If the Motion of the noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill is carried in these totally novel conditions—for they are completely novel since this matter was last before us—what will be done? A thing which will in the deepest manner affect for generations to come the religious life of our country. The Government if it has its way will, in these novel conditions, not only cripple but literally paralyse great parts of our work and reduce to penury—I can use no other word—a large number of our best workers.
Things were bad enough a few months ago as the proposal stood then. But Wales was waking to the true aspect of the situation; some of the best Nonconformist opinion was becoming vociferous against Disendowment, and other people were becoming aware of the gravity of the forcible disintegration of the Church, which was being, as we thought, ruthlessly pressed upon us in the Government measure. Your Lordships, impressed by what was taking place, appointed from both sides of the House a representative Select Committee to look into the facts. Owing to the war, and owing solely to the war, that Committee has not yet reported. Could it have done so, and done so in a quiet atmosphere—impossible just now—the standpoint of many people on the whole subject would, I am persuaded, have been found to have largely changed. The presentation of a Report has not been possible. The thoughts, the interests—may I say the prayers?—of the people lie in directions other than that. Now the Government, freed by the people's patriotism, freed by absorption in those questions from the embarrassing position which might have arisen in consequence of such a Report and the
662
feeling that would have been awakened, desire to go forward and forthwith place upon the Statute Book, without the discussion of those great points, this impoverishing Bill—impoverishing not in the material sense only, but in the deeper sense which belongs to the sacred side of our work.
What need has even been suggested for this haste? I cannot imagine any, except on what I do not like to call purely Party political lines. I know of no one, outside the small clique in Wales itself, who desires at this moment to press this matter forward to an immediate conclusion. Reasons have been given yesterday and to-day why there are special difficulties attending the hanging up and postponement of the Irish question. I am not touching on the strength or the weakness of those reasons, which have been urged with great eloquence, but postponement was deprecated en account of the difficulties which might arise as regards the sentiment of the people on the great principles of Home Rule. But, my Lords, no vestige of reason was suggested in the discussion which took place yesterday as to any possible evil that could arise from the postponement of this measure on the lines of the proposal of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. To-day, it so happens, I have been in personal touch with some of the leading English Nonconformists, with those to whose opinions the Free Churches in this country attach special weight, and they scouted the idea that the Government meant at this moment to press relentlessly forward the immediate operation of this measure. They assured me in the most positive way that they believed the Nonconformists of England at this moment would resent any attempt, during the stress of the war, to force into effect the previsions of this Bill. Indeed, they would hardly believe me when I told them that I thought it was seriously intended. I am not, of course, pretending to say that the opinion expressed to me would be found to be universally held among Nonconformists, but I do say that those gentlemen to whom I refer were amongst the foremost leaders in Nonconformist opinion in England, men entitled to the widest respect and to the most deferential hearing.
The argument that has been brought forward is that if this Bill is not now put upon the Statute Book the Parliament Act will be frustrated in its intent. Is that true? Is it a real argument that carries weight?

663
We have been told year after year that the object of the Parliament Act was a simple one, that it was to prevent the House of Lords from persistently thwarting the deliberate wishes of the House of Commons. Now, suppose there were no Parliament Act on the Statute Book and that the Government could pass—and perhaps in wartime they can pass—anything they liked in this House if they threw their weight into it, will any one say that the House of Commons at this time would think of trying to pass this Welsh Disestablishment Bill into law? I am perfectly certain that would not be the case. In one sense we might say that it is an actual thwarting of the purpose and spirit of the Parliament Act to use it for the purpose of doing something which is contrary to what was the Act's real purport and aim—namely, to secure that the House of Lords is not persistently obstructing the wishes of the House of Commons.
To some extent the inappropriateness and inopportuneness of pressing things forward now has been admitted and recognised, and the noble Marquess who leads the House told us last night that the Government recognise the hardship and are therefore introducing a Suspensory Bill. What does that Bill do? Your Lordships, unless you have paid close attention to the matter, are probably under the belief that by that measure everything will be postponed until the close of the war. Nothing could be further from the fact. If you will look into it in detail—by the courtesy of the noble Marquess I have seen a copy of the Bill, and I believe it will be in the hands of every one this evening—you will see that what the Bill does is to postpone for a few months what is technically described as "the date of Disestablishment." It does not, however, postpone the passing of the Act with all its immediate consequences. The Welsh Disestablishment Bill as introduced, and as it stands, proposes that on the day after the expiration of six months, or such extended period as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, not being more than twelve months, after the passing of the Act—on that date, referred to as "the date of Disestablishment," such and such things shall happen. That is to say, six months must elapse after the passing of the Bill before the date of Disestablishment arrives; and it may be twelve months if the Government is so disposed. What this Suspensory
664
Bill does is nothing more than to say that it shall be twelve months; it merely makes compulsory that which is at present possible and indeed practically certain under the original Bill. But the things which are to become operative from the passing of the Act are not altered in any degree. They stand exactly as they were before, and if this Bill is now placed on the Statute Book we shall technically be obliged to begin, this week or the week after, the endeavour, though it is practically impossible, to take all the steps that are required for the important things which have to be done during the period which is to elapse between the passing of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment. That, my Lords, is an alleviation in name which seems to vanish almost wholly when we look at it in its practical operation.
It is true that the Bill goes on to say that if the Government so desire it may postpone the date of Disestablishment yet further, provided—and note this !—provided it is not later than the end of the war. The date of Disestablishment must come automatically at the very latest on the day when the war ends. What does that mean? It means that all the things we have to do in the interim must be done while the war is going on. While the thoughts of every one are directed in totally different directions we are to be asked to begin all those things which we are called upon to do during the period which was to pass—and which was intentionally meant to be a long period, because there was so much to do—between the passing of the Act and the coming in of the date of Disestablishment. There are Commissioners to be appointed, and they have to begin their work. There are all the arrangements which ought to be made forthwith, beginning let us say next week, for the formation of the Representative Body. That Representative Body at once begins to have duties; responsibilities have to be transferred to it; the Commissioners are to be in active operation; the Representative Body is called upon to be in active operation long before the date of Disestablishment comes. And all that has to be done now! Is it tolerable that we should be asked, at a time when, as I have said, the thoughts of every one are far away, to take steps which are most important, steps requiring meetings of the most important kind and the presence and help of the most

665
important men—that we should be asked to begin to take steps for putting into shape all those things to be ready against the date of Disestablishment? Yet that we shall be bound to do during the progress of this war. Is that a Suspensory Bill which gives us the kind of relief which was promised to us, the ordinary reasonable allowance which should have been made at such a time as this when the country is in the midst of an absolutely absorbing war?
There are many other things to be attended to before the date of Disestablishment comes. Every benefice as it falls vacant has to be treated after a new fashion. What we quite definitely understood was to happen was that there should be some date named—say the conclusion of the war—to which the whole thing should be postponed. What conceivable reason is there to put against such a postponement? If that is not done the hardship of the situation created both with regard to Disestablishment and Disendowment will be such as I find it difficult to characterise. Disendowment is to begin ipso facto when the war is over, if indeed the Government allow it to be delayed so long, because they have power to put it into operation before the end of the war if the war is prolonged. Anyhow, it is not to be allowed to be postponed beyond the date when the war comes to an end. By that time the Church will be called upon to make such provision as it can to make good the losses it will have sustained under the Bill which will then be an Act.
The Home Secretary indulged last year and the year before in an argument—I do not want to say a taunt—to this effect, "You have only to raise the money, !100,000 a year; it is a small sum. You have that to raise, and you will find you will be not much worse off than you were before." But, my Lords, at what moment is it that the people of England and Wales are to be asked to raise £100,000 a year for the sustenance of those whose incomes have been taken away under the Bill? At the moment when everybody has given every penny he can afford, and given it patriotically, to swell the funds needed for meeting our present difficulties. When men have done everything they can, emptied their purses and their coffers, and will in addition find themselves subject to heavy extra taxation, that is the moment when we are to be told, "Now set to work and make good the money we
666
have taken away from you." Those patriotic gifts which have been lavished at the present time as an initial step towards that which we shall probably have to go on doing for many a day will have depleted the very funds which would have been gladly and generously applied for the relief of the Welsh necessity. In short, it comes to this, that a Bill which would at any time have inflicted grave harm to the Church and seriously crippled its whole sources of supply, will now, by being brought into operation when it is, be absolutely devastating in its consequences. No reason whatever is given why the delay which has been asked for should not be allowed.
I say that when what is being done is rightly understood it will be felt that the Government have committed a grave error of judgment as to the feelings of the people of this country. We are, it may be, in the hands of the Government at this hour. No man in this House, certainly not I, wants at so grave an hour in our national life to raise any stormy controversy upon any matter whatever. As the Government have frankly admitted, everybody has been trying to do his very best to support them in the greatest task that has ever fallen upon the Government of this country. But, my Lords, to accept silently—it was almost suggested that we should do it gratefully—this mockery of alleviation is impossible. What we think of it is not very easy to put into words. To refrain from raising this solemn protest against such action, taken at such a time, would be to be false to the convictions of great numbers of the best, the most devoted, the most patriotic and thoughtful men and women in this country—not Churchmen only, but Nonconformists; not opponents of the Bill only, but supporters of the Bill, leading men who are at one with us in the protest against what we think is this grave wrong.
I hope the explanation of this cruel procedure is that the Government, in the stress of these absorbing and mighty events, have, perhaps not unnaturally, failed to realise the full bearing of what they are doing in this particular matter. But if that is not so, if they have realised it and deliberately intend to go forward notwithstanding what I have described, if they rest on the mere plea that Disestablishment in a technical sense has not taken place—if they rest on that, they are,

667
I venture to say, taking advantage of the war to do to us an intolerable wrong, a wrong which will be felt as such by honourable men for years and years to come.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of this debate. In doing so I shall not, of course, attempt to argue again the question of this Bill, which has been argued so often over the floor of this House; but I must follow to a certain extent in steps where the most rev. Primate has already trodden. Before I do that I want to refer to the eloquent speech which the Lord Chancellor made in respect of the Government of Ireland Bill. He looked forward to a time when the strain of this war, the influence of this mighty struggle, would have so profoundly affected our national life that people in Ireland, to whom hitherto agreement has been impossible, might win a national agreement and a national settlement out of the turmoil of this world struggle. And I think he meant chat the influence might go beyond the two parties in Ireland; that it might affect us too. Does he realise, can the Government realise, what they are doing now in passing this Bill for the Dismemberment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales? If the Government persist in their policy they are, in advance, rendering absolutely impossible that national unity out of this terrible calamity; they are introducing a breach into our national English and Welsh life such as has never existed hitherto in our history.
We have believed the passion for Disestablishment to be an ideal belonging to a past generation which bears no relation to the aspirations or needs of this century, but we have quite understood that you, the Government, have thought that the majority of the people in Wales had a right to demand it and did demand it. We have understood your view although differing from it. Then about Dismemberment. I have always felt that you have never been at all enthusiastic about Dismemberment. Yon have never really argued its merits. You have treated it as an unfortunate accident of Disestablishment, and your attitude has not been very different towards Disendowment. You have never said that you proposed partial Disendowment because you liked it, but because you did not conceive it possible to disestablish the Church in Wales without at least a partial measure of Disendowment. But you have always protested—and we have believed it so far as your Front
668
Bench is concerned—that you never were unfriendly to the Church in Wales. You have always protested that you hoped that your measure would not impair its spiritual efficiency. You have acknowledged frankly and freely that the money is being used and used well for sacred purposes. You have admitted that the Church in Wales could not do with less money, but you have always said that you believed that the Church of England and Wales would rise to the occasion and replace the funds of which the Church in Wales was deprived by your measure. I do not say that that represents the views of all your supporters in the country, but I believe that it has represented the views of the majority of them. I believe that you did not wish to cripple the work of the Church in Wales, and I believe that you thought that out of the vast resources of those who belonged to the Anglican Community in England and Wales these essential funds could be replaced.
But can you think so now? Is it possible for anybody who heard the speech of the most rev. Primate to think that the effect of this Bill, if you pass it as you propose, will be such as you have hitherto said it would be? I do not accuse you of meaning to mock; but surely you must see yourselves that the amount of respite that you are going to propose is a mockery and nothing else. The most rev. Primate proved that in his speech. Think of the task that lies before the Church. The most rev. Primate named the sum of £100,000 a year, but he will permit me to remind him that that is an understatement. The actual sum of which the Church will be deprived by this Bill is £157,000 a year. Why, my Lords, that sum capitalised amounts to more than the Prince of Wales's National Relief Fund; it can only be represented in millions. I ask the nation—not your Lordships' House only, I ask the nation —how possibly can the millions necessary to replace the tithes in Wales and the other endowments taken from the Church be collected during this war?—or after this war for some years to come, because the great financial strain is not coming during the war; it is coming after the war. There will be even less chance of collecting such a sum at the end of the war than there is now.
I cannot believe that the Government have really thought out what they are proposing to do. I cannot believe that this intense and wanton wrong is going to be perpetrated upon us until I see it actually done. May I ask upon whom

669
this wrong is going to be perpetrated? More than half the people of England and Wales are members of the Church of England, and of that majority of the population there are millions who are just as passionately devoted to their Church as they are to their country, and those are the very people at the present moment upon whom you are chiefly relying in the present crisis of our national life. I am not exaggerating when I say that in comparison to their numbers Church people are taking their full share of risk, of danger, and of work at the present moment. The most rev. Primate said that he had reason to believe that the Nonconformists of England did not realise what; was being done in their name. It is to my Nonconformist and Liberal fellow-countrymen in England and Wales that I would appeal. I appeal to them on the ground of our common faith and common nationality, I appeal to them by every instinct of generosity that pulsates through their breasts, not to inflict this wrong upon us now.
It would be so easy for Nonconformists to say on the question of Disestablishment, "We cannot give way, became that with us is a principle. Nor do we admit that we have not been hitherto justified in the action we have taken about Dismemberment and Disendowment. But we recognise that the circumstances have wholly changed; we recognise that this is not the moment to inflict what you believe conscientiously would be a wanton wrong upon all the Anglican community of England and Wales; therefore we do not in this great crisis of our national life insist any longer on Dismemberment or Disendowment." If the Nonconformists and Liberals of England and Wales would say that, they would strike a chord of nationality and sympathy among all Church people. Would not that be a real unity of the national heart as opposed to this breach which you will inevitably create if you proceed further? It is because there is still time, because I do not believe that my fellow-countrymen really mean to inflict this wrong upon us, that I hope that this House will come to no decision and that it will adjourn this debate so as to give the Government and their supporters still time to be just and generous, and not, in this moment of national fate, to trample on the deepest convictions of those who most desire to give them the whole support that their life can give. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
That the debate be adjourned.—(The Earl of Selborne)
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: MY Lords, I rise with much reluctance and with a deep sense of responsibility to address you for a few moments. His Grace has already dealt with the contention, as I suppose I may call it, as to the meaning of the Suspensory Bill—that is to say, extending the six months in the first clause to twelve months. There is one point which I should like to mention in regard to that. It would be absolutely impossible for the Commissioners appointed under the Act to get through the necessary preliminary work in six months, so that in any case as a matter of necessity it would have to be postponed for twelve months; therefore the Government are making no concession whatever.
Churchmen have always been convinced that this Bill was not approved of by a majority of the electors in England and Wales. That conviction has been fortified by the fact that the Bill would have on more than one occasion been rejected in another place but for the Nationalist; votes, and by the fact that even in Wales itself there has come from the Nonconformists a protest, against this Bill which, front the character and number of its signatories, cannot be ignored. I do not think even those who are prepared to question this contention would say that the people of this country are thinking of this Bill, much less desiring the passing of it into law. During the last few weeks the whole conditions have changed, and that change has affected the Irish Bill and the Welsh Bill somewhat differently. I suppose it might be said that the outbreak of the war tended to diminish, if not to eliminate, the most minatory elements in the Irish problem; but very little reflection would show that the passing of the Welsh Bill at this time would place the Church in a singularly cruel and embarrassing position. Upon the passing of the Bill the Church would have to face a problem which is not enlightened by any precedent in the history of this country. Welsh Churchmen would be called upon to reconstitute their Church; the questions of discipline, of doctrine, of patronage would require all the knowledge and the energy that the Church in Wales could command.
Consider for a moment what would be the position of Churchmen in Wales at this time. The majority of them have sons or

671
near relations who have gone forth to fight for their country, and amid these absorbing public and personal anxieties they are to be called upon to form and to attend Conventions and Synods to draw up a constitution and canons for the Disestablished Church. I think enough has been said to show what a very difficult task it would be. As the noble Earl has pointed out, this Bill takes away three-fifths of the endowments of the Church in Wales. Even in peaceful and prosperous times the loss of these funds would render it an extremely difficult and arduous task to carry on the most necessary work of the Church, but if this Bill passes we shall have to appeal to our sons and daughters in Wales when they have been impoverished not only by the war but by those countless charities for our sailors and soldiers which in Wales derive the main support in funds and denial from Church people. As your Lordships can see, this Bill will fall now with irretrievable cruelty on the Church people in Wales.
I wish to refer to the words which were used by the Prime Minister on July 30 in another place when he appealed to the Opposition for their support. You will remember the passage in which he said "it was of vital importance in the interests of the world that this nation should present a united front at this time and speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation"; and he added these words, "In the meantime the business to be taken will be confined to necessary matters and will not be of a controversial character." I am sure that the Prime Minister and the members of His Majesty's Government will agree that the response to that appeal was instantaneous. No Government has been supported at a great crisis by more loyal and cordial co-operation from the Opposition than the present Government, and that spirit of co-operation has spread through all classes. The leaders of both political Parties have appealed for defenders to a nation one in heart and mind at the present time. But I venture to ask, Has the pledge which the Prime Minister gave in very specific and definite words been kept? No one can contend that this is not a controversial measure. As has been already said, there is no measure that wounds the conscience and sensibilities of a larger section of the Welsh and English people than this Bill does, and the mind of man cannot imagine an act which will cause greater and more lasting bitterness and
672
division in this country than the passing of this Bill. I know that it is a very serious thing to impute bad faith to those in high positions, but I say deliberately that Englishmen who love justice and straightforward dealing will find it very hard indeed to reconcile the passing of this Bill with the solemn pledge given by the Prime Minister. The political necessities of the situation do not demand it.
There is, of course, a vast difference between a Bill still before Parliament and a Bill placed upon the Statute Book, and it does seem to me that the Government have been using the splendid patriotism of the Opposition to secure the passing of this measure which they know has not got the approval of the majority of the people of this country. I recognise the fact that the Government have the power to put this Bill on the Statute Book, bat it does seem to me that this is a singularly inopportune moment for them to find an ethical justification for their action in a gospel of force. I should have thought that if ever there was a time when it was more necessary to strengthen every spiritual institution in the country it was now. The hearts of our people have been moved as they have never been moved before by the tremendous struggle in which we are engaged, and it does seem to me an ill-omened thing that our churches, crowded as they are by worshippers, should be despoiled, not by the hand of the foreign marauder, but by a small section of people in Wales.
The great majority of those who first volunteered for foreign service in Wales are sons of Churchmen. Does it not occur to those who are pleading for a united nation to imagine what must be the feelings of our countrymen when they hear that the churches, to them the most hallowed spots in their country, are being despoiled in this manner? There is another thought which weighs heavily upon many of us. It is finely said in a book recently published about England and Germany that the Supreme Actor in history and politics is God. We have been told that this is a righteous war—we are told that by our leaders in Church and State. The people of this country, with an unexampled unanimity and with an inflexible resolution, have undertaken this war because they believe it to be a righteous war. They have entered upon this awful struggle feeling that they can go with a clear conscience

673
before the Supreme Governor of the universe. Daily, my Lords, from our altars we pray to Heaven for our soldiers and sailors. We pray that God may take into His own hands them and the cause in which their King and country send them forth. Yet at this tremendous moment the Government of the country come forward and ask you to pass a measure which will bring the oldest part of the Lord's heritage in this land into confusion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, it is, of course, impossible at this stage and under these conditions to discuss the general principles involved in the Welsh Church Bill, but although our thoughts are elsewhere I think we must make it clear that our convictions are quite unchanged. There are three points which T wish to make. In the first place, during the course of the discussions on this Bill Churchmen made it quite clear that they desired to remove any obstacle which might stand in the way of the religious life and the religious faith of Nonconformists. The result of that has been, as pointed out by the most rev. Primate, that a large number of the most religious-minded of Nonconformists in this country are at one with Churchmen against the injustice on Christian and religious grounds of this Bill. And what is the effect of attempting to pass the Bill at the present moment? It must give rise to a feeling of sectarian bitterness; but speaking, if I may, on behalf of Church laymen, I am quite certain that they desire in every way as regards the future of our Christian life in this country to avoid sectarian bitterness and to introduce in its place the spirit of charitable tolerance.
In the second place, Disendowment as proposed in this Bill is an entirely new principle in the annals of this country. It means this—and I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (Earl Beauchamp) whether he can give us any precedent for it—that trust funds urgently needed and properly used for religious purposes are to be confiscated and diverted to merely secular uses. When the Irish Church Bill was under discussion Mr. Bright said that he would never have been in favour of the partial disendowment of the Irish Church except on the ground that he was convinced that their endowments were not being properly used for religious purposes at that date. I am quite certain that no precedent can be found for what is
674
attempted to be done in this Bill—namely, the alienation of trust funds which are being properly used. When this Bill was discussed in another place I often challenged those who were in support of it to find any instance of compulsory dismemberment by political action of a Christian religious community in this country since the Toleration Act. No answer was ever given to that challenge. I am not now dealing with matters which were referred to the Select Committee of this House, but I do say this, that as regards religious life and as regards charitable thought and Christian co-operation there is nothing more reactionary than by political action to disrupt a religious community against the unanimous protest of all its members. I should use just the same argument if the religious community were some other than the Church of England. I should protest in the same terms if it was sought to take the endowments of Nonconformists which were being properly used. I should protest in the same words against the compulsory dismemberment of any Nonconformist community, because I think that on every principle Disendowment is unjust and Dismemberment is grossly un-Christian and uncharitable.
There is one other point. I admit that I was astonished to hear the statement made by the most rev. Primate. I understood quite clearly from what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said yesterday that the Welsh Church Bill was to be put on the same basis as the Home Rule Bill, and that the operation of the Bill was to be postponed— I will deal in a moment with the date of Disestablishment—for at least twelve months or for a period extending to the end of the war if it should last more than twelve months. The most rev. Primate has told us that the proposal is nothing of the kind. The postponement of the date of Disestablishment is an entirely different thing from the postponement of the operation of the Bill. If the postponement only applies to the date of Disestablishment the Bill will come into operation immediately at a time when, by agreement of all parties, controversial matters of this kind ought not to be brought into operation, and at a time when it is practically impossible for Churchmen to reorganise and reconstitute their Church system in Wales. I hope that the noble Earl in his answer will deal with this point.

675
As regards what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have to do, the powers of the Commissioners, vacancies in office, provisions as to trusts, provisions as to churchyards, as to transfer of powers of vestries and churchwardens, as to the constitution of the Representative Body, as to managing property—all the provisions dealing with those subjects are not dependent on the date of Disestablishment at all, but on the date of the coming into force of the general powers of the Bill. I ask the noble Earl, Does he mean that all those powers are to come into immediate operation not-withstanding the state of war? Does he mean that Churchmen are to be called upon to deal with these vital matters which go to the whole root of our Church system in Wales at a period when our thoughts are elsewhere? If he does, I say it is most unjust and unfair, and it is in the teeth of what I understood the noble Marquess the Leader of the Government to say yesterday. What he said was not that portions only of the Welsh Church Bill should be postponed during the period of the war, but that, as in the case of the Irish Bill, the whole Bill should be postponed at least for that time.
It was recognised in very frank terms yesterday by the noble Marquess who leads the House that one of the great difficulties in the reconstitution of the religious position in Wales is the question of endowments. It is, of course, quixotic to suppose that you can carry on any system of religious administration in this country at this date without adequate endowments. Why, every Nonconformist body is striving to get a proper system of endowments, and, speaking for myself, I entirely agree with the effort they are making in that direction. But how can this question be dealt with immediately the war comes to a conclusion? Every one knows—and the noble Marquess yesterday assented to the proposition—that it is hopelessly impossible to attempt to raise funds for the reconstitution of the Welsh Church at the moment of the conclusion of the great war in which we are engaged. Is that just and right? Is that leaving us as we ought to be, haying regard to the national crisis that has arisen? The conditions of the Welsh Church Bill are quite distinct from the conditions of the Home Rule Bill. What makes the difference to us is that the money we could leave raised under happier conditions it is impossible to raise at the present moment.
676
And why is it impossible to raise it? I am not throwing any doubt on the loyalty of other members of the community, but it is because Churchmen have done all they can by way of self-sacrifice to promote the common interests of our country at the present moment, and they have done it both in money and in service. They have shown that unquestioning and unswerving loyalty which Churchmen have always exhibited in times of great national crises.
I hope I may appeal to the spirit of fairness and justice in a matter of this kind. I desire to ask the Government, Is it not their intention to postpone the whole of this Bill during the period for which the Home Rule Bill is suspended? I go further. I ask that the period for which the whole Bill is suspended should be sufficiently long to enable funds to be raised after the stress and strain of the war expenditure has to a certain extent gone by. I cordially agree with what was said by the noble Earl who moved the adjournment, that this Bill is one which vitally affects the conscientious and religious opinions of the members of the greatest Christian community in this country. The biggest thing in the history of our country is the English Church, and I think that in those circumstances we ought not to appeal in vain for that fair treatment which I understand the noble Marquess thought was being given and which I thought was being given until the most rev. Primate told us what the terms of the Suspension Bill really are.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I should not add to a series of speeches on the same side nor should I inflict on the House another speech from the Episcopal Bench were it a question merely of emphasising once more the objections to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. But we are dealing not so much with that tonight as with the particular circumstances under which this proposal is submitted to the House. And, impressive and pathetic as have been the speeches made to us, I cannot think that even now the House has fully recognised the gravity of this proposal. To me and probably to most of your Lordships this has been a melancholy evening, and I believe that in days to come we shall retain a sad impression of its effects. Why do I say that? In my recollection nothing has gone more to the heart of England than the feeling that when a great

677
danger came upon us it united all of us, and that we were able on account of that unity to lay aside our domestic dissensions, and, let me add, for I think this was implied, look upon those domestic dissensions in another light. But I must confess that the impression has grown upon me that there has been a certain hollowness in our self-satisfaction on that matter. I do not mean—Heaven forbid!—that the unity amongst us has not been real and deep down and that it is not to-day and will not be intensely valued, but when I approach the questions which divide us—unless I except the question about the other sex, where I think there has been a genuine arrangement—I look in vain to find that this happy unity which the war had brought about has really changed, as it were, the disposition or the character of the pieces on the political board. Had it been so I cannot help thinking that we would have found, as I believe we almost all expected to find, such a change that arrangements on all those great questions could be come to—arrangements which, while satisfying no one, would please everyone, if I may say so, because they brought us together. That opportunity, it seems, has now gone.
What about the future? I listened with great respect and much sympathy to what fell from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I saw that there was in his mind, what has probably been in the minds of many of us, a sort of anticipation of a period in future when, having passed together through a great crisis and having been stirred and purified by a great common discipline, we shall find ourselves able to go about our ordinary business, to deal with our most pressing problems, in somewhat of a different spirit. If that were to be so it is certain that a topic which concerns the things of religion and all men of religion ought to be one of those upon which that happy difference would be shown. But to me it is pathetic, it is deplorable in a degree which I can hardly express, to find that neither to-day nor in the future can this great subject be dealt with in any other way than by the ordinary methods of political pressure.
The Government have had a heavy burden on their shoulders and enormous pressure on their time, and I do not know how far they have been able to consider the treatment of these two Bills upon their several merits. I did not go into the
678
Lobby against the Government in the Division which was taken to-day on the Home Rule Bill. I felt, especially after what the noble and learned Viscount had said to us about Irish opinion all over the world, that the Government had a right to express a responsible opinion about what was necessary in order to obtain general support. I felt that it would be a responsibility for this House to have taken off their shoulders the decision of that question. But, my Lords, if I may put it plainly, there are no Welshmen across the seas whose relation to the British Parliament, or to the British Government., or to the British nation will be affected by the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book. It could not be so contended. I do not say that in an ungenerous spirit. There are Welshmen across the seas who, no doubt, would be glad to see this Bill passed. But this Bill is not political in that, sense and to that extent that the Irish Bill is, and therefore it is a measure upon which we surely could take separate action. I believe with the most rev. Primate and others that the attitude of opinion on this matter is such that anything like a concordat would be welcome. I will go further. If it were known that, owing to the common action of Churchmen and Nonconformists in England and in Wales, this matter had been settled, not by the pressing through of a measure under the force of the Parliament Act but by something like agreement, that announcement would be received with real enthusiasm, because it would be felt to be a great benefit to the religious and moral life of the nation and to the prospects of that life in the days that are to come. That, it seems to me, is what the Government are throwing away.
What we are asked to do to-day begins to alter the whole situation at once; it does not adjourn it; it does not leave a space for a more friendly consideration of the matter. Elements of such friendly consideration I believe exist; I believe they exist in high places; I would be hopeful that even in the Government itself there would be a real satisfaction if any such arrangement could be made. But that is denied to us. Now, why is it denied? Who is it, my Lords—I must speak one rather strongly controversial word—who is it that prevents this? There is no question whatever about it. It is the small body of men in the House of

679
Commons who sit for certain constituencies in Wales. I think we have a right to say that we have lately been given an opportunity of measuring the claim which they make for consideration. The Prime Minister the other day indicated—I do not know whether he expressed it particularly but he indicated—that there was going to be some concession with regard to this Bill. What was the reply of the spokesmen of the political Party in Wales? It was simply to reiterate their old pleas; simply to say, "This is national money and we will not part with a penny of it." When the leaders of the Government were saying, what I believe every member of the Government would say, that it is impossible to bring Disendowment to bear on the Welsh Church at this moment, these people in their cold and stony indifference to the considerations of their opponents took up the position of political Shylocks and said, "We will have, so far as we can have it, our pound of flesh." The Government, I am happy to say, have taken a more generous view up to a point, but they have travelled a very little way indeed.
We stand, no doubt, very close to the end of the session. I am not so foolish as to suggest that there should be any attempt to arrive at agreement to-day, to-morrow, or the next day; but if it were still possible to keep the door open—the door which I think is closed by the action of the Government to-night—I feel that we should then have before us a possibility of realising the fruit of the unity consequent upon the war, which would be a real contribution to the future life of the country, and which would help to lift things on to a higher level and enable us to lay aside the old rancorous controversial method of dealing with these great subjects. I believe I am right, speaking on behalf of those who represent Wales and of our own Episcopal Bench, in saying that if there were an attempt to arrive at some such conclusion the material for it I on our side would not be wanting. You may say that we ought to have made concessions sooner. You may blame us for that. I am not going to enter upon that now. The unity which the influence of the great European war has brought about has created a new position, and surely we all feel that it would be well to deal with that position in the spirit in which it might be dealt with and thus attain a better and a nobler result.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I will not keep the House a minute from the answer of the noble Earl who will speak for the Government, but I rise to comment on a remark of the Bishop of St. Asaph which I think should be answered. The right rev. Prelate said that Church people in Wales had given a great deal more to war funds than had Nonconformists, and that Church people were volunteering more than Nonconformists—
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: What I said was that the majority of those who first volunteered in Wales for foreign service were Churchmen.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I have the honour of representing His Majesty in my own county, and as I have been working there together with every one I think it would be an unfortunate thing if a statement like that went out without comment. Your Lordships know as well as I do that not only in England but in Wales the richer people are generally members of the Church of England. The bulk of the rich people are members of the Church of England, in Wales certainly, and I should think that is also the case in England too. As to the War Fund started in my county, it would be true to say that the Church people contributed the big amounts in the first subscription lists, but I think it would be most unfair if any impression went out that in this great emergency every denomination in the country was not contributing absolutely to the limit of the means of its members. Our fund was only recently started. The rich people gave first; they came to a county meeting, and the amounts they gave you can see. We have only just begun village collections, but I have been amazed at the reports. The smallest and poorest farmers from whom we expected shillings gave pounds; working men from whom we expected a shilling or half-a-crown gave a sovereign; others said they would give so much a week. The trade unions and others are making levies of so much a week. Every single class in Wales is doing the best it can. Whether one denomination is volunteering more than another I should doubt. In my own county the Member and the opposing candidate are going round making war speeches together. In every county of Wales Nonconformist ministers are on the platforms urging Noncon-

681
formists to enlist; and I say, without fear of contradiction, that it is an absolute fact that if this country wants more men you can empty Wales and nobody in Wales will ask to what denomination anybody belongs.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the debate which has taken place this evening has naturally followed, not so much upon the actual merits of the Bill which is technically before your Lordships' House, as upon the terms of another Bill which your Lordships have been informed by my noble friend behind me His Majesty's Government have introduced into another place. We have been discussing chiefly the bearing of the Suspensory Bill upon the Welsh Church Bill, and it is naturally a matter of some regret to his Majesty's Government that their offer, however inadequate it may seem, should have been received with so little favour in all quarters of the house.
Consider for one moment the actual position with regard to the Welsh Church Bill. For all technical purposes it was immediately ready to go upon the Statute Book. No further discussions, no further stages, were necessary in this House or in another place. The mere fact of the Prorogation of Parliament would automatically have placed the Bill upon the Statute Book. There was, therefore, no reason, except from their anxiety to try and do something to meet the difficulties of the situation, why His Majesty's Government should have introduced the suspensory proposal. I quite admit that the terms which we have been discussing to-night, the terms of the Suspensory Bill, are of a somewhat complicated nature; but I shall hope, on a more suitable occasion when the Bill itself is being discussed in this House and if it should seem necessary, to explain to your Lordships the technical aspect of the question. But as a matter of fact I may say that the two Bills, the Irish Bill and the Welsh Bill, are to be treated in the same way, and that the same conditions are to apply. The difficulties which arise in connection with the Welsh Bill are inherent in the Bill itself. The Welsh Bill has a different method of coming into operation, and therefore the time which is mentioned in the Suspensory Bill has a different effect on the one Bill from what it has on the other. There are two dates
682
mentioned in the Welsh Church Bill. There is the date of the passing of the Act, and the date of Disestablishment. In the Bill the period between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment is six months, which period may, by Order in Council, be extended to twelve months. But under the Suspensory Bill which will be before your Lordships' House to-morrow the period between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment is extended to twelve months. And it is only fair to remind your Lordships, though we speak of twelve months, that there is also a similar provision with regard to this Bill as exists with regard to the Irish Bill—namely, that it is not to come into operation so long as the present war continues.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Does the noble Earl mean "come into operation," or is he referring to the date of Disestablishment? There is all the difference in the world between the two.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will correct my phrase, if the most rev. Primate desires it. I will say that the date of Disestablishment would be postponed until the war conies to an end. I admit that the most rev. Primate was right in correcting me on that point, because although it sounds little more than a technical point it is really a point of some importance. Meanwhile those preparations, upon the necessity of which I think a good many speakers on the other side have on many occasions expatiated, will be made so that when the date of Disestablishment does occur at this postponed dote all the preparations which are necessary and which must be made before that date will have been accomplished, and then Disestablishment and Disendowment will at that later date come into full operation. The most rev. Primate spoke of a sum of £100,000 as being the necessary sum to collect, and he was corrected by the noble Earl who moved the adjournment of the debate, who thought it was a higher figure.
THE EARL OF POWIS: That was per annum.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes per annum, and Lord Selboree mentioned a higher figure still— £150,000.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: £157,000 per annum.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I venture to say that whether we adopt the later date which was in the mind of the most rev. Primate or whether we adopt the date His Majesty's Government propose, very little difference would be made to either of these figures. Those sums—which I might argue are not really so high as they seem to be to noble Lords opposite—are not likely to be collected within either six months or twelve months of the present date; and if the noble Earl really wished to put the Welsh Church in exactly the same position as it would have been in if the Bill had been passed last year or the year before, it would be necessary for him to mention a far later date. I venture to think that between the Bill which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, proposed to us last night and the Bill of His Majesty's Government, as affecting the particular sum mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, there is very little difference so far as affects the Welsh Church itself. The date which the noble Marquess opposite proposes is not far enough off to satisfy the noble and learned Lord below the Gangway (Lord Parmoor), and if the noble Marquess's Bill were likely to become law he would have exactly the same request made to him by the noble and learned Lord for further adjournments because the six months—the difference between the noble Marquess's proposal and our own—would not be sufficient to collect the large stun I have mentioned.
I am bound to say that I regret the action of your Lordships with regard to the Welsh Church Bill. I regret the difference between the way in which your Lordships have treated this Bill and the way in which a great many years ago your Lordships' House treated the Irish Church Bill. Had your Lordships adopted the same procedure with regard to the Welsh Church Bill as you adopted in regard to the Irish Church Act that Bill would by now have become an Act, and the money would have been collected at a time more fortunate than that to which the most rev. Primate is now looking forward. Perhaps it would not be out of place to follow one or two noble Lords opposite in their references to the Select Committee which was appointed and which lately sat. It is fair to remind your Lordships that the Committee was appointed to inquire into two matters. One was the change of opinion which it was alleged had occurred
684
amongst Nonconformists in Wales with regard to Disendowment. There was not, so far as I read the evidence presented to the Committee, any very great attempt to prove that there was a considerable change of opinion with regard to the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but that there was some change of opinion with regard to Disendowment. I wish I could feel that noble Lords opposite were likely to have been convinced that Disestablishment itself, at any rate, was desired by the people of that country. They would then, I think, have been able to bring more influence to bear when they tried to persuade His Majesty's Government that there should be some change in the terms of Disendowment.
The other aspect of the question which was considered by the Select Committee was referred to by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne, and may briefly be described as the Dismemberment of the Church. The noble Earl told us that that was the part of the Bill which, in his opinion, His Majesty's Government liked the least. I confess that I do not share that opinion. I would almost be prepared to go to the opposite extreme and say that I think it is one of the best parts of the measure. I should have thought that nobody who had seen the result of the separation of dioceses and provinces in the Colonial Church could have doubted the advantage it was likely to be to have a separate organisation for Wales, separated from the organisation which exists at the present time for the whole of this country. So far as we deal with the question of the Dismemberment of the Church in Wales and its separation from Convocation let me say this, that the spiritual affairs of the Church in Wales will in future be entirely within her own competence, and she will no longer be subject to the necessity of coming to Parliament in order that she may make such arrangements as she thinks desirable. The temporal arrangements will be completely under her own control, and if at any time she desires to meet the Church people of England in consultation there is nothing of which I know which will prevent the representatives of Wales from sitting with the representatives of the Convocations of Canterbury and York.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS: In Convocation
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I understand that at the present moment when the Convocations of Canterbury and York send representatives that is not the Convocation strictly speaking, but I speak under correction from the right rev. Prelate.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDS: I only asked the question.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I thought I was right, even though I was challenged by the right rev. Prelate. When these representatives from the two Convocations meet they meet as an entirely voluntary body, and I say that there is nothing to prevent Wales from sending representatives to join that body and taking common consultation with them in the same way as they do at the present time. In fact, the Church in Wales, by this act of Dismemberment, will gain that freedom and autonomy which a great many people believe to be of inestimable advantage to every Church. The noble Earl exhorted us in the name of national unity to postpone dealing with this Bill. I am afraid that I am inclined to think that his idea of national unity consists in His Majesty's Government giving way to his wishes and carrying out what he thinks to be the proper thing for them to do. The most rev. Primate spoke of this Bill being forced upon the country by a small clique in Wales.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should like to correct that. I said nothing about the passing of the Bill. What I said was that the desire for the postponement of its operation at this moment is probably universal except on the part of a small clique in Wales. Opposition to postponement is, I am certain, confined to a small clique, and that clique is, I believe, wholly in Wales.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am sorry if I seemed to misrepresent the most rev. Primate, but it comes to the same thing so far as my argument is concerned. The most rev. Primate tells us that this step is now being forced upon His Majesty's Government by a small clique in Wales. We have yet to learn that the vast majority of those who represent the people of Wales in the House of Commons can be called "a small clique." I deprecate this way of speaking of those who represent the vast majority of the people of Wales. Such an
686
expression of opinion deserves, and I hope it will receive, every respect which is due to the authority of the most rev. Primate, but I am bound to say that as long as we see so little evidence of support of his view amongst the elected representatives of the people of Wales so long are we bound to believe that they are anxious that this Bill shall become law now.
There is another way in which we may attain national unity. As the debates which have taken place in this House this afternoon amply prove, there have been old quarrels which have provoked bad feeling in different parts of the country for a great many years past, running into a generation. That is so with regard to both of the Bills that we have been discussing this afternoon. Is it not passible that by accepting the verdict of the people of this country, by ceasing to resist the wishes of the people, by believing that their elected representatives properly represent their wishes and their wills, you may find a better means to national unity than in the way which has been suggested to us by noble Lords opposite?
*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down has asked us to accept the verdict of the people of this country. If His Majesty's Government had consented, in any way they thought best, to refer this Bill to the people of the country we should not be troubled with the Second Reading of it in your Lordships' House to-night. The noble Earl used one extraordinary argument in his speech. He suggested, as has been suggested often before by other persons, that if this were a moment for the Disendowment of the Church in Wales which was specially hard upon that Church, it was all your Lordships' fault because your Lordships have not adopted with regard to the Church in Wales the same policy which you adopted years ago with regard to the Church in Ireland. If His Majesty's Government had, as Mr. Gladstone did in 1867, appealed to the people of this country on the principle of Disendowment and Disestablishment in Wales, and if they had obtained a verdict of the people in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment, I do not doubt that your Lordships would then have dealt with the Welsh Church Bill as this House dealt with the Irish Church Bill in 1868. It is precisely because His Majesty's

687
Government have never attempted to take that course that your Lordships have never given your assent to the principle of the Bill which is now before us.
The noble Earl suggested that, after all, there was very little difference between the proposal of the Government with regard to the postponement of this Bill and the proposal of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. There is this difference, that the proposal of my noble friend would have postponed the whole matter until the close of the war, and in the interval it might have been considered by all parties how soon it was possible with reasonable fairness to the Church that the Bill should come into operation. Now we are told that the date of Disestablishment is to be twelve months after its passing, or, if the war lasts longer, at the end of the war; but that much of it is to come into operation at once on its passing,—that all sorts of changes are to be made. The ecclesiastical property left to the Church is to be settled; Commissioners are to be appointed; all kinds of steps are to be taken under this Bill which are more or less connected with the question of Disendowment. Disestablishment is so bound up with Disendowment that you cannot separate the two, and the only fair way, I venture to say, would be to postpone the whole thing for twelve months and then let the dates named in the Bill begin. That is what we thought His Majesty's Government proposed to do. I am sorry to be obliged to say that I think the noble Earl's speech has been one of the most unsatisfactory utterances that I have ever heard from the Front Bench opposite. He does not appear to have the least sympathy with the Church in the position in which he proposes to place her. He treats the whole thing as if it were solely a question of pleasing that small clique—very properly called a small clique—which His Majesty's Government do not dare to offend; and as for the future of the Church, he seems to care no more of what happens to it than this box on the Table.
I do not wish to refer at any length to the Select Committee which was mentioned by the noble Earl. I had the honour of presiding over that Committee. It was appointed with the assent of the Government to inquire into the dismemberment of Convocation and into the feelings of Welsh Nonconformists on the matter
688
of Disendowment. We examined a considerable number of witnesses—the evidence is published and is at the disposal of your Lordships; and it was just when the war commenced that we were about to consider the preparation of our Report. I was prevented from preparing that Report because I was asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, I believe, is at the bottom of the way in which the Church is now to be dealt with—to assist him in matters connected with the finances of the country, and, like all of us, I gave my very best work to assisting him in that matter and also in connection with matters affecting the bankers in the City. That is why the Select Committee has not reported. If there had been no war the Committee would have reported in time to bring the whole result of this inquiry before your Lordships in the debate which would then have taken place in the ordinary way upon the Second Reading of this and this could have been done so as to direct the attention of the country to the remarkable evidence that was given before that Committee, both as to the ignorance of His Majesty's Government on the effect of the dismemberment of Convocation on the future of the Church, and also upon, what is certainly a fact, the real and growing feeling among the better educated Nonconformists against the disendowment of the Church in Wales. I am debarred from entering into that matter at length both by the hour and because I think, as Chairman of a Committee which has not reported, I should have no right to do so; but I commend the evidence which was taken to the consideration of your Lordships, and I hope that as soon as we can take up ordinary business the attention of the country may be called to that matter in a way which will have a great effect upon the future of the Bill which is now before us.
But, my Lords, this fact remains, that His Majesty's Government are proposing to utilise the war to injure the Church by taking away its endowments at a time when it is quite impossible for it, I do not sax to obtain the whole amount of those endowments by voluntary contributions, but even to start a fund for that purpose. I cannot conceive a more cruel wrong. The noble Earl talked about the unity of the country. This will be felt to be a cruel wrong wantonly and unnecessarily

689
inflicted upon Churchmen in Wales for years and years to come. It will not have any effect upon them any more than upon Irishmen in their patriotic endeavours to help the Government; but they will never forget it. It will be a constant source of bitterness in the future between them and Nonconformists in Wales. If you had made up your minds to deal generously with the Church in this matter, to give it time to recover from the blow you are
Resolved in the affirmative, and debate,, adjourned accordingly sine die.

CONTROVERSIAL LEGISLATION (SUSPENSION DURING WAR) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
inflicting upon it, it might at least be said that although you were carrying out Dismemberment and Disendowment you were endeavouring to do so in a way which would be least hurtful to the Church in Wales.
On Question, That the further debate be adjourned?—
Their Lordship; divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Verulam, E.

Braucepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Waldegrave, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Cheylesmore, L.

Bedford, D.

Canterbury, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Chilston, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Dinevor, L.

Rutland, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Somerset, D.

Esher, V.

Erskine, L.

Falkland, V.

Farquhar, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Falmouth, V.

Grenfell, L.

Lansdowne, M

Hill, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Abingdon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hawke, L.

Amherst, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camperdown, E.

Iveagh, V.

Lawrence, L.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Leconfield, E.

Cathcart, E.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Coventry, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Monkswell, L.

Dartrey, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Monson, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

St. David's, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

Eldon, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Powerscourt, L. (V. Powerscourt.)

Ferrers, E.

Grey, E.

Aberdare, L.

Haddington, E.

Addington, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Halsbury, E.

Aldenham, L.

Rathmore, L.

Howe, E.

Allerton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Atkinson, L.

Sanderson, L.

Manvers, E.

Balfour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mayo, E.

Barrymore, L.

Sydenham, L.

Powis, E.

Biddulph, L.

Waleran, L.

Selborne, E.

Bolton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberconway, L.

Glenconner, L.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Haversham, L.

Charnwood, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Lincolnshire, M.

Colebrooke, L.

Islington, L.

Cowdray, L.

Lucas, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

D' Abernon, L.

Pirrie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Denman, L.

Rotherham, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Emmott, L.

St. Davids, L.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Allendale, V.

Farrer, L.

Stanmore, L.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, before the noble Marquess the Leader of the House speaks upon this Bill, I desire to intervene for a moment. I had put down an Amendment to be discussed in Committee—namely,
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at the end of the clause insert ("and shall notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 2 of the

691
Parliament Act, 1911, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent on the conclusion of peace.")
But certain technical defects in my Amendment—not unnatural, perhaps, in an Amendment hastily drafted by a layman—have been explained to me, and I therefore do not propose to move the Amendment. This will save the House the trouble of going into Committee on the Bill. I hope, however, that I may be allowed to explain briefly the object I had in view in putting down the Amendment. I wished to put in a concrete form the proposal which I made last night—namely, that combined with the moratorium which Lord Lansdowne's Bill sets up there should be automatic Royal Assent at the end of the moratorium. It is admitted in every quarter that the object we all desire is to maintain the status quo, but it does not seem to me that either the proposal of the Government or the proposal in Lord Lansdowne's Bill succeeds in bringing that about. It appears to me to require, in order to put both Parties practically in the same position that they now occupy, that the Royal Assent should take place automatically at the end of the moratorium. But recognising that there are technical difficulties in the way of doing that, I do not wish to detain the House in arguing my Amendment. But I feel bound to add that, to my very great regret, in the circumstances I cannot support the Second' Reading of Lord Lansdowne's Bill, as it seems to me that without some such provision as I have described it does not fairly meet the case.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not rise to discuss the provisions of the noble Marquess's Bill but merely to explain that although, as is quite clear, we cannot assent to the Bill, I do not propose to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division at any stage. When the Question is put we shall say "Not Content," but we shall not put the House to the trouble of walking through the Lobbies. The House is aware that we have a proposal for delay coming up from another place which differs materially—as I ventured to say yesterday, the difference is a deep though not a wide one—from the proposal of the noble Marquess, and that Bill will come before your Lordships' House in due course. The respective effects of the two proposals are quite familiar to the House from what was said yesterday,
692
and at this particular stage and at this hour it would be idle to attempt to re, discuss the matter. I would merely say one word with regard to what fell from the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Cross Benches. It seems to me that if his proposal had been moved in the form of an Amendment it would have been difficult for the noble Marquess opposite to assent to it, because it apparently must have involved the assent of noble Lords opposite to the Second Reading and also to the Third Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, which we could hardly have expected noble Lords opposite to give. Equally from our point of view it would not have been possible to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, but as he has withdrawn it there is no need to develop that argument further. I will say no more, but merely repeat that although we cannot assent to the proposal of the noble Marquess we will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I shall follow the example of the noble Marquess and avoid any repetition of arguments which have already been used with regard to this Bill. I may, perhaps, mention particularly to the noble Marquess that in consequence of a criticism which he offered last night I have altered the terms of the draft which he had before him on that occasion and have put in words making it absolutely clear that the procedure under the Parliament Act may be applied to the Government of Ireland Bill and to the Established Church (Wales) Bill in the first session of Parliament after the war. I certainly was under the impression that the measure as originally drafted already provided for that, but as a doubt has arisen I agree that the point ought to be cleared up, and we have endeavoured to do so in the words which have been added to the first clause. With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Monteagle, as he has left the House it is, perhaps, unnecessary that I should explain the reasons for which I could not have accepted his Amendment. It does not really fit in with the scheme of the Bill, for one reason, amongst others, that the noble Lord's object was that the Royal Assent should be given immediately on the conclusion of peace, but he left out of account the fact that Parliament might not be sitting at that time and also the fact that these Bills have not been rejected

693
by the House and that the discussion of them has been adjourned. They therefore do not come in exactly under Section 2 subsection (2) of the Parliament Act to which my noble friend referred. I am therefore very glad that he decided not to move his Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
Read 2ª (according to Order): Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3ª, and passed.
ARMY PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord Lucas). (No. 288.)
RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord President (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 289.)
IRISH POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord Ashby St. Ledgers). (No. 290.)
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª Tomorrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 291.)
SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª to be printed; and, to be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord President (E. Beauchamp)). (No. 292.)

SUSPENSORY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Crewe)). (No. 293.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes pact Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.