Sitting of 20 February 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL—(by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred until Friday the 27th February."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I think it is very desirable that in regard to Bills of such importance as this an arrangement should be made to take them when they are put down on the Paper, or at any rate, that a longer notice of postponement should be given than the day on which they stand for Second Reading. Very often hon. Members are brought down here in consequence of seeing Bills in which they are interested on the Paper, and so far as Ministers are concerned it is most inconvenient to require them to be in attendance when it is intended to postpone a Bill.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I am very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has been put to any inconvenience. I may explain that the reason of the postponement is simply a desire to consult the convenience of the House. It is thought that if a few days more time are allowed arrangements may be made which will prevent a protracted discussion. I regret the inconvenience to which the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected, and I will undertake to inform him of the day on which the Second Reading will be taken.
    MR. MORTON: I think the President of the Local Government Board should not complain of being brought here early, as it is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to set an example to the rest of the House by attending prayers.
    Motion agreed to.

    LONDON WATER COMMISSION BILL (by Order.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BAUMANN: I opposed the Second Reading of this Bill last week not with a view of preventing it from being sent to a Select Committee, but in order to give to those gentlemen interested in this important question—and there are many hon. Members interested in it besides those who represent Metropolitan Constituencies—the only opportunity which the forms of this House afford for discussing it. Three other Bills dealing with the water supply have been introduced this Session, but neither of them have obtained a favourable place upon the Order Book; and, therefore, as they cannot be discussed, it will only be by the generosity and forbearance of the House that they can be referred to a Select Committee. This is absolutely the only opportunity the Members for London have of discussing this most important question. And I think it will be generally conceded that it is a subject which requires full discussion on the floor of this House. After 25 years of discussion, investigation, and discovery, before Select Committees and Royal Commissions, we seem to be at last within measurable distance of placing the control of the water supply of London in the hands of the people of the Metropolis themselves. I do not mean to say that the eight Water Companies of London have done their work badly. The enemies of the Water Companies simply say that the supply of water is dear and bad. I am not one of the enemies of the Water Companies, and I do not subscribe to that assertion. On the contrary, I say that, considering the rapid increase of the consumption and of the population within the area supplied, London, on the whole, has

    1213
    been wonderfully well supplied with water. Indeed, some of the Water Companies—for instance, the West Middlesex and the New River, are models of good management and business-like ability. Of course the system by which the price of water is raised on the valuation of houses cannot be long maintained, although it is a system of which the poor at any rate have no reason to complain. But the case for the transference of the powers of the Water Companies to a public representative authority cannot be said to depend mainly upon the dearness and badness of the supply. If the water reformers were to base their case for the creation of a public authority on the dearness and badness of the supply, they would not be in the strong position I think they are in at this moment. The demand for the creation of a water authority is based rather on the idea that if a profit is to be made it should be made, not in the interests of a private undertaking, but in the interests of the public themselves. That is a view which has been recommended over and over again, both by Select Committees and Royal Commissions. We are all agreed that the undertakings of the existing companies ought to be acquired by some public authority, but we are very far from, being agreed as to what the authority should be, or how the Commission or Water Trust should be constituted. This Bill proposes to create a Water Commission in London, which is to have the power of promoting Bills in Parliament for the acquisition of the undertakings of the existing Water Companies, and to do everything that may be necessary to enable the Commission to step into the Water Company's shoes. It will, therefore, be seen that the terms on which the Water Companies are to be acquired form the most important point in the whole controversy, and it is a point which is left by this Bill for future settlement by Parliament. So far I heartily approve of the Bill, but it is when I come to the Schedule which proposes the constitution of the Water Commission in a particular manner that I find myself obliged to part company with the promoters and to express my fear that the schedule itself will be knocked into a cocked hat by a Committee upstairs. The measure proposes,
    1214
    that a Commission shall be created, composed of 51 members, namely—
    "The Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Chairman of the London County Council (ex officio); the remaining 49 original members shall be nominated as follows, namely: The President of the Local Government Board shall nominate 1, the President of the Board of Agriculture, 1, the Corporation of the City of London, 5, the London County Council, 20, the County Council of Middlesex, 4, the County Council of Surrey, 4, the County Council of Essex, 3, the County Council of Hertfordshire, 1, the County Council of Buckinghamshire, 1, the County Council of Berkshire, 1, the County Council of Oxfordshire, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of West Ham, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of Richmond, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of Windsor, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of Reading, 1, the Corporation of the Borough of Abingdon, 1, the Corporation of the City of Oxford, 1. If and whenever Parliament shall so direct, additional members may be from time to time nominated by the County Council of each of the counties next hereinafter mentioned, namely: Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Kent, and by the respective Boards of Conservancy of the Rivers Thames and Lee."
    There are four methods by which the water supply of London may be undertaken. First, by a system of delegation to a body nominated by existing authorities elective or official; next by creating a new authority, to be chosen by popular election; thirdly by taking one of the existing local authorities; and, lastly, by appointing a small Commission of experts. Now, we have had some experience in London of the principle of delegation, and it has not been found to work favourably. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a delegated body, and it expired in anything but an odour of sanctity. It is impossible, therefore, to speculate upon the fate of a double dose of delegation composed of the London County Council and the City Corporation. So far as the second method is concerned, I, for one, am very loth to add to the number of existing Local Authorities in London. I am unwilling to subject the wretched Londoner to the nuisance and worry of another election, and to compel him to spend his life in voting for somebody or another. No sooner has he voted for Codlin than he is required to vote for Short, and frequent elections have become the greatest bore and nuisances of the 19th century. The third alternative is to take one of the existing Local Authorities and clothe it with the powers of a Water Commission, and the London

    1215
    County Council have volunteered for the job; they have expressed their willingness to be the new Water Commission, and I am perfectly convinced that if the question was to find a Government for Mashonaland, the London County Council would readily volunteer. We who do not belong to that august body are of opinion that the London County Council is already overworked, and that it cannot satisfactorily discharge the work it already has to do. It would be the height of midsummer madness to add to the labours of that already overworked body. The last alternative is one which I throw out for the favourable consideration of the House, namely, the appointment of a small body of professional experts, who should be paid such a salary as would secure the services of competent men such as now manage the affairs of the Water Companies. If you want to have extravagance, delay, and I might almost add jobbery, have a popularly elected body. [Ironical Cheers.] I am speaking of purely administrative functions. If you really desire despatch, efficiency, and economy, you will have a well paid body of professional experts—and that is the suggestion which I humbly make.
    MR. J. STUART: A good many hon. Members on this side of the House recognise the dissatisfaction that has been aroused at the authority proposed to be created by the Bill; but I do not share the views of the last speaker as to the inefficiency and unsuitability of the London County Council for the purpose required. We oppose the constitution of a new public authority. The hon. Member appears to hold very cheaply public representative bodies as administrative bodies. If his objections are of a general character they must apply to the whole of the recent legislation of Parliament and the action of the President of the Local Government Board, who has done so much to place the administration of local affairs in the hands of local representative bodies. Has the principle failed in regard to other large towns? It appears to me that the hon. Member has failed to show that there is any ground why the London County Council should not be the authority in this matter, except that it is not the existing authority at present, and the
    1216
    hon. Gentleman and his friends take every opportunity of giving it a kick whenever they can. As a Municipal Authority exists in London the most sensible plan would be to hand the control of the water supply over to it. What is the reasonable ground for making such a difference in the case of London, and electing such an authority as that proposed, except ill-will to the County Council? It is said that the water supply of London is in some way different in arrangement from that of other great towns; but I beg entirely to dissent from that position, as I do not believe that there is any particular point in connection with the water supply of London which has not had its counterpart in many other great towns in this country, and arrangements can be easily made, as they have been made in other towns. Manchester supplies Salford by meter, and Bradford is bound to supply the Local Authorities of outlying districts, if they desire it, although the Local Authorities are not bound to take the water unless they want it. Now that Manchester draws its supply from Thirlmere, it is bound to supply it to any township on the way as long as a certain minimum is left for the supply of Manchester. In other cases there are different arrangements to meet the difficulty, and these have been found to work well. There is another point on which it is said that the London water supply differentiates from that of other towns—namely, that it is gathered from districts which come under the jurisdiction of other County Councils, and that we ought therefore to put on the governing body representatives from those County Councils as well as that of London itself. This question has not been solved in that way in any other instance. Manchester, before getting its supply from Thirlmere, drew it from neighbouring districts, but those districts were not represented on the governing body. At Bradford the difficulty was met by having large stores of water placed under a separate Commission, which sees that the Bradford Corporation keeps to what it is obliged to do by Act of Parliament. With regard to the question of whether the plan proposed in this Bill will work, I think that it would not. Already, by the very petitions against the Bill, the interests

    1217
    of the other communities are shown to be in contradiction to the interests of the Metropolis, and therefore we should be placing on the governing body in about equal proportions two sets of people whose interests would be permanently antagonistic, the result of which would be that the body would be an unworkable one. Again, the money must be raised in some way or other for the purchase of the Companies or for the creation of new water supplies which the Companies themselves, if left, would soon have to face; the money must be raised on terms fair to the people of London, because the rates of London would be the security. How would they manage to raise money chiefly on the guarantee of a body such as that proposed? If this Bill is to be referred to a hybrid Committee upstairs, I hope that it will be a strong Committee, and that some endeavour will be made or an Instruction moved, in order to enable it to investigate the whole of the question, and to consider in a wide manner the powers to be given to the governing body, and its future action. These are interests vital to the Metropolis, not only on account of their intrinsic importance, but also in relation to the sanitary condition of London. The subject is vast in its hygienic relations, and in its relations to the poor of the Metropolis and to the purses of the ratepayers, and one question which will have to be considered by the Committee is the price to be paid for this article.
    SIR A. BORTHWICK: I quite agree that upon this important question it is of urgent necessity and urgent importance that a prompt decision should be arrived at. I, therefore, hope that this Bill and other Bills on the same subject will be referred to a strong Committee in order that the question may be settled upon some absolutely definite basis. I am afraid that the present measure is somewhat too ambitious in its objects. It wanders away to the City of Oxford, and it proposes merely to raise the sum of £5,000 within 12 months for the payment of a Chairman and 51 members. It is doubtful whether such a body ought to be paid at all; but certainly if it is to be paid it ought not to be paid by the Corporation of the City of London. At the same time I doubt whether the rate-
    1218
    payers of the Metropolis would regard with favour the prospect of being saddled with the payment of money to this body. The Bill, as it stands, is altogether unsatisfactory. What is good in it will probably be taken into consideration by the Committee upstairs, and will find its way in proposals to be submitted to the House. I hope to have the honour shortly to move the Second Reading of a measure that deals exhaustively with the whole of the water supply of London, and which contains provisions to take exclusive powers for supplying water and for securing an equalisation of rates. The latter is an important object, because the rates at present are most unequal. For instance, a house of £30 pays in one case £1 4s. per annum; in another £1 8s., and in others £2. I hope that this Bill with other kindred measures will go to the Committee, and that the Report of such Committee may be received this Session, so that prompt legislation may follow.
    MR. LAWSON: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) has indulged in one of his chronic and splenetic attacks upon the London County Council, and yet I find that he, in common with the hon. Baronet the Member for Kensington (Sir A. Borthwick), proposes a Bill which would create a new body directly elected by the people of the Metropolis to take over the water supply, or, if the County Council are agreeable, to hand it over to them. If I do not move the rejection of the Bill, it is not because I do not think it an unworkable piece of legislation, but because it raises a question of vital importance after a lapse of 11 years, and recognises the principle that the water supply of the Metropolis should be controlled by a responsible public body. The central point is so far good, but the composition of the new body is ludicrous. The Bill is to secure and manage the water supply of London, but it is proposed to give a majority of Members outside the county, who would be able to out-vote London. It is a manifest absurdity to propose that the London County Council should send 20 members, the Corporation of London six or seven more, and that the total numbers of members should be 57. There would be perpetual collisions between the "insiders" and the "out-

    1219
    siders" —between the representatives of the area supplied and the representatives of the area from which the supply was drawn, and the rates of London would be pledged by the action of a body of 57 members, of whom the County of London would only furnish 20. The County Council should lay down the policy and exercise control, and a small body of experts, adequately paid, should manage the details. I believe this scheme to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. The question is whether the present supply is worth the purchase. The Chemical Commission (1851) was against the present system, and the Water Commission (1869) underrated the increase of population. Before the introduction of a measure of this character, there should have been the fullest preliminary inquiry, to bring our information up to date, into cost, quantity, and quality. What is true of the Thames is true of the Lea. The chalk would not, according to expert opinion, be more than auxiliary. Almost certainly we should require a new and independent supply, like Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool. This shows the necessity for investigation as a preliminary to any legislation by the House empowering any public body to control the supply. This is a very serious question, affecting the health and comfort of more than 5,000,000 of people, and 1 appeal to the House not to make their last state worse than their first.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not think it is necessary that I should discuss this Bill at any length. The Debate has shown conclusively one thing, which is a matter for congratulation, namely, that all parties in the House have come to the conclusion that the water supply, apart from the question whether the present supply is good or bad, ought to be in the hands of some public authority who should furnish the supply in the interests of the community and not for individual profit. That is a principle I have always supported. The hon. Member for Peckham states that he has very little confidence in the London County Council or the London Corporation, but with these views of the hon. Member in respect to the County Council I must disclaim any sympathy. The London County Council have had imposed upon them a very difficult task, and
    1220
    no doubt they have made some mistakes; but, nevertheless, I have perfect confidence that the London County Council, if intrusted with the water supply of the Metropolis, will discharge the duties connected therewith ably and well, and without a particle of anything approaching jobbery. I have never disguised my own opinion, which is that having established such a body for the whole of London, it is the proper body to be entrusted with the administration of the water supply, though, no doubt, it may be reasonable and desirable to give some representation to the outlying districts on the administrative Committee. But this and other points are not under consideration now. If we were discussing the details of the measure, I should certainly feel disposed to criticise some of the provisions of the Bill adversely. It must be agreed that there ought to be a full and complete inquiry into the whole question of the water supply, and that it would be well that that inquiry should take place before a Committee of this House, who should consider all the proposals brought forward on the subject, whether by the Corporation, the County Council, or the Vestries. I agree with the hon. Member for Hoxton (Mr. Stuart) that the Committee should be a very strong one. I think it is for the interest of everybody that the Report presented should be the Report of a Committee in whom the House has full and complete confidence. If any point is omitted by the Committee its attention can be directed to it by means of an Instruction. I would, therefore, suggest that, instead of hon. Members moving an Instruction now, they should wait until the other Bills on the subject have received their Second Reading, when all the Bills may be referred to the Committee, with, if necessary, such an Instruction as would enable the Committee to fully inquire into every branch of this subject. I hope that when the Bill of the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir A. Borthwick) comes before the House it will be read a second time.
    MR. LAWSON: How can you secure that?
    MR. RITCHIE: It can be done in one or two ways—either with the general concurrence of the House or by some arrangement with the Government.

    1221
    One thing is certain, that if we inquire into the question at all, the Bill ought to go before the Committee. I hope that body will be able to avail themselves of the very best professional skill available, in order to arrive at a solution of this most difficult and complex question.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I entirely concur in almost every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I was especially glad to hear him bear testimony to the efficiency of the London County Council, and express his opinion that that body is the proper body to have the administration of the water supply, without, however, excluding the representation of the London Corporation. The fact is that this question of the water supply has been hung up until such a body as the London County Council should come into existence. The Committee of 1882 recommended that the subject should be dealt with by the Government, and certainly it is too large, to be effectively dealt with by any private Bill. It is impossible to conceive anything more preposterous than that the Corporation of London should be able to introduce a Bill on this subject and that the County Council should not have the same power. I hope that this point will be taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal for an alternative water supply is satisfactory. In the absence of power to establish an alternative supply, it would be always impossible to buy up the Water Companies on fair terms. Then, in case of contemplated purchase, care should be taken to ascertain the views of the buyers as well as of the vendors. On a former occasion negotiations for sale fell through because it was found that certain agreements had already been made with the Water Companies, with which agreements the people who were to buy would have nothing to do. The moment those agreements were published the capital of the Companies went up nine millions; but when it was found that there was to be no purchase the capital fell by the same amount. The Companies will never be made to take a reasonable view until an alternative scheme is rendered possible. I think myself that the time has come when London should have a new supply of water. When
    1222
    we remember how the great cities of ancient times were supplied with water, and when we see the great aqueducts in Italy and France we can come to no other conclusion but that it is absurd that London should not have a far better water supply than it has. Seeing that cities which are mere villages compared with London have been supplied adequately and cheaply, it is monstrous to think that London cannot be supplied for less than £33,000,000. As the question is now in a fair way for settlement I hope the Government will bring in a Bill to determine who the authority should be and what extent of authority it should be entrusted with. I do not favour the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, for a body of that kind seldom reports before the expiration of five years. Let the County Council be empowered to take steps, and I believe that a satisfactory result will be achieved.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I must ask for the indulgence of the House while I say a few words on behalf of those who live outside the Metropolitan area. At present one-half of the supply for London is taken from the River Thames, and my contention is that if it is intended to take a still further quantity from the Thames the people resident along the banks of the river, who are deeply interested in the matter, ought to be represented on the Commission. The real question is whether an independent supply should not be obtained, and I believe that no good will be done by way of settlement of the question until this is ensured. In that case the inhabitants of the outside area adjacent to the Thames would not need representation.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: Before the House proceeds to read the Bill a second time perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the important subject. I do not think the promoters of this Bill would base their grounds for it on the allegation, that the water supplied in London is either dear or bad. My own individual opinion would rather be to change the present system of charge rather than to take the matter entirely out of the hands of the companies. Much dissatisfaction is certainly felt with the system of charging on the rate of assessment, and there is a strong belief

    1223
    that the supply of water in the basins of the Thames and Lea will not long suffice for the growing needs of the Metropolis. It is, therefore, necessary to make further provision within a comparatively short time. I am afraid we shall never get a system of Government entirely satisfactory to the hon. Member for Peckham. He proposes that the management of the Water Companies should be entrusted to a small body of professional experts, but then the question arises, by whom is that small body to be appointed? I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the testimony he has borne to the work of the London County Council. I hope the hon. Member for St. Pancras will accept the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman, and withdraw his Instruction, in order that a wider one may be framed by the Government. The London County Council do not wish to oppose the Bill, but they do not wish it to go forth they are entirely satisfied with its provisions. There are two proposals in the Bill especially which seem open to serious objection. One is the mode of raising the funds. I agree with the hon. Member for Hoxton that the money should be raised on London County Council Stock and upon the security of the Metropolitan rates. If a new Stock is created a higher rate will have to be paid, and even if the difference is only one-quarter or one-eighth, still on such large amounts the loss will be considerable. Secondly, the constitution of the Commission is not satisfactory. At the same time the London County Council have confidence that these and all other questions will be thoroughly and carefully discussed upstairs. They hope that the strongest possible Committee will be selected to deal with this very important question, and believing that that will be the case they do not desire to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: This is one of the most important questions affecting London that has ever come before the House, and I therefore think hon. Members opposite should not be so anxious to end the Debate, for we ought to be careful that no mistake is made in providing that proper terms and an adequate water
    1224
    supply are secured. I rise, after the generous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, to ask my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras to fall in with his suggestion, so that we may have one comprehensive Instruction given to the Committee. This afternoon's Debate has been one which must have given satisfaction to all hon. Members who desire to see the water supply of London placed under the control of a representative body. Should it be decided to purchase the undertakings of the existing Companies, one point ought to be borne in mind. It ought to be ascertained whether the Companies, while they have been paying large dividends, have created adequate sinking funds which would enable them to secure fresh sources of supply if necessary. If they have not done that, the capitalised value of their property is not so great as has been suggested, and I think the figures of 33,000,000, which have been quoted, are at least 100 per cent. too high. For this, if for no other reason, we must have a strong Committee.
    MR. CAUSTON: I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the Metropolitan Water Companies Charges Bill which I have in charge, and the Second Reading of which is fixed for the 4th March, and which, I hope, will have the support of the Government. It will prevent the companies raising their charges upon the forthcoming revaluation of property, and I maintain that any such increase ought certainly to be prevented at a time when it is probable that the undertakings of the companies may be acquired by a Public Authority.
    MR. LAWSON: I am willing to accept the general view of the House and withdraw my Instruction, providing we have a distinct understanding. There are three Bills before the House, and I should like to know if, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of their being read a second time, he intends to give facilities for that, because we know the Water Companies have friends in this House who object to anybody interfering with them in their long feast upon our increasing rateable value. Under these circumstances, there might be

    1225
    some difficulty in getting the Bills read a second time. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to movean Instruction covering the questions of the quantity, quality, and cost of the water supply.
    MR. RITCHIE: I can hardly think the House would be satisfied with referring only this Bill to the Committee. No doubt it would wish to refer the Bills which are much more comprehensive in their character, and which raise the issue much better than this particular measure. The Government will take care that the Instruction to the Committee will secure inquiry into the whole matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered; That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL (by Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BARTLEY: I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I think the House hardly knows what this Bill proposes. Under cover of a Railway Bill this Bill will empower the Railway Company to establish places of what they call "instruction, recreation, and amusement;" in other words, "Barnum" shows or Cremorne Gardens; and that I think is not the proper business of a Railway Company. The company have rights over two pieces of land, one of which has been used for the "Wild West" Exhibition, and the other is a triangular piece of ground west of Gloucester Road. The company, under cover of this Bill, propose to take power
    1226
    to convert this triangular piece of road into, as they term it, "a place of instruction, recreation, and amusement," and they will injuriously affect surrounding property in the same way as the Kensington Exhibitions proved a serious detriment to the property in their neighbourhood. I repeat it is no part of the work of a Railway Company to establish such places. Another and equally important point is that in Clause 7, the company actually propose that they shall have power to get rid of and rescind all the agreements they have made with respect to this land. That is a course the House of Commons will hardly sanction. These two acres of ground have been planted by the residents on the understanding that the land shall not be used, or the trees cut down, except for purposes of the railway. If the land is wanted for railway purposes, no one can possibly object; but it is reasonable to expect, inasmuch as Parliament has given compulsory powers to the company to acquire the land, that it shall be used simply for the purposes of the railway itself. I think we cannot pass the Bill or allow it to proceed to another stage unless we have a distinct understanding that all the clauses relating to the Metropolitan District Railway Company, starting or causing to be started a place of amusement of an evening fête or Cremorne nature, shall be cut out of the Bill. It is quite certain, if this proposal had been made in the early days of the company, it would not have got power to acquire the land. For these reasons, I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. R. KELLY: I bag to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. As one living in the neighbourhood of this triangular piece of ground, I may say that it can be of no good except for the purposes of the railway or an open space. There is practically no access to it. There was a period when those who lived in the houses abutting on it hoped

    1227
    it would be devoted to the purposes of a recreation ground in connection with a large educational establishment, but unfortunately that hope passed away with Mons. Capel, and since then there has been much anxiety on the subject. I do not wish to say anything against the Exhibitions which were held upon the land, more than that the residents have been exceedingly annoyed by the scenes that have gone on there, and they look with the greatest possible anxiety upon what they believe would be nothing less than another Cremorne in that part of London. I think the residents have a great right to complain, for the land was acquired by the company compulsorily for railway purposes, and there ought to be no deviation from the arrangement. I trust the House will not allow a precedent to be created which will allow a Railway Company to be the means of half ruining a neighbourhood by establishing a centre of immorality at a point where it would be worse than in almost any other part of the Metropolis. I may add that that neighbourhood is not over well supplied with open spaces. We had hoped this piece of land would have been set apart as an open space; and I think that if this House refuses to allow the company to do as they propose, the time may yet come when the land will be utilised as an open space for the benefit of the very large population in that neighbourhood
    MR. COURTNEY: I hope the House will not occupy much time in the discussion of this question. This is an omnibus Bill, and the hon. Member for Islington opposes only one clause, the question involved in which has been raised by the Petition lodged against the Bill, and which can be argued before the Select Committee to which the Bill will go. It is not the ordinary practice of the House to object to the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind upon objection to one clause. But any persons who may have rights in this land will have them protected, because the company, in answer to the objections of the residents in the neighbourhood, have agreed to insert words in the clause, which will leave their present rights and powers in the land absolutely unaffected. I hope the
    1228
    House, therefore, will at once reject the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    SUDBROOKE PARK.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements can be made for giving to the public access to Sudbrooke Park (which adjoins Richmond Park, and is separated from it only by a light iron railing), and also for allowing clubs and other bodies willing to bear the expense of laying down cricket pitches to play cricket there, that game being at present forbidden irk Richmond Park?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: Sudbrooke Park was purchased by the Crown in 1841, at a total cost of £34,856, in order to prevent Richmond Park from being spoilt by the erection of unsuitable buildings in its neighbourhood. Of the 130 acres, 20 were added to Richmond Park. I do not think it is necessary to add any more to the 2,000 acres already available to the public in Richmond Park. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests will be prepared to consider any application that may be made for the use of a portion of the ground for cricket and other games.

    ST. AUGUSTINE'S SCHOOL.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the accounts of the St. Augustine's Boys' School, as published in the "Annual Statement of Work and Funds of the Parish, for the year ending December 31st, 1890," there are charged to the debit of the school the following amounts:—£26 12s. 9d. Sunday school expenses, and deficit on treats £16 8s. 8d., half expenses of parish house; whether these charges appear in the Statement of Accounts furnished to the Department; and whether they are a legal charge on the school fund; and, if not, what steps he proposes, to take in the matter?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: If the hon. Member will kindly put his question in a form which will enable me to identify the school to which he refers, I shall be happy to furnish him with all the information in my power.

    STREET LIGHTING IN EAST LONDON.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the very inadequate lighting of the by-streets in the Eastern districts of London; and whether he could address representations to the Local Authorities, urging them to attend to this important matter?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): My attention has not been directed to the inadequate lighting of the by-streets in the Eastern districts of London, and I have received no complaints on the subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department has communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police, with the view of ascertaining whether there are any by-streets in the districts referred to where additional lighting is required, and if it should appear to be necessary I will communicate with the Vestries of the parishes on the subject.

    RAILWAY RATES.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the general public interest involved in the settlement of Railway Rates, and with the object of avoiding the possibility of technical objections being raised to any "Appearances" before the Joint Committee to which the Railway Provisional Order Bills are to be referred, he will be good enough to consider the advisability of endeavouring to procure the passing of a Resolution in each House of Parliament, to the effect—
    "That all the Petitions against the Provisional Order Bills and Schedules, and Maximum Rates and Charges and Classifications of Merchandise Traffic comprised therein, be referred to the Committee on the Bills, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and that Counsel be heard in favour of the Bills against such Petitions;"
    1230
    and if he will, either by the same Resolution, or in some other manner, provide for the enlargement of the time during which Petitions may be presented in respect of the Provisional Order Bills, so as to enable ample opportunity for farmers, traders, and others to prepare and present Petitions in regard thereto?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: Yes, Sir; I think the suggestion made in the question of the hon. Baronet is a reasonable one, and I shall be prepared to give effect to it at the proper time. As at present informed, I am inclined to think that the best means of doing so, so far as this House is concerned, will be to pass a Resolution in terms similar to those which are in use when Bills are referred to what are known as Hybrid Committees. The procedure in the other House of Parliament is somewhat different, but the matter shall have my attention, and I shall be prepared to communicate with the officers of that House on the subject.

    PLANK BEDS FOR CASUAL PAUPERS.
    MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is true that no casual paupers in the Metropolis are any longer required to lie upon plank beds; whether casual paupers in any union ward in England or Wales are still required to lie on plank beds; and, if so, what is the name of the union or unions; and whether the Local Government Board will take immediate steps for abolishing them?
    MR. LONG: In the casual wards in the Metropolis there is no union in which wooden beds are used for the casual paupers. The question of the use of these wooden beds in casual wards has been receiving the attention of the Local Government Board, and they have obtained information from their Inspectors on the subject. These beds are in very general use in some of the districts in England, and especially in the North, and their use is defended on the ground that they are more cleanly than mattresses. It would appear that the question whether or not there is any hardship attending the sleeping on these beds must mainly depend on the number and thickness of the rugs which are supplied to the inmate and on which he can lie;

    1231
    and I am assured by the Inspectors that, although vagrants show no indisposition to complain to them if they consider that they have cause, no complaints are made as to these beds. In cases where these wooden beds are used, and it appears to the Inspector that there is any ground for complaint as to the insufficiency of the rugs, the attention of the Guardians shall be drawn to the matter.

    TELEGRAPH REVISION SCHEME.
    EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state at what date the revision scheme in telegraph offices throughout the United Kingdom will be completed?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The revision scheme to which the noble Lord apparently alludes was carried into effect in July last. The corollary measure, which is independent of that revision, and only deals with a comparatively small number of superior officers, is now engaging the attention of the Treasury.

    LIVERPOOL CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
    EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Central Telegraph Office buildings at Liverpool are unhealthy and unsatisfactory; and, if so, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    MR. RAIKES: Assuming that the noble Lord is referring to the head post office at Liverpool, I have to state that the special inquiry mentioned in my reply of December 8 last to the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division has been made, and that the whole subject is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

    CONDITION OF CASUAL WARDS.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by Mr. William Booth as to the condition of casual wards, and confirmed by a letter published in the Standard of the 18th instant, signed "A Private Inquiry Officer," who, professing to write from "personal experiences last summer" of 36 casual wards
    1232
    in various parts of the country, states that—
    "The blankets, bedding (when there is any), and the boards are swarming with vermin, and are a disgrace to the Inspectors or supervisors of the parishes to which they belong;"
    and whether he is in a position to contradict these statements; and, if not, whether he will direct the Inspectors of the Local Government Board to give special attention to the condition of the casual wards?
    MR. LONG: The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the statements referred to, including those in the letter signed "A Private Inquiry Officer" which appeared in the Standard newspaper. It will be realised, when the class of persons who usually frequent the casual wards is borne in mind, that it is not always easy to keep the wards entirely free from vermin, but I have no reason to doubt that proper efforts are made to secure this. The casual wards of the workhouse should, of course, receive the attention of the Inspector as much as any other wards of the workhouse, and the Inspectors are fully aware of this. If the Board receive from the hon. Member, or from the writer of the letter referred to, any definite statements with regard to any particular casual ward, they will be quite prepared to cause special inquiry to be made as to the allegations.

    SMOKE ABATEMENT IN LONDON.
    SIR HENRY TYLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the Bill to be introduced "to amend and consolidate the laws relating to the public health in the Metropolis," it is proposed to deal with the question of smoke and fogs, from which the Metropolis has recently suffered so much; and whether he will consider the desirability of instituting an inquiry on this important subject by a Committee of the House, or otherwise?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will very soon circulate a Bill to amend and consolidate the law as to public health in the Metropolis, and my hon. Friend will, I hope, be content to

    1233
    await the publication of this Bill for an answer to his first question. A Committee of the House of Lords sat in 1887 to investigate the subject of smoke in the Metropolis, and I do not think any new light will be thrown on the subject by another inquiry of this nature.
    LORD E. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has seen the letter of Messrs. Elliot and Co., in the Times of yesterday, giving the simple explanation of the presence of the black smoke which he stated on Tuesday last was frequently seen issuing from their engine on the Thames Embankment; and whether, in the face of that explanation, and in face of the atmospheric conditions by which we have been surrounded for the past few days, the Government have still no intention of investigating the merits of an invention which promises to render perfectly simple the process of entirely freeing London from all smoke?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The investigation of the merits of this invention seems to be a matter for a specialist; but, so far as the Metropolitan Police are competent to do so, the scheme will be inquired into and a Report made to the Secretary of State.

    BACCARAT.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Solicitor to the Treasury, when prosecuting clubs for allowing baccarat to be played, has always described the game as an illegal game, and that Magistrates have invariably convicted; and whether the advisers to the Solicitor of the Treasury are also the advisers to the Home Secretary?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Solicitor to the Treasury that he has no recollection of ever having prosecuted a club for allowing baccarat or any other game to be played, and he has had no occasion to describe it as stated, nor is he aware that Magistrates have invariably convicted. When the Secretary of State has occasion to seek legal advice he consults the Law Officers of the Crown. Their advice is also at the disposal of the Solicitor of the Treasury.

    SOUTH HETTON COAL MINE.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that a certain portion of the South Hetton Coal Mine, namely, the furnace drifts and flues, being considered by the workmen to be in a dangerous condition, owing to the intense heat when men are compelled to go in and clean them, the Inspector of Mines for the district has been requested in writing by the workmen to inspect this portion of the mine, or to cause it to be inspected, and has refused to do so; whether it is competent to the Inspector of Mines, on his own authority, to refuse to inspect a portion of a mine under such circumstances, when requested to do so by the workmen; and assuming the facts to be as stated in this question, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Inspector, who is now in London on duty, informs me that he has not the actual correspondence before him, but that he received a letter complaining of the heat during the cleaning out of the furnace drift. He at once saw the manager on the subject, who stated that in future the fire should be put out during such cleaning, and, as a matter of fact, the fire was put out on the following day. I do not understand that the Inspector refused to inspect that portion of the mine. It is the duty of Inspectors to visit and inspect a mine either on invitation or complaint, even if it be an anonymous complaint.

    IRELAND—RELIEF OF DISTRESS.
    SIR T. ESMONDE, for Mr. FOLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his special attention has been drawn to the immediate necessity of opening relief works in the Islands of Turbot and Innisturk and the townlands of Coolacly and Bally connell, with the view of preventing the poor people in these localities from dying for want of food; and whether he has taken any steps to relieve the destitute condition of the people?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Relief works have been ordered to be opened in the Islands mentioned.

    1235
    With regard to the townlands named, which happen to be in the Union of Clifden, railway works are in operation in their neighbourhood.

    ARRESTS AT CASTLEREA.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a list of the persons arrested under warrants issued from the Court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and presided over by Mr. Brady, R.M., at Castlerea, County Roscommon, showing the hours at which the arrests were made, and distinguishing the cases in which summonses were served before the warrants to arrest were made?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have little doubt the particulars can be given, but if the hon. Member will put down the question for some day next week I shall endeavour to answer it.

    THE OFFICE OF HIGH SHERIFF IN IRELAND.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the frequent complaints made in the public Press by gentlemen of limited means who are compelled to serve the office of High Sheriff in Irish counties, with its accompanying considerable expense; and whether he will take some step, either by legislative enactment or otherwise, to relieve gentlemen whose net incomes are within a certain margin from being compelled to accept a position which entails on them an expense which their incomes are unable to bear?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have had for some time under their careful consideration the great hardship which exists in compelling persons to serve in the office of High Sheriff, which, though now practically an honorary one, entails considerable personal expense. The matter can, however, only be dealt with by legislation, and I fear that there is no chance of any Bill on the subject passing in the present state of business.

    THE CASE OF JOHN SAWEY.
    COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
    1236
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether the man, named John Sawey, who was convicted of stabbing Sergeant Greer, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, at Castlewellan, on the 18th of April last, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on the 3rd of June, and, at the expiration of that term, to find sureties to be of good behaviour for 12 months, or, in default, to be imprisoned for a further term of 12 months, is now at large, though a period of over 10 months of his sentence is unexpired; whether this man had been previously convicted of serious offences against property in the town of Castlewellan; whether it is true, as is rumoured, that he has been released from a lunatic asylum, to which he had been transferred on doctor's certificate; and whether he has entered into any recognizances to keep the peace in accordance with the sentence passed on him on the 3rd of June; and, if not, whether any, and what, precautions have been taken to protect the inhabitants of Castlewellan from the probable effects of a recurrence of his homicidal and destructive monomania?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The facts are substantially as stated in the question. The man was transferred from, Belfast Prison to Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, from which he was subsequently discharged on the grounds of health, with a view to transfer to a local asylum, where he became an ordinary patient, whence he was afterwards discharged by statute, the resident medical superintendent reporting that the man was in an advanced stage of diabetes, and showing no mental symptoms. As regards the inquiry in the last part, the man has not entered into recognisances, but the Governor of Dundrum Asylum reported of the man that he was a quiet, inoffensive, and a very rational patient.

    UNIVERSITY JURISDICTION.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge having sentenced Kate Elsdon to 21 days' imprisonment for the alleged offence of street walking, and that the trial of the girl took place in private, without evidence on oath and without the presence of a clerk; whether he will

    1237
    consider the expediency of bringing in a Bill to put an end to the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor over the inhabitants of Cambridge who are not members of the University; whether he has observed that Mr. Baron Pollock sentenced this girl to 21 days' imprisonment for escaping from the prison of the University; and whether he will consider of granting her a free pardon?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a newspaper report of the case in question The Vice Chancellor's Court at Cambridge is a Court of Record, which has existed for several centuries under the authority of Royal Charters confirmed by Act of Parliament; and recent decisions of the Supreme Court have recognised that its peculiar restraining jurisdiction over certain classes of the female inhabitants of Cambridge who are not members of the University,
    "Was necessary for the preservation of discipline and morals and the prevention of the disorder which the age and disposition of the younger students would tend to produce."
    I do not think it expedient to introduce a Bill to destroy their jurisdiction. As to the particular case of Kate Elsdon I will communicate with the learned Judge.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to secure to these unfortunate persons a public trial, and evidence given on oath?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor's Court has been reviewed elaborately by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am not asking about the Supreme Court; I do not care a sixpence about the Supreme Court; what I ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of this House, considers it right and proper that the trial of any person should be conducted in private, and that person sent to prison without having counsel, and with nobody present but the Vice Chancellor and a couple of bulldogs, and without evidence given on oath?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I do not consider it to be any part of my duty to inquire into the manner in which any lawfully-constituted Court exercises its jurisdiction where no abuses have been brought to my notice.

    PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF INDIA.
    MR. GROTRIAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Secretary of State has repeatedly enjoined on the Government of India that, in the Public Works Department of India, fair treatment should be meted out, as between the Civil and Military Officers, in the matter of promotion and in other matters; and that, by notification 89 G. in the Gazette of India, of 13th January, 1890, a resolution was published, in which it was stated that the number of appointments sanctioned for the Military Works and Public Works Departments were distributed as follows:—one chief engineer and six superintending engineers for the Military Works Department, to 13 chief engineers and 32 superintending engineers in the Civil Department; and it was announced that
    "The Governor General in Council had been pleased to rule that in future there shall be a separate scale for the promotion of chief and superintending engineers of the Military and Public Works Departments respectively:"
    whether he is aware that in the following month a Circular 390 G. of 26th February, 1890, was issued by the Government of India in the Public Works Department to the Military Works Department, stating that superintending engineers in that branch (i.e. Royal Engineer Officers on Military duty) would be eligible for appointments as chief engineers in the Provincial Works Branch of the Public Works Department; and whether these contradictory orders have been issued with the assent of the Secretary of State; and, if not, whether he will direct a withdrawal of notification No. 390 G. of 26th February, 1890?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (SIR JOHN GORST,: The subject of the distribution of promotion and appointments as between the Civil and Military Offices in the Public Works Department of India has already engaged the attention of the Secretary of State, who is in communication with the Government of India on the question.

    REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Ministers propose

    1239
    to bring in in the present Session, the Bill for the reform of the House of Lords which they introduced in 1888, or in any other manner to give effect to the Resolution, to which they then declared that they attached much importance, to introduce some change in the composition of that House?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian was of opinion that any measure, great or small, dealing with the constitution of the House of Lords could only be undertaken by the virgin energies of a Session, and I see no prospect in the present state of business of carrying any such measure except by general consent, of which I have no hope.
    MR. BRYCE: Was not the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made on the 10th of July, and does not the right hon. Gentleman feel any difference between the 20th of February and the 10th of July?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; there is, for instance, a difference in temperature. But we have embarked on serious and difficult legislative proposals already, and there is not a hope of that general consent which is necessary, seeing that we have other duties to discharge.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to give notice that I shall oppose any Bill brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman for the reform of the House of Lords.

    PETER CALLAGHAN.
    MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what was the nature of the last Medical Report with reference to the eyesight of Peter Callaghan, of Crossmaglen, County Armagh, now an inmate of Chatham Convict Prison; whether he has lost entirely the sight of one of his eyes since his imprisonment, and the sight of the other has been affected by sympathy and likely to be lost; if he will enlarge the prisoner before his eyesight is altogether lost, or at least give him a ticket of leave as is usually done in cases where the prisoner might have suffered from many years of penal servitude; if he can say by whom the last visit to this prisoner was paid, and if he is now entitled to a visit according to the Prison Rules; and
    1240
    how long the prisoner has been in hospital during his imprisonment in Chatham Convict Prison?
    MR. MATTHEWS: A special Report was made in September last by Dr. Hartridge, opthalmic surgeon to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. In his opinion the right eye was quite normal and healthy, and he saw no reason why it should not remain so. The sight of the left eye was lost from an accident some years ago before Callaghan's imprisonment. Sir J. Rid son Bennett also reported to the visitors in April last that the sight of the eye was destroyed by the original injury six months before entering prison, and that there was absolutely nothing to be done for it when the convict came to the prison. These Reports from eminent authorities afford no justification for the suggestion that imprisonment has endangered or injured his eyesight. The prisoner was last visited by the hon. Member himself in August last, and he is now due for another visit. He has been in hospital four times—105 days in all—since he was admitted to Chatham Prison in 1884.
    MR. BLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me another visit to the prisoner?
    MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. Member will apply in the usual way I have no doubt his application will be considered.

    MR. DILLON AND MR. O'BRIEN.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of which I have given him private notice. I desire to know whether it is the fact, as stated in one of this morning's papers, that the Member for East Mayo, at present confined in Galway Prison, is unwell; and, if so, whether he has been examined by the visiting surgeon, and whether any order as to his treatment has been made in consequence?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have received no information at all bearing upon the point to which the hon. Member refers. There is a most excellent prison physician at Galway, and I am sure every attention will be paid to the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. SEXTON: I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's

    1241
    further attention to the report that at one of the stopping places between London and Galway, Clonmel, the hon. Member for East Mayo was placed in an infirmary cell; that on the railway journey to Galway the hon. Member did not seem to be well, but on reaching Galway was placed in an ordinary cell, whilst the hon. Member for East Cork was put in an infirmary cell; and whether both these hon. Members were examined by a surgeon at Clonmel and Galway?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt the hon. Members were examined, but if the hon. Member will give notice of the question inquiries will be made.

  MOTION.

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Cross, Bill to amend "The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cross, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Gully, Mr. John Kelly, and Mr. Talbot.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 227.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    CHURCH IN WALES.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD-MORGAN: I rise to call the attention of the House to the injustice of the continued existence of the Established Church in Wales, and to move:—
    "That, as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people, and ministers only to a small minority of the population, its continuance as an Established Church in the Principality is an anomaly and an injustice which ought no longer to exist."
    Hither to this Motion has been submitted to the House by hon. Gentlemen who have grown grey in the service of the nation—gentlemen whose experience in this House has gained for them the respect of their Parliamentary Colleagues of every political shade, and whose Parliamentary services have earned for them the admiration, esteem, and affection of
    1242
    their fellow countrymen. My experience here, compared with theirs, has been brief, and I ask the indulgence of the House in regard to the observations I have to make. Though I lack experience, I trust I shall not lack earnestness in advocating the claims of the Principality to Disestablishment, and in calling attention to the anomaly of maintaining an Established Church in Nonconformist Wales. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House may not have any great respect for the Welsh nation, nor for the national instincts of Wales, and perhaps the people of Wales have instinctively but little respect for them; but if gentlemen opposite would only listen to the arguments which can be adduced in favour of Disestablishment in Wales, and, instead of looking at this matter through the spectacles of Party, would endeavour to regard it with eyes undimmed by bigotry and with minds unbiassed by prejudice, they would speedily respect the cause we are advocating. I do not expect to receive a great deal of consideration from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in referring to Wales, has shown as little consideration for the feelings of the Welsh people as he has for the heads of Irishmen; and his contemptuous and contemptible phrase, de minimis non, applied to Wales, aroused as much indignation in the Principality as did his batons and battering-rams across the water. Now, Sir, why should one particular section, numerically small, enjoy privileges which the others, numerically great, do not share with them? Why should the Church of England be the recipient of the patronage of the State when the great majority of the people worship elsewhere than in that Church? If the people constitute the State, the Church of England in Wales is not entitled to be considered the State Church. It is not, and never has been, the Church of the people, and in all probability it never will be. If the people's Church is entitled to be considered the State Church, or if a State Church should exist at all—a question on which I hold very definite opinions—then Nonconformity ought to be established as the State religion of Wales. But no Noncon-

    1243
    formist, no Welshman, asks for State patronage, State endowment, or State establishment for Nonconformity. The Nonconformist Church of Wales, the great Church of the nation, has established itself in the hearts of the people, and no Act of Parliament can ever remove it from the throne of its authority. If the tests of custom and usage are to be applied in this matter, then Dissent is entitled to equality with the Church, for the Principality has almost universally adopted Nonconformity as its religion. What the Welsh Dissenter asks for and claims as his inalienable right is that those who differ from him in externals, though not in faith, shall have no privileges which he does not equally enjoy. From the time of its establishment by force until to-day the Church of England in Wales has ever been out of harmony with the national spirit. The Church it supplanted, Roman Catholic though it was, was the Church of the people, for when Christianity first gained a foothold in Britain it found a soil congenial to its growth in Wales. There religion and learning grew side by side. Churches arose and great schools were established which supplied scholars to the neighbouring nations and monasteries and abbeys multiplied all over the land. One Welsh county, if it were inclined to boast, could claim to be the birthplace of more saints than the whole of England. Who ever heard of the Church of England in Wales producing a single saint? Wales has saints without number, but they lived at a period anterior to that during which the Church of England was forced down the throats of the people From the suppression of the ancient Church of Wales in 607 until recent years continual attempts have been made to keep Wales under the heel of English tyranny. There was a foreign garrison in the land. The clergyman, who could not speak the language of the people, was supposed to be in legal possession, although, like the Irish landlord, he preferred to live a long way from the village in which it was his duty to be interested. Attempts were made to suppress the Welsh tongue in the same way as attempts were made to suppress Welsh Nonconformity, but in both cases the attempts were failures.
    1244
    Leaving for the moment remote history we will now deal with more recent events. At the Swansea Church Congress, the late Dean of Bangor formulated a terrible indictment against the Church of which he was one of the brightest ornaments. Speaking of the 150 years which succeeded 1700, he said—
    "For 150 years every teacher whose name lives in the hearts of the Welsh people has been, without exception, a Nonconformist. While the Bishops were laying hands upon unfit men, the natural, heaven-born teachers of Wales were influencing thousands in the chapel and cymmanfa. Of the clergy those who were educated knew no Welsh, and those who knew Welsh were not educated. Those who had something to say could not say it to the people, and those who could say it had nothing to say."
    To-day, Sir, perhaps things are somewhat different. The Church has to some extent awakened from its sleep of centuries, and is putting forth endeavours by every means at its disposal—advertising and otherwise—to attract the attention of the people of the Principality. Within the last few days I have been favoured with an exceedingly clever circular letter from a rev. gentleman who lives at Brymbo, near Wrexham. He says—
    "No sooner had I built one church in this parish at the cost of £2,300 than I am pressed to build another one. This church is to be a Welsh church. Ever since their church fell down, 20 years ago, the Welsh congregation have had no better building than the day-schoolroom to worship in. Last year that congregation, in addition to paying their own current expenses, handed over £20 towards the Curates' Fund. They alone have collected this £200,"
    and he gives a fac simile of the cheque, which is somewhat similar to the notes on the "bank of elegance."
    MR. BYRON REED: Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me? He has omitted the next line of the letter.
    MR. W. P. MORGAN: The next line reads as follows:—
    'They alone have collected these £200, many of the colliers giving one or two guineas, and as much as £5 coming from some colliers' houses."
    More shame say I that a rich Church like the Church of England should try and wring from the homes of these colliers a sum of £5 which the poor men could ill afford to pay. Now let me read the letter which accompanied this cheque:—

    1245
    ''Dear Vicar,—
    We have much pleasure in handing you enclosed cheque for £200, the sum raised by our house-to-house collection. The women hope to clear £100 by their sale of work, and between the laying of the foundation stone and the opening service we hope a further £100 will be raised, making £400 in all. Had the parish not so recently given £700 towards the building of the new English Church there would have been sufficient money forthcoming from us. May God bless our humble efforts, and create much sympathy for us, a Welsh congregation in a Welsh parish, without a church to worship in!"
    That means that a number of English people have migrated to this part of Wales, where industries are increasing to some extent, and shows that the alleged growth of the Church of England in. Wales is not due to the Welsh people, but to the English people who migrate there. This letter, to my mind, shows that conclusively, otherwise the vicar of this essentially Welsh parish would have first endeavoured to collect the money for the building of the Welsh church, and afterwards, if there had been any balance left, would have set about the building of an English church. But nothing of the sort—he spent £2,300 upon an English church, and then gave the Welsh people something from the fragments after the English church had had the solid loaves and fishes. So much for the Rev. Hugh Roberts of Brymbo. Now I wish to refer very shortly to some statistics, which will show—and I do not think that the figures can be questioned by any hon. Member—that the Church of England in Wales has, in the words of the Motion, "failed to fulfil its professed object." In 1676 the Church of England in Wales boasted of 391,297 adherents, while the Nonconformists in that year only had 10,960, so that we find that in 1676 the Church of England in Wales held 96 per cent. of the worshipping people of the Principality, the Nonconformists claiming only 4 per cent. of them. It may be, and doubtless will be, urged that at that time the Church of England was nominally, if not spiritually, the Church of the people. Whatever it might have been then, I think I can show the House that beyond all question the Church of to-day has ceased to be even the nominal Church of the people. The Church boasted in 1676 of more than 390,000
    1246
    people; but when we get to the year 1801 we find the Church had so far lost its grip upon the people—if, indeed, it ever had a grip—that the Church only provided sittings for 233,730 people, and it will be safe to assert 200,000 of these seats were never filled. In the same year Nonconformist churches provided sittings for 115,107. It will, therefore, be seen that in 1801 they had increased from 4 per cent. to something near 50 per cent. And then what about the open air meetings, the cymmawfas, where the people used to assemble in thousands for public worship, and to hear the Gospel preached under the canopy of Heaven, in the manner in which our great Master first gave His Gospel to the world? Nonconformity was too poor to build churches at that time, but, fortunately for the Principality, the spiritual growth of the people was accompanied by the increase of temporal prosperity, and in 1851 the state of things was very different to that existing at the commencement of the century. According to the Public Worship Census Report, while the Church of England in Wales provided accommodation for 268,953 people, other churches outside the pale of the Church of England provided for 599,520. Right hon. Gentlemen who profess to belong to this Church and sit on the Treasury Bench smile and sneer at these figures; but they are figures which they cannot dispute, and if they had the true principles of Christianity at heart they would give the people of Wales what they want— equality in religions matters. That is all they ask. Although numerically much stronger, they do not wish to be in a better position than the Church of England; they only claim equality of position in religion. According to the Report from which I have quoted, the Roman Catholic Church provided sittings for 2,823 persons in North. Wales, and now I will give the percentages and the precise figures, so that there may be no question hereafter, and that advocates of the Church, like the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Reed) may have the opportunity of meeting facts and figures in detail. In North Wales the percentage of sitting accommodation in churches to population was, in the year I speak of, as follows: Church of England, 28·3 percent.; Nonconformists, 62·5 per cent. In South

    1247
    Wales the figures were: Church of England, 25·5 per cent.; Nonconformists (not including Roman Catholics), 57 per cent. In 1851, therefore, the Church of England provided for only a quarter of the population of Wales. On March 30 in that year, the attendances at Church of England places of worship were 109,533, while on the same day Nonconformist attendances were 432,274. The churches were not half filled; the chapels were filled to overflowing, independently of many open air meetings held throughout the Principality. In 1879 the Church of England Congress was held at Swansea, the Church people, I suppose, hoping that by coming into direct contact with the Welsh people they might inspire them with the fire and zeal existing among the Church Party.! At that Congress the late Archbishop of Canterbury asked "why they saw so many dissenting chapels in every valley and on every hillside." The power of Welsh dissent appeared to be unknown to the heads of the English Church. The hon. Member for the Swansea District (Sir H. H. Vivian) promptly supplied the answer to the query—
    "There was more vitality in a religion voluntarily supported than in a largely endowed religion."
    Lord Aberdare, another staunch Churchman who once sat for the constituency I have now the honour to represent, said at that Congress—
    "Religion would have disappeared from the country but for the exertions of the Nonconformists."
    At this same Congress the Dean of Bangor, from whom I have already quoted, further declared that the Church in Wales "had lost five-sixths of the Welsh people." Indeed, the wonder is that the Congress did not proceed to terminate its proceedings by passing such a resolution for disestablishment as that which I am now submitting to the House. Subsequently to the Congress, controversy arose, and questions were raised, as to the number of persons attending the different places of worship on Sundays, and in 1881 or 1882, I am not clear which, a census was taken of the public worship attendance in four representative towns, Carnarvon, Llanelly, Conway, and Wrexham. The attendances on a given Sunday were as follows: Church of
    1248
    England, 3,902; other places of worship, 14,801.
    MR. BYRON REED: May I ask the hon. Member was this an official or a private census?
    MR. W. P. MORGAN: I have many statistics from which I shall be delighted to give the hon. Member all the information I can. This is information supplied by a private census.
    MR. BYRON REED: Hear, hear.
    MR. W. P. MORGAN: They are facts, let me tell the hon. Member for Bradford, which have never been disputed, never been contradicted by any of the heads of the Church. I do not think the hon. Member, the great champion of Church government in North Wales, if he will visit the Principality, can doubt that Nonconformity is the form of worship adopted almost universally by the people, and that the Church of England is nowhere in comparison. The figures I have given are beyond dispute in the four towns mentioned—Church, 3,902; Nonconformity, 14,801. In 1884 a Sunday Church Attendance Census was taken at Swansea—a representative Welsh town—and I do not think there can be any question as to the accuracy of the figures: Church of England attendances on a given Sunday, 8,834; other places of worship on the same day, 40,702. In Cardigan—the county in which the Church of England in Wales has its Training College, and where one would think the Church would be somewhat stronger than in other parts of Wales, because it is clear the Church would scarcely set up its Training College in a spot where the Establishment has the least sympathy among the inhabitants—in Cardigan we find attendances: Established Church, 666; Free Churches, 5,693. Look at the diversity of the figures; see how they have altered since the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th; altered to such a remarkable extent that I do not see how it can be claimed that the Church, as established, is the Church of the people of Wales. In largely populated districts like the Rhondda Valley, a district so well represented by my hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Abraham)—in a district such as that, composed almost entirely of a working-class population, the figures give a comparison which, ought to bring

    1249
    a blush to the cheek of any man on that side of the House who gets up to support the Church of England Establishment in Wales. The incomes of the people in the Rhondda Valley are small; they work hard for their daily bread, but they build their chapels, and supply the ministers who provide for the spiritual wants of the people. In the Rhondda Valley the attendances were: Established Church, 3,949; Free Churches, 51,712. Who, in the face of these figures, will dare contend that the Church of England is the Church of the Welsh people? Lest some of the opponents of Disestablishment may be inclined to imagine that the figures I have so far touched upon have a local rather than a national significance, I will call attention to figures which I know may be received with a certain degree of irony by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They are vouched for by Mr. Thomas Gee, of Denbigh, the able editor of the leading vernacular newspaper in Wales, the Banner. I quote my statistics from Mr. Gee's letters to the Dean of St. Asaph's, published in the Welsh language, and, before quoting them, I may say that their accuracy has never been challenged by the Dean. The census was taken on January 9, 1887. In North Wales the attendances for the day, including morning and evening services, were: Nonconformist chapels, 317,078; Church, 87,438. In South Wales: Nonconformist chapels, 468,731; Churches, 89,047. So it appears that in 1887 the attendances at Church were in the North about one in every five, and in the South one in every six of the Nonconformists. But, to further strengthen my case, and so that our opponents may not be able to say that the House has only had ancient statistics submitted to it, I will give the result of a Sunday census taken within the last two months. The editor of the Genedl, another enterprising vernacular newspaper, has recently sent round a special commission to gauge the actual attendance in the Churches of England in North Wales, and through the courtesy of the editor I am able to give the House the information obtained. In one church, Llithvaen, eight persons attended service; in another, Pystyll, seven persons; in Llandedwrn two persons; in Penllwch two persons attended
    1250
    service, and the congregation in this instance consisted of the parson's wife and the churchwarden; and in another church visited by the commission, Ciedio, near Nevin, the commissioner himself formed the entire congregation. So that if he had not attended from motives of curiosity, the parson would have had the church to himself. This reminds one of the anecdote of Dean Swift, who, finding only the clerk in attendance at service, proceeded in this form: "Dearly beloved Roger, the Scripture moveth you and me in sundry places, &c." In a periodical which has lately come before the public, the Religious Review of Reviews, a magazine which gives a considerable amount of information respecting various denominations, and which, from the comprehensiveness of its scope, is likely to have a broadening influence upon the religious world of to-day, I notice an able article by Mr. Bompas, Q.C. That gentleman argues for disestablishment without disendowment, and suggests that, the initiative should come from the Church. But if we wait until that suggestion is carried out I am afraid we shall wait a long time. I do not believe the Church will inaugurate any movement of the kind unless it is driven into a corner; and I object to the Church appropriating to herself property which is undeniably national. The Church take the initiative? Why has the Church in Wales aroused from its sleep? Because the desire exists to give spiritual instruction to the people? Certainly not; it is the cry of disestablishment and the fear of losing its loaves and fishes that has awakened the Church. Were it not for endowments and tithes we should have a very sorry battle, and, on behalf of the Nonconformists of Wales, a very easy victory. Now let me glance at the Church of England from an economic standpoint. The annual income of the Church of England in Wales is estimated at £256,000, and the nominal members of I that Church are about 250,000. This is a liberal computation, and I doubt if there is that number of actual members. But allowing 250,000, the cost of religious ministration to this section of the community is £1 per head. That may not seem, nor do I think it is, at all unreasonable, until we come to compare it with the

    1251
    Nonconformist figures. What are the figures on the Nonconformist side? The annual income derived from voluntary subscriptions, given for the most part by working men—men whose wages do not admit of their giving large amounts, and therefore the sum must be made up by an enormous number of contributors—is no less than £400,000, and for this Nonconformity administers to the spiritual wants of at least a million people. Nonconformist ministers may be and doubtless are, in many cases underpaid, but they know perfectly well that if they have any talent at all that their talent will not remain long unrecognised; they know that advancement in the Nonconformist Church is by merit, not by favour, not by money, nor by influence—friendly or political—or otherwise. Those who are interested in the subject of "sweating" may with advantage turn their attention to what goes on in the Church of England. Whilst poor, hard-worked curates in large towns receive a paltry pittance of £120 a year, the Bishops live in Palaces, and for doing very little receive stipends equalling, in some instances, the emoluments of right hon. Gentlemen who occupy seats on the Treasury Bench. In the diocese of St. Asaph—the diocese which perhaps attracts more attention in this Debate from the interest the Bishop takes in this matter—in the diocese of St. Asaph there is a parish—Llandyrnog—with a population, including Dissenters, of only 475, where the clergyman enjoys a living worth £700 per annum, and there are many other similar cases, while in large towns the paltry pay of curates is a scandal of which Churchmen ought to be ashamed. I should like to call attention to a computation made by a clergyman of the Church of England, and I suppose his figures will be accepted even by the hon. Member for Bradford. In Clarke's Prebendaries the income of the Church is put down as £325,226, and this may be taken as the minimum amount, for it excludes annual payments from the Augmentation Fund and for pew rents, and adding these and local contributions we may call the amount £380,000 for the four Welsh dioceses. With this ministration is given to 350,000, including children, out of a population of 1,750,000. These figures differ from mine,
    1252
    but the result is practically the same. Doubtless we shall hear that many Nonconformist ministers are leaving their chapels and joining the Church of England. Certainly there are a few weak - kneed mediocrities who have gone over to the Church of England, but they are men of no intellectual capacity, otherwise their talents would be appreciated in the ranks of Nonconformity, and Dissenting congregations do give their ministers sometimes very handsome salaries indeed. On the other hand, we know that the ranks of Nonconformity have been reinforced by some of the noblest sons of the Church of England in Wales. We shall be told there is an awakening in the Church and signs of an earnest desire for reforms; but the cry of "disestablishment" has caused this—the fear of the loss of worldly wealth. The political influence of Nonconformity in Wales was asserted in 1868, when the Nonconformists returned as their special representative here my revered predecessor, the late Mr. Henry Richard. From that time until to-day it has been growing politically, socially, and religiously, and it now claims the equality which is due to it. Wales has not forgotten the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in his desire to give religious equality to the people of Ireland, was instrumental in disestablishing the Church in Ireland, and the Welsh Members are glad to see him in his place to-night, and hope that his voice will be lifted up for Wales as it was for Ireland. Wales has not forgotten the statesmanlike references made by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) in respect to the disestablishment of the Church of Scotland, and she hopes that if he does not by his voice support the Motion for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, he will do so by his vote. Wales has not forgotten the services to religious freedom which have been rendered to the people of this country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and I have every reason to hope the House will hear the right hon. Gentleman's voice in support of the Motion. Irish Members in the House will not fail to support us, because they received for

    1253
    their disestablishment valuable support from Welsh Members. I also hope we shall receive support for the Motion from the rank and file of those who call themselves Unionists. Whatever their opinions may be with respect to what they call the integrity of the Empire, I trust they will not abandon the professions they made to their constituents, and the principles they have promised to adopt, by failing to support the claim of the Welsh people on this occasion. But there is another class to whom I appeal—namely, those who profess no particular creed, who worship at no particular Church—men who are practical Christians, although they are not considered orthodox Christians—men who by their lives and their conduct towards their fellow-men show they are following out the teachings of the Great Master. I implore those men to assist the Welsh people in attaining their desire for religious equality. It may be asked whether the Church will suffer by disestablishment. I do not think it will. The members of the Church of England will take a far deeper and keener interest in their Church if it is less a Church of the priests and more of the people. It is true, if the Church is disendowed, Church people may have a little more to pay for their religion; but they can afford it. What I now ask for is a declaration that 4he time has arrived for the disestablishment of the Church. Take as an object lesson the Australian Colonies. In their infancy many of those colonies aided all religious denominations. Now, however, no Church receives State aid. What as the consequence? The Church of England in the Australian Colonies is as vigorous as Nonconformity in Wales. The people freely contribute to keep the Churches going, and they are far more popular than they otherwise would be. It will probably be argued that the Church in England and Wales is one and the same institution. That, I admit, is an argument which, upon the face of it, appears to commend itself to the House; but the Licensing Laws of England and Wales were the same, yet a Sunday Closing Act for Wales was passed at the direct wish of the people. An Intermediate Education Act—a measure of great and vital importance to the Principality—was passed at the
    1254
    request of the Welsh people, and Well's charity was dealt with in a manner which almost converted me to the belief that there is no necessity for Welsh Home Rule. I and my colleagues ask that effect should be given to the wishes of the people in respect to the Church; and the people of Wales have, by an overwhelming majority, expressed the opinion that the time has arrived for the disestablishment of the Church. There will be opposition to the Motion from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who blindly follow the Government. But I see sitting in his place the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston). I am sure the hon. Gentleman, as an ardent and proclaimed Nationalist, will hesitate before he goes into the lobby in opposition to the Motion. The hon. Gentleman will have to decide whether he will serve his country or his party, and in view of possible contingencies at Carnarvon he may possibly come to the conclusion that he will better serve his party by voting in favour of the Motion rather than against it. There is opposition even in Wales itself, but who are those in Wales who are opposed to disestablishment? Are they the representatives of the bulk of their countrymen? Are they the elect of the Welsh nation, the exponents of the will and desire of the people? No, they are nothing of the sort. They are the Bishops, and Deacons, and Archdeacons, and Canons, whose only claim to be the successors of the great Apostles seems to lie in inditing uncanonised epistles to the newspapers. The anti-disestablishment party in the House is led on this occasion by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. S. Leighton), and the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. B. Reed). It is a peculiar circumstance that the Government have been unable to find any representative of the people of Wales to propose any Amendment to the Motion. Although he comes from a neighbouring county, the hon. Member for Oswestry is of all men in the House the least capable of expressing an opinion with reference to the Welsh people. I join issue with the hon. Gentleman when he says in his Amendment that the Church claims no portion of its revenues from taxation. Tithes may not legally be designated as taxation, but still they are looked upon

    1255
    by the people of Wales as a most iniquitous system of taxation. It is well-known that the hon. Member for East Bradford, another spokesman of the Anti-Disestablishment Party, is the exponent of the opinions of the Church Defence Organisation. The hon. Gentleman receives his retainers and refreshers from the Church, and comes to the House periodically for the purpose of preventing the Welsh people, of whom he is absolutely ignorant, getting that which they so justly demand. If the Government and Parliament are desirous of having peace, harmony, and contentment in the Principality, they will agree to this Motion; they will not further irritate the people by bolstering up in their midst a Church in which they do not worship, a Church with which they have no sympathy, but will give them that equality in religious matters without which the people of Wales ought not to be, and never will be, satisfied.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh, people, and ministers only to a small minority of the population, its continuance as an Established Church in the Principality is an injustice which ought no longer to exist."—(Mr. Pritchard Morgan,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. DILLWYN: I cordially approve of the Motion of my hon. Friend whose speech has been so exhaustive and conclusive. I happened a day or two ago to come across the Record, and I have noticed in that newspaper that the Bishop of St. Asaph had declared that in about five years time the Church, so great is its progress in Wales, will be able to meet the Nonconformists on their own ground. I think the right rev. Prelate is greatly mistaken. I know Wales pretty well, for I have lived there all my life, and I consider that Welsh Nonconformists are more active and more decided than they ever were in my memory. My hon. Friend had alluded to the national instinct of the Welsh. I have no hesitation in
    1256
    saying there is no part of the United Kingdom where there is more distinct nationality on the part of the people than there is in Wales. The people have a literature of their own, a language of their own, and laws of their own. I believe that Welsh is more spoken now than it was when I was young. It is, perhaps, well to explain the reason why this question, which has been discussed in the House before, has been brought up again. The Welsh people are constantly urging their representatives to bring the question forward. Every day the people become more alive to the necessity of Disestablishment, and day by day it becomes more difficult for the Welsh members to resist the appeals made to them. But there is another reason which induced us to bring up the question. I and my hon. Colleagues know we shall not carry our Motion tonight, but the divisions which have taken place in past years have shown that the feeling in favour of Welsh nationality is increasing year by year, and it is our desire to again test that feeling. I do not expect justice so far as the Welsh Church is concerned at the hands of the gentlemen who at present occupy the ministerial benches, but we do expect justice at the hands of the English people. It is to the English people we appeal. We know that before very long there must be a General Election, and it is well, before that election takes place, that the masses in England should be reminded that the Welsh people are as much as ever opposed to the establishment of the Church. I am satisfied that if the Church in England occupied a similar position to the Church in Wales things would not remain unaltered for a single Session. I believe that at the next election the English people will do the Welsh justice, and that Welsh disestablishment will be amongst the foremost questions which will engage their attention. It is said that the disestablishment of the Church will be an act of spoliation and robbery. I do not know what spoliation and robbery means if disestablishment will be spoliation and robbery. What I understand spoliation to mean is the despoiling somebody of property which belongs to them. Does the Established Church belong to any particular body? Is there any particular body who holds

    1257
    it in fee simple, or as a bit of freehold? Not that I know of. It is national property held from the State. The Queen is at the head of it, and it is an arrangement organised by the State and aided by the State for the purpose of providing for religious ministration. The Established Church in Wales is the Church of a small minority of the population, and we ask the House to declare that its continuance is an anomaly and an injustice which ought no longer to exist.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I feel myself, Sir, indebted to the courtesy of the hon. Member opposite, who is to move the Amendment to this Motion, for having waived his claim to press that Amendment immediately after the speech of the Seconder of the Motion. I am bound to say that I am glad to have an early opportunity of intervening in the Debate, because I do not think that I am able to adopt wholesale all the statements made by the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion in his comprehensive speech. I shall exercise a just right in stating to the House, in my own tone and manner, my views on the question, and in dealing with the subject in a way less likely to sharpen the opposition than my hon. Friend found it necessary for himself to adopt, with the views he takes of the present action of the Established Church in Wales. If I go back for a period of 50 years—and my own knowledge of Wales has extended over the full range of that term—I could not speak of the Established Church in Wales at that period as I am able to speak of it now. At that period its administration was undoubtedly open in many ways to very heavy censure, and feebleness was everywhere—or almost everywhere—manifest in its discharge of its duties. At present, however, the case is different. I do not look at this Motion of my hon. Friend with a disposition to apply the microscope to its wording, because I might be obliged to say that it does not give full effect to my own views in one or two particulars. In the first place, I do not think that there is great historical precision in the words which, the Motion adopts, though I understand the motives leading to their adoption. There is, for instance, a phrase
    1258
    which describes the Established Church in Wales as the Church of England in Wales. As far as I know the history of the case—and I have done my best to acquaint myself with it, though I believe that there is no standard work on the history of the Established Church in Wales during the whole of the long period over which it has existed—but as far as I know that history, we might really speak with as much justice of the Church of Wales in England as of the Church of England in Wales, We know that towards the close of the sixth century of the Christian era—and I hope that the House will not be dismayed at my going back so far, for I will certainly pass over the intermediate period—when England was still barbarous to a great extent, and almost wholly dechristianised in the south, and east, and centre, Christianity existed and even flourished in the northern extremity—which was in partnership with Scotch Christianity—and also in portions of the west, which were connected with Wales. For St. Augustine or his representatives—the missionaries sent by Pope Gregory VIII.—were met by bodies of Welsh Christians, who represented the Christian Church existing in the country from a very early time, and reinforced by refugee British, who were driven by the Anglo-Saxon pressure into these western districts. These were the true representatives of the Church in Wales, which Church has, as far as I am aware, continued from that day to this—that is, looking at it from without and in its corporate capacity. This is a very curious history—the history of the Church in Wales. It would be difficult to find in any portion of Christendom a more signal example of noble, magnanimous and self-denying conduct on the part of the body of the people than the effort which has been made—especially during the present century—by the Nonconformists of Wales to make a provision for their own religion. It is not to be asserted that at all periods the Welsh people had felt the deficiency of that provision. It is a very curious fact that what is termed the Anglican administration, as it operated in Wales, conferred upon the people of Wales one very great and signal blessing, which was highly appreciated by them, and that was the introduction of their mother-tongue into the services of

    1259
    the Church. It was a thing which could be dispensed with, perhaps, in England, where the language was strong and where its roots ran through every fibre of the community. But in Wales the language was weak, drooping, and losing ground; and it was owing to the introduction of the mother-tongue into the services of the Church that the Welsh people were, for a long time after the Reformation, Established Churchmen. My hon. Friend will find testimony to that fact in the history of Mr. Hallam and in other historical authorities. In point of fact, no person could have more conclusively established the point than has the hon. Member himself to-night; because he went back—and I am very much obliged for the interesting information which he gave us—to the year 1676; and he showed us that at that time, while the strength of the Church was represented by 391,000 persons, the strength of Nonconformity at that period—that is to say, the strength of Puritanism—was represented by only 10,000. It would have been impossible at that period—if my hon. Friend had been a Member of the House of Commons in 1676 instead of in 1891—it would have been impossible for him at that time to have made a Motion to the effect that the Church in Wales had failed to fulfil its professed object and ministered only to a small minority of the population. After that came a period most unhappy and most deplorable for Wales, when the Welsh language was proclaimed and put aside, and when, in neglect of native claims, Englishmen came in to occupy every bishopric, every deanery, and every benefice throughout the Principality, quite irrespective of the voices of the people. Then the Welsh people were driven, as I may say, into the wilderness, and then the Welsh people, who are now and who have always been a most devout and most religious people, felt the grievous necessity under which they were placed, and they set about, what was for them, the gigantic effort of providing themselves with the means, the ordinances, and the material appliances of religion. That is the case; and it is a circumstance of great satisfaction to me that, in approaching the question as it now stands, I have nothing to do but to confess my sincere and hearty congratulations to both sides of this question
    1260
    in Wales. I believe that there is great activity in the Welsh Church. I have seen it grow under my own eye. I am not now speaking of my own parish. That is a large, populous parish, where the Welsh tongue has never been native, and which is, like many other parishes in Wales, much more English than Welsh in its circumstances. But speaking of the Church itself in Wales I do not hesitate to say that though I believe the precepts of Nonconformity are not narrowing, that the energy of Nonconformity is not diminished; that it retains its place in the hearts of the mass of the people; yet the efforts and exertions of the Church now and for a good many years, and the growing and increasing efforts, are such as do, in my opinion, great credit to the energy both of the clergy and of the laity of that Church. I render them ungrudging recognition; and I do not think it my duty on this occasion to withhold any portion of the praise which is their due. A representation was made to me to-day by a dignitary of the Established Church, and it is this. He founded himself on a book which is an Anglican authority—the Official Year Book of the Church of England, and which may be termed, in a certain sense, authoritative, and which is friendly to the Established Church in Wales. What he told me was this. That the rental of Wales, as compared with the total rental of England and Wales, was 4 per cent.; that the population of Wales, as compared with the total population of England and Wales, was 6 percent. But that the contributions of Churchmen towards religious objects and the support of the Church in Wales, as compared with the total contributions of England and Wales to the same objects, was not 4 per cent. or 6 per cent., but no less than 14 per cent. That is a statement which I think stands in strong, and I may say extraordinary, contrast with the extremely painful, nay the very disgraceful records of the past which is now becoming remote; and in endeavouring to do justice to Wales I find myself not in the slightest degree able, any more than I am disposed, to found this Motion upon the idea that there is on the part of the clergy of the Established Church in Wales the slightest tendency or disposition to neglect their duty, or that there is not

    1261
    abundant evidence of the inspiring efforts—and in many cases the very self-denying efforts—which they make to extend the administration of the Church and the means of meeting its local wants. I quite agree with my hon. Friend in one point which is not immaterial. He says, with perfect truth, that there is a very considerable English immigration into Wales. There is a mining immigration which leads to an English demand in the matter of religion; although I believe it is also a remarkable circumstance that the families of these English miners ultimately become Welsh, adopt the Welsh language, and tend to swell the number of persons speaking Welsh. But, at the same time, there is an English immigration. There is also a very considerable immigration of English to the watering-places of Wales. That may account for some portion of the remarkable figures which the defenders of the Established Church are able to allege on their own behalf; but I do not think that it at all abates what has been said in regard to the increasing devotion of the people, as well as of the ministers and the governors of the Church, in the prosecution of their duties. But then the question is asked why interfere with that state of things? If the Church is active and progressive and the Nonconformists are contented, why interfere? But, Sir, the Nonconformists are not contented—and the question is, whether they are entitled to be contented? Sir, the Nonconformists are making, in the most distinct terms, in a voice very audible indeed, and governed by all the forms of the Constitution, a demand which I, for one, think it my duty to listen to, and which I feel convinced before any great length of time has elapsed, even quite irrespective of the present divisions of Party, will have to listen to, and will be disposed to listen to. I agree with almost everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Seconder of this Motion, who spoke with a weight that belongs to his high character and his long devotion to this cause. I think he is perfectly right in what he said with respect to the vivid sentiment of nationality in Wales I do not think that the Welsh people are disposed to make inconvenient claims upon that subject. I believe that whatever they ask
    1262
    will be confined within the bounds of reason and moderation. But I do think that my hon. Friend is entirely justified in stating that that sentiment exists, and exists with great force and activity in Wales, and that the people of Wales will ask and will expect, and, so far as they constitutionally can, even will insist, that in the proceedings of the British Parliament due regard shall be paid to those several and distinct claims which the Welsh people within their own bounds and limits are warranted in making. Well, Sir, I am bound to say that in this matter I regard myself as having no title whatever to praise on the part of the Welsh Nonconformists. I have done nothing to press their cause forward. I have waited for their deliberate and sufficient expression of judgment upon it. If there is anyone entitled to praise in this matter, of those with whom in other times I was officially connected, undoubtedly it is my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale. Such is the modesty of my noble Friend that he shakes his head and repels the compliment. I must insist upon placing on his head the crown which he is entitled to wear, because it is a matter of record that when he was leader of the Liberal Party, and spoke in that capacity on an important occasion in Scotland—of course, I admit that the parallelism in the case of Scotland and Wales has yet to be confirmed; but still what I am now saying is simply to assert that my noble Friend did take a bold step as a leader, and entitled himself to great honour and credit on account of that bold step, when he declared in Scotland that the question of Disestablishment was a question which must be decided according to the sense of the people of Scotland, and that if the wish of the people of Scotland were in a direction contrary to the wish of the people of England, as declared by their Representatives, then the wish of the people of Scotland ought to prevail with respect to the continuance or discontinuance of their own ecclesiastical establishment. Well, Sir, I do not know whether my hon. Friend is inclined to insist strongly upon the want of parallelism between the case of Scotland and the case of Wales. But even in the case of Scotland, following the banner of my noble Friend and wait-

    1263
    ing till I thought there had been sufficient Parliamentary and electoral manifestation to place the matter of fact beyond all doubt, I gave a very deliberate adhesion and support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow last year. Following, as I said, the banner of my noble Friend, but unhappily following it, not in conjunction with the person of my noble Friend, I could not fully and absolutely comprehend in my innocence why he should be found in the opposite lobby after his authentic, authoritative declaration that disestablishment must be decided by the voice of the people of Scotland. I do not know whether I am right that my noble Friend did not deem the declaration of the decision and the sense of Scotland to be sufficient to make it imperative upon him to give his vote in support of the Motion. Well, I do not know how that is, but I think that when you look at the state of opinion in Wales and the form in which that opinion may be expressed, has been and will be expressed, there can be no doubt whatever about it. Now, I have no question all that I shall be referred, and very fairly and properly saluted with citations from a speech of my own on a former occasion—I do not remember exactly in what year—[Mr. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: In 1870. Twenty-one years ago.] Since then I have had time to be born again, and come of age. The passage to which reference is made was that it is impossible to separate the Church of Wales from the Church of England. I may have used that expression. I think it very possible that when disestablishment in Wales was proposed more upon the judgment of an individual, or of a group of individuals, than as the distinct expression of a strong, distinct, deliberate, and pervading national sentiment, it is quite possible that I may have used that expression, which may, when strictly regarded, be found to involve an element of exaggeration. Well, I might have Said that, in my judgment, it was impossible to re-construct and re-adjust the Income Tax; but, at the same time, if the people of England, in their deliberate mind and by an over whelming majority, arrived at the conclusion that that must be done, it would be the duty of Members of Parliament to set about it and do it as quickly as possible. And I say now what I believed then, and what I believe
    1264
    now, that the operation of disestablishing; he Church of Wales from the Church of England will not be found very easy. I suspect that it will be found that it is tied and knotted and tangled, I might almost say, in such a multitude of legal bonds and meshes with the general body of the Church of England, that it would be a very formidable matter indeed to accomplish this purpose. I think the Mover of this Motion was very wise in not making any such attempt, which, if it is to be done, is to be done by the Government, and I have no doubt it will require all the skill, all the knowledge, and all the care, and let me say more, all the sense of equity and moderation that can possibly be brought to bear upon it in order to carry through the work in a satisfactory manner. Well, so much then for the question of the impossibility of which I have endeavoured to dispose, so far as the words are susceptible of verbal explanation. Well, then I must look at the whole case—and I think I observe one or two gentlemen opposite smiling, or a little more than smiling, but permit me to say that there are a great many things which the Tory Party have believed and have declared to be impossible, and which afterwards—I do not wish to make any invidious reference—under adequate pressure they have been perfectly willing and perfectly competent to achieve. Now, Sir, the question is, what does justice demand of us in this case? Well, undoubtedly, I am aware that the Established Church in Wales is an advancing church, an active church, a living church, and I hope very distinctly a rising church, rising from elevation to elevation. I do not say that the case of the Church of Wales is a repetition of the Church of Ireland; but I do say this: that it is a repetition of the Church of Ireland in two vital points, two vital and determining points, apart from the general abstract principle of establishment, which it is not necessary for me to enter into at this time. In two vital and determining points I cannot deny that the case of the Welsh Church correponds with that of the Church of Ireland. In the first place, it is the church of the few against the church of the many; and, in the second place, it is the church of the rich as against the church of the comparatively poor. These broad

    1265
    features are so stamped upon the case that, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny them. Very well, Sir. In that state of facts, have the people of Wales given their judgment upon this question? I cannot deny that upon the whole, and not in a very rigid sense, but still in a somewhat substantial sense, it still remains a proportion coming not very far from the truth to say that the Nonconformists are the people of Wales—undoubtedly the bulk of the people of Wales. The enormous majority of those classes that can in any way be distinguished from the people, or from the mass of the nation, is outside the pale of Nonconformity. Looking at their numerical preponderance, even upon the entire population, and looking at the distribution of various classes of society, it was not very far from the truth to say, though I admit there is some element of exaggeration, but only a very limited one, that the Nonconformists of Wales are the people of Wales. The Motion of 1870 was probably the first serious Motion that was made in this House for Welsh disestablishment. Since then unquestionably the subject has taken a far wider scope. It has been under notice in the minds and in the hearts of the Welsh people. If a judgment has been given it has been given, and the conviction on which it was formed was formed, upon such knowledge as it was possible for the person forming the judgment to attain. That being so, after the full knowledge that a very large numerical preponderance had spoken—for although the Established Church may be a considerable body in Wales, yet it is comparatively small when compared with the entire population—that preponderance of the population has spoken again and again on every occasion which was given to it; and if the occasion is given to it again no one will deny that it will speak in terms as intelligible and unmistakable and decisive as those to which it gave utterance at the General Election in 1886, and at former General Elections. They have returned some 30 Members, so distributed that the Party which we term the Liberal Party claims 25 as against five to whom we think the description of Liberal not altogether applicable. That is not quite an accurate account of the matter; for,
    1266
    as I am told, I must still make a further addition to the majority, and a further subtraction from the minority, which makes the majority one of 27 to 3—a majority constitutionally, lawfully, peacefully, regularly, and I may say repeatedly returned to Parliament. Wales having thus spoken, is it right, is it desirable, can it long continue, that by English opinion such a declaration proceeding from Wales should be disregarded, contravened, and overruled? It may happen once or twice. I will not say how long it may continue. I will not undertake to define the length of time in months or years. In politics it is dangerous to predict. But this I will say—it will be a very little time. It cannot sound well in the ears of the people of Wales, it cannot seem well in their eyes, it cannot savour well in their nostrils, if, when this House divides on this question, the opposition to the overwhelming proportion of Welsh opinion will hardly have a solitary Representative from Wales, for I am told we are not quite certain even of the three. The remainder of the majority will be composed of hardly any Members from Ireland, in a very small degree from Scotland, and in an overwhelming, gigantic, absorbing proportion from the vast number of seats which are filled by English Representatives. I do not see the expediency or advantage of prolonging the controversy. Undoubtedly, I am sorry to say, though I hope I have argued this question in a manner which cannot at any rate give offence to those who differ from me—undoubtedly these religious, or rather semi-religious, or mixed controversies, upon the question of establishment and disestablishment, when they become serious, are not good for the temper and social condition of the country and people, who have never quarrelled about anything else. A people kindly, genial, and loyal as the Welsh people are, might perhaps have their tempers sharpened and exasperated on these ecclesiastical questions. I have said that my hon. Friend was, in my opinion, quite right in saying that the sentiment of nationality was strong and inextinguishable in Wales; and I think he was also right in the deliberate persuasion and conviction which he then I expressed, that this feeling of the people of Wales could not long continue without

    1267
    having its due and just effect within these walls; and the people of England, who are eminently a just people, will give, and will insist on giving, to Wales in respect of her reasonable demands the same just, considerate, equitable, and conclusive settlement which, in the like circumstances, I believe they would claim for themselves.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAISES,: I cannot deny that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman replied to his own former utterances has entirely disarmed controversy and anticipated criticism. I observed that the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was delivered in a very chilling silence on his own side of the House, and those hon. Members who cheered the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech should be reminded that, just as there was a loophole in that very positive statement of 1870, which announced the practical impossibility of separating the Church in Wales from the Church in England, so there is to-day a loophole in what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to observe, in speaking of the numerical preponderance and social distribution of the Nonconformists and Churchmen of Wales, that there again was that element of exaggeration which may thereafter be used against those who support the right hon. Gentleman in this Debate, and who have seemed so delighted to hear his concluding statement. The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech commends itself very much to those who sit on the Ministerial side of the House. I do not wonder at the something like dismay which fell upon hon. Gentlemen opposite when the great prophet whom they brought to bless turned and cursed them, and demolished their ancient history so completely. The right hon. Gentleman has made the task of the opponents of the Motion easier and much more simple; and I am very glad, so far as the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is concerned, to range myself under the right hon. Gentleman's banner, although I shall not find myself accompanying the person of the right hon. Gentleman into the lobby. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman's only countervailing argument appeared
    1268
    to be based on one premiss—the national feeling of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman laid enormous stress upon that national feeling, and called upon the House to follow the lead of that national feeling, although I think it has at least taken that period of nonage to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—20 or 21 years—for the right hon. Gentleman himself to arrive at that state of mind. But what is this so-called national feeling in Wales? The hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley is an exponent of the national feeling of Wales—I might almost say that, as far as the House is concerned, it is comprised within the limits of his person. I venture to say there is nothing in the history of the Welsh people which entitles them to attribute the word "national" to those feelings, which are racial perhaps and characteristic, but are not national. The people may swear by the soil, their language may be couched in the vernacular, but that is not a national feeling, because there is no such thing as a Welsh nation. [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who dispute that should apply to their Leader for information on the secular history of their country. Anciently there were three Principalities within the limits of what is now called the Principality of Wales—the Principality which owes its origin and establishment to the fact that Wales passed under the English sceptre. Therefore, I contend that to call the Welsh people a nation is grossly to exaggerate and wholly to misrepresent the facts of the case. I am not going to question the claim of the Welsh to call themselves a people or a race. They are a very interesting race [Mr. W. ABRAHAM: Nation], and they are a very peculiar people. They have their own traditions and their own prejudices, and there is much in both their traditions and their prejudices which specifically claim the interest of those who like to follow the folk-lore of small and obscure populations. I admit that, as a matter of archæological interest, these peculiarities of the Welsh people are deserving of the attention, and entitled, at least, to the consideration of antiquaries and historians, while to those who live among them they are a never-failing subject of sympathy and interest, and they also bring to Wales a great number of

    1269
    Englishmen who take an interest in the country on account of these peculiarties. But when dealing with a political question, is this House to be governed by vague sentiment of this description? Wales is part of England, and the question of the Church in Wales is the question of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman forgets, when he talks of the familiar material of the opposition which will be arrayed against this proposal, that this question is not exclusively a Welsh one. Primarily it may be a Welsh question, but it is one which concerns the whole of this realm of England, and in which every Englishman is entitled to have his voice. When we go into the lobby we shall be dealing with a matter which most nearly and closely affects the existence of our own Church; we know that this attack, which at the present moment is limited to the Welsh outwork, is one which is intended to be followed by one on the whole citadel. Therefore, we are not going to be beguiled by the voice of any Welsh siren to surrender a post, by the surrender of which we shall be abandoning the main principle upon which we rest our case. We are not prepared on this occasion, or I hope for many years to come, to accept the proposition, that because a small population in one corner of the country takes—or thinks that it takes—a dislike to any institution common to the realm at large, we are to go on with a series of fragmentary and sporadic acts of legislation until we have frittered away all the oneness of this realm of England. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not entirely rest his case on the question of national feeling, but he drew a parallel with the case of Scotland. But, for my own part, I failed to see the value of that comparison. We know that the history of Wales and of Scotland is entirely different. We know that while Scotland once had an independent existence, Wales had not. Scotland is an ancient kingdom, which came into partnership with us through the person of one of our Sovereigns; it has its ancient laws and customs, and it had its Parliament. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two. But I think that a fairer parallel to draw would be between the Church in the Highlands and in the
    1270
    Lowlands of Scotland. In the one region you have the aboriginal inhabitants who have retired with their ancient language into the remoter mountains; in the other the Saxon invader, who settled down with civilisation on the more accessible country. That would be a much fairer analogy to draw, and I do not think that even the centrifugal instincts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle had made out a scheme which would enable the Church of Scotland to be dealt with by separate legislation for the Highlands and for the Lowlands. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian also referred briefly to the question of numerical preponderance and distribution. He has done such full justice to the position of the Church in Wales that, for my own part, I would rather amplify the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman than deal with them in a hostile spirit. When we are told that the Church in Wales is ceasing to be a living body, and has been merely galvanised into existence by the cry of disestablishment, I think that it is well to bear in mind that Church revival in Wales has not at all commenced with the recent agitation against it. A late Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Short), when he came into the diocese in 1850, was able to point to the period of 40 years before that as one of continued activity, and that activity has since gone on in an increasing ratio. In the period of 40 years before 1850 19 new churches had been built, 10 rebuilt, and 71 schools and 60 parsonages, erected. I believe these figures compared favourably with those relating to any other diocese throughout the length and breadth of England. In the 40 years which ended in 1890 the figures were—new churches 57, rebuilt and restored 127, schools 150, and parsonages 138; £108,755 having been expended on the building of schools, and £132,857 on parsonages, by Churchmen in the diocese. I wish the House to see that the Nonconformists of Wales—to whose religious zeal I always pay the utmost respect—have not a monopoly of voluntary contribution, but that the Church is as capable of making sacrifices. The diocese of St. Asaph contains 208 parishes, with a population of 268,901. The Church expenditure upon all Church objects in the dioceses during the

    1271
    last 40 years has been £899,298, the annual expenditure at the present time upon Church expenses, school maintenance, and societies is £27,889; and on Church buildings £20,000; that is to say, that the Church is spending on purely diocesan objects about £50,000 a year out of the pockets of the laity. In 1870, when Mr. Forster's Education Act was passed, the daily attendance in national schools was 11,663; in Sunday schools 15,008; while in 1890 the figures were—in national schools 19,445, and in Sunday schools 20,604. And this increase in the attendance at the Church schools has arisen in spite of the innumerable Board schools put up all over the country. In the ten years from 1860 to 1870 the number of persons confirmed was 12,000; between 1880 and 1890,15,000; and between 1880 and 1890 nearly 20,000; while between 1870 and 1890 the number of communicants had just doubled. With regard to the Church services, in 1890 the number of English services was 394, and of Welsh 264; the numbers in 1870 being 240 and 219 respectively. A very interesting test on Nonconformist feeling in Wales is supplied by the celebrated Burials Act, in connection with which my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. O. Morgan) expects to attain immortality. In 1885 the burials under the Act were 247; in 1886, 216; in 1887, 271; in 1888, 245; and in 1889, 251, while the Church burials for the year 1889 numbered 3,618. I find that during the last five years out of 208 parishes in this diocese there were 94 where there was not a single burial under the right hon. Gentleman's Act, 30 where there was only one, and 18 in which there were only two. There is another very important point to be considered, and that is how far Nonconformity supplies sufficient ministration for the wants of .the people, if that supplied by the Church is to be withdrawn. I find that in 1886 there were 280 Nonconformist ministers resident in the diocese, while in 1890 their number had declined to 256. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the number of Church services has increased from 450 to 600.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman does not give us the authority for the figures.
    MR. RAIKBS: I get them from a source which is accessible to all hon. Members, namely, the Charge delivered last year by the Bishop of St. Asaph. There is another point connected with Nonconformist ministration which, is extremely important, and that is that in 1886 there were 83 of these 208 parishes without a resident Nonconformist minister, and in 1890 there were 90 in the same condition. If Nonconformity is to take up all the ground and supersede the Church, why, here are nearly half the parishes in a diocese which have not got any Nonconformist shepherd to lead the flock, yet in every one of them the Church has provided ministration for the poor. Does not the hon. Member see that he is paying a compliment to the provision made by the Church when he complains of the number of churches with small congregations? If the hon. Member had endeavoured to make out a case by showing that there were large parishes where no ministration was provided by the Church, then he would have had something to go upon; but when he complains that the Church supplied a superfluity of ministration then he showed no case at all. This question has come to be treated as if it were a purely Welsh question. I venture to point out that there are English people in Wales as well as Welsh, and they have some claim to the provision of religious ministration in the way in which they can appreciate it. I think the House will be surprised when I say that in the same diocese there are 52 parishes in which the Welsh language is not spoken, and the number of monoglot Welshmen only amount to 35 per cent. of the population of the diocese. These are facts which also have to be taken into consideration when this matter is dealt with. As to the assertion that the English Church in Wales is an alien Church, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has finally disposed of that preposterous proposition. The right hon. Gentleman has justly called attention to the fact that in the later part of the 17th century there was probably no part of Her Majesty's dominions in which the population was more universally attached to the Church than in Wales. Then when did the Church become an alien Church? That re-

    1273
    condite historian, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, told us the ancient Church was superseded sometime in the 7th century. He does not seem to realise an unbroken continuance of the ministrations of the Church, that Church which brought out the Welsh Bible, and introduced the Welsh language into the services of the Church. There never was, among all the baseless inventions by which it is sought to bolster up this fictitious agitation, one more entirely without justification or foundation than that which alleges that the Church in Wales is an alien Church. I have to thank the House for having listened so considerately to a speech which in its main features has been controversial; but I am quite sure that, whatever may be the present attitude of hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to this question, if they think they are going to improve the position of this country or of their own Party by pandering to this pseudo-national chimera, which is constantly being put forward as a stalking-horse for electioneering purposes, they will find they have created for themselves a new difficulty nearer home than Ireland, which will again perplex and hamper their legislative efforts if they ever again have a majority in this House. As we are told that the first result of their return is to be a Parliament in which Ireland stops the way, so probably their next Parliament will be one in which Wales stops the way; and when we have come to the separation of Wales on the same lines as the separation of Ireland is now proposed, the country will again have legislation proposed, not on grounds of principle, not with any regard to constitutional principle or national unity, but based upon the narrower and baser foundation of sectional hatred and local jealousy—a policy which will well deserve the ruin it will bring upon those who make themselves responsible for it.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: If the right hon. Gentleman has ever a reasonable case to present to the House, he never fails to present it in a vigorous and effective manner. I do not think, however, I ever listened to a weaker or a more ineffective speech from him, than the one he has just made, a fact which I cannot believe is attributable not to
    1274
    him, but to the weakness of his case. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by denying the principle of nationality in regard to Wales. He said Wales is not a nation, and the way in which he attempted to make out that proposition was certainly very novel. He said that before Wales was conquered by England instead of being one Principality it was three. If the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning is correct I do not suppose there is a single nation on the face of the globe. England, France, or Germany are not nations, for they were all subdivided in ancient times. It is not necessary for me to go into any finely-drawn argument on the point, for no two persons can ever agree as to what constitutes a nation. The common sense of people, however, enables them to understand pretty clearly the meaning of many things that cannot be scientifically defined. The right hon. Gentleman went very considerably, and, I think, very properly, into statistics. It is the matter of numbers which differentiates the case of Wales from that of England. I admit that a large number of the strongest arguments in favour of disestablishment in Wales is also applicable to the maintenance of any State Church in any country; but I say, we are entitled to claim, as supporters of this Motion, persons who are supporters of the principle of Church Establishment. I do not suppose that any supporter of that principle will maintain that it ought to be applied where the Church Establishment ministers only to a small minority of the people. It will surely be conceded that, in order to make the Establishment in any degree defensible, it should be national in reality as well as in name—that it should secure the support of the bulk of the nation. The supporters of the Welsh Establishment are very far from claiming that the Church in Wales commands anything like a majority of the people. In fact they all admit that it is in a minority. As the late Dean of Bangor said, the Church have "lost five-sixths of the Welsh people." The Church defenders have of late attempted to make out that they are entitled to a larger proportion; but no person who, having intimate knowledge of Wales, would venture to assert that there are more than a-sixth or probably more than a-tenth of the people of

    1275
    Wales who are staunch adherents of the Church Establishment. The statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were chiefly statistics of money spent and buildings erected. I am quite willing to admit that the Church in Wales, as measured from that standpoint, has made immense progress in the last 15 years. But that is no proof whatever of the progress of the Church in the affections of the people at large. We admit that nearly all the rich people in Wales and nearly all the landowners are Churchmen. The right hon. Gentleman's statistics prove merely that the rich people have freely spent their treasures in the last 20 years in building churches. The Nonconformists have also built, and I venture to say they have spent a great deal more than the Church of England people have during the last 40 years. In the previous Debates on this subject it was made a taunt against us that we had over-built chapels, and we were told we had built three or four where only one was necessary. Hon. Gentlemen who oppose us on this question ought to have some sort of consistency in the arguments they use. They say we are unable without the assistance of the Church to supply the religious wants of the people, and then they contend that we over-supply the requirements. It is necessary for them to agree among themselves, and say on which of these contentions they are going to rely. It is certain that if we have erred at all it has not been in under-supplying the religious wants of the Welsh people. There is not a district in which we have not fully and adequately supplied those wants. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a great point of the fact that there were numbers of parishes in which there were no Nonconformist ministers. The right hon. Gentleman's arguments on that point serve to show his ignorance of Wales. He evidently is not aware of the fact that one of the largest Nonconformist bodies of Wales has no settled pastorate, and that a large number of chapels are served by itinerant ministers. It is true that in a few large towns the system of the settled pastorate is now obtaining among the Calvinistic Methodist body, but to argue that, because that system does not obtain everywhere,
    1276
    Nonconformity is declining is absurd, because it is under the system of itinerant ministry that the whole of Wales has become Nonconformist. The success of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales is entirely to be attributed to the itinerant ministry. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of burials in churchyards as a proof that Nonconformist feeling is not increasing in Wales. That was a very unfortunate test to apply, because we know that in consequence of the way in which clerical rights are abused in Wales the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne Morgan) has almost become a dead letter, or, at all events, that it is only very partially resorted to. Throughout central Wales a great dispute is now raging in relation to a scandal that has recently taken place at Barmouth on this very question. We all know that the right of selecting the burial ground, according to the law, rests with the clergyman of the parish. In England, and also in Wales provided the fees are freely paid, the clergyman always considers the feelings of the family when he makes the selection. In the Barmouth case a widow prepared a grave in which she buried her deceased husband. She expressed her desire to be buried in the same grave, and when her son died had him buried in an adjoining grave in order that she might reserve her husband's grave for herself. The lady died a few weeks ago. She had expressed to her executors her desire to take advantage of the Burials Act to have the Nonconformist burial service read to her, and the executors informed the rector of their intention to carry out her wish. He immediately asked: "Are you going to pay my fees?" The House knows that there is no such thing as a legal burial fee in Wales. No burial fee can be claimed anywhere unless it has been customarily paid from the time of Richard I. In Wales the practice until 20 years ago has invariably been to pay no fee, but the persons attending the funeral contribute something in the form of a voluntary collection. An illegal attempt is now made by the clergymen to exact a fixed fee from everybody who takes advantage of the Burials Act. Because the executors of this deceased lady refused to pay this illegal fee, and insisted on having a Nonconformist service, the clergyman abused his

    1277
    right of selecting the site of the grave. He said: "Very well, then, I will not let you bury this widow in the grave of her husband." The executors were forced to submit to this. There is another reason why the Burials Act is not resorted to. We know that the parishioners have the right of burial. If a person has lived outside the parish and wishes to be buried in ground where, perhaps, his fathers have been buried before him, and his executors express a desire that the Nonconformist burial service should be used, they are instantly met by the clergyman with a declaration that the body shall not be buried there. So much annoyance is caused by the hostility of the Church of England clergy to the Burials Act that the people have almost generally, to avoid scandal, abandoned the right of having the Burial Service read by their own ministers. When a member of a family has just died his relatives are in no mood for squabbling, and say: "Let us have no bother; let the clergyman read the service." Reference has also been made to the question of Confirmation. To get a large number of persons confirmed is a very important thing in the eyes of every clergyman. As a rule he canvasses as thoroughly as he can, with the object of getting as many as possible presented to the Bishop for Confirmation, and a large number are presented who have not been in the habit of attending the church, and who never go afterwards. I was told by a Nonconformist minister that children who were members of the Nonconformist congregation in his own parish were induced by the express desire of the clergyman to go to the church and be confirmed by the Bishop, although they never afterwards frequented the Church, but remained members of the denomination to which their parents belonged. The fact is that the hold of the Church in Wales, as far as it has any hold whatever, is almost entirely confined to the English-speaking people. I ought to mention that there is one class of the Welsh working men among whom you may expect to find some support of the Church, and that is the publican class. Outside the publicans and their customers there are scarcely any of the working men of Wales who belong to
    1278
    the Church. Within the last few years a very strenuous attempt has been made to increase the number of the working class adherents of the Church, but the amount of the increase has been very slight and gives no occasion for boasting on the part of the Church. All the territorial magnates and a large number of the employers of labour are Churchmen. Ever since the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1868 a great panic has fallen on the clergy of the Church of Wales. They seemed to feel that unless they reformed and increased their numbers the fate which had befallen the Irish Church would befall them, and the most strenuous attempt has been made to get people to come into the Church. When you consider that all the influence of the territorial magnates has to a great extent been placed at the service of the clergy, you will fully understand that it is of immense advantage to a working man to leave the chapel and become a Churchman, as far as his material interests are concerned. It is not surprising, therefore, that some few have been found who have abandoned their own religion and gone over to the Church. Some English people are thoughtlessly disposed to assume that all Welsh people are religious. That, of course, is an absurdity. Such a thing cannot be said of any people in the world. There are a large number of people in Wales who attend no place of worship, and there are others who care more for their own advancement than anything else. It is not surprising, therefore, when the influences of which I have spoken are at work, that some slight increase should have taken place in the number of churchmen. Supposing all the landowners and all the large employers of labour in England were Roman Catholics, and it would be of great advantage to a man who wanted to obtain an allotment, or a farm, or a tenement, or obtain employment in a quarry, to be a Roman Catholic, what would you expect to find? Surely you would expect that a large number of unprincipled people who care not a straw about any religion in the world would become Roman Catholics. They would become Mahomedans or Buddists or anything else under similar circumstances. Those who have turned away from Nonconformity

    1279
    in Wales are a miserable minority, but most of them have been induced to do so by these influences. This is one of our strongest complaints about the present efforts of the Church in Wales. So far as those who profess Church principles devote their efforts to the spread of Christianity, we say, God bless their work, but when they attempt to demoralise the people by bribery of this kind, we are compelled to enter our protest against it. I will repeat a fact which was told to me not long ago by a minister of the denomination to which I belong, who laboured in a district strongly subject to the influences to which I refer. He said very few had gone over from his chapel, and those who had done so belonged almost exclusively to the class I have referred to. There was, however, he said, one man whom he had been very sorry to lose. He was a man who had a good reputation among his fellows. He was a member in full communion, a teacher in the Sunday school, and was regarded as a person of good and solid character. That man went over to the Church, but did not receive any reward for his apostacy, and the consequence was that he ceased to attend any place of worship. The clergyman of the parish called on the man's wife, who had stuck to the chapel, and asked her why she did not go to church, saying: "Your husband comes sometimes, but I never see you." She replied: "I know he goes sometimes, and it was an evil day for us when he left the chapel. When he was a member at the chapel he always spent his evenings at home, but now he spends them in the public-house, and I bid my boys to be warned by their father's example against leaving the religion they were brought up in." Now, I do not say that because a man goes to church he takes to drinking, but I say that this man by his conduct lost the respect of his neighbours and that he lost his own self-respect also, and then, becoming reckless, took to drink. This attempt to win over the Welsh people to the Church by bribery and by appeals to sordid motives is an evil that is much felt. We do not so much mind the loss of individuals because, after all, it is a mere handful that goes over, but we do protest against the demoralising effect it produces. I would ask the House to bear with me
    1280
    while I give some statistics on another point. Hon. Members are aware that Welsh people have very largely migrated from Wales to the large towns of England. Liverpool has often been called "the metropolis of North Wales," from the large number of Welshmen who are congregated there. If the Church in Wales were so strong as to number among its adherents two-thirds or three-fifths of the Welsh people you would find the same proportions among the Liverpool Welsh. But you find, as a matter of fact, that whilst there are 45 Nonconformist Welsh chapels in that city, there are only 4 Welsh churches. The total number of communicants in Nonconformist Welsh chapels of Liverpool and district is 10,331, and the total number of communicants in the Welsh Episcopalian churches is only 455, or only 4½ per cent. of the whole. What is the reason for this? The reason is that in Liverpool the Welsh people are totally free from territorial and squirearchical influences. The Welshman in Liverpool is not likely to get a bargain or a place because he is an Episcopalian, and, therefore, he goes to the place of worship he really prefers. If you take the other large towns in England the same state of things is found to exist, although not to the same extent. In London, Manchester, and Chester similar circumstances are found. There are no less than 34 English towns and industrial villages outside these places in which there are Welsh Nonconformist chapels. They include Birmingham, Bristol, Wolverhampton, Ashton-under-Lyne, Eochdale, Stockport, Barrow-in-Furness, Dalton, Wigan, Spennymoor, and Warrington. These chapels have been built by Welsh immigrants out of their own pockets. In not one of these towns is there a single Welsh Episcopalian Church. The reason is that there are no Episcopalians among the Welsh people who go there, and there are no landed gentry to build churches. A further illustration of the same state of things is to be found in America. Everybody who knows anything of Wales knows that there has been a vast emigration from Wales to America. In the United States the Welsh Congregational Body, which is one of the four large Nonconformist Bodies of Wales, has 215 chapels, whilst

    1281
    the Baptists have 64 chapels, and the Calvinistic Methodists 190. There are spread over the United States 469 Welsh Nonconformist chapels. How many Welsh churches are there? There is not one throughout the length and breadth of the United States. There are altogether 26,000 adherents of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Body alone in the United States and they subscribe from £15,000 to £16,000 a year. In Australia there are four Welsh Nonconformist chapels and not a single church. I do not say that the proportion of Churchmen to Nonconformists in Wales is analogous to the proportion I have referred to as existing outside Wales, and for this reason: that when the English-speaking people of Wales emigrate to England, they, of course, go to the English churches. But this is a further proof of the point I am endeavouring to make, namely, that the Church community in Wales is confined to the English-speaking portion of the community, and that if you go away from the English-speaking people in Wales you find the Church non est. We are often told that we are trying to make political capital out of this question. If anyone has to gain by disestablishment in Wales, however, it is not the Liberals or the Nonconformists. If anyone will gain it will be the Conservatives. Formerly the Parliamentary representation of Wales was confined to the Welsh territorial magnates, who are all Conservatives. Now the Welsh Members consist of anybody but the large land-owning class—London barristers, English merchants, solicitors, traders, and, in fact, anybody and everybody but the landowners. The reason is that the old landed aristocracy of Wales have allied themselves with the Church Establishment, and have tried to cram it down the throats of the people. Anybody who is acquainted with Wales knows that the Welsh are an eminently Conservative people. What is it that makes a man a Conservative rather than a Liberal? As a rule, you find that men of a timid and cautious temperament become Conservatives, and men of a bold and sanguine temperament Liberals. But among the Welsh Nonconformists you find the timid and cautions men are as great radicals as the bold and sanguine, simply because of the Church Establish-
    1282
    ment. You will never find a Welsh Nonconformist who is a Conservative unless he is the tenant of some big landlord, nor will you find a Churchman who is a Liberal. The movement in favour of Church Disestablishment has in no class in Wales made greater progress than among the landowners. Silently and secretly a very great change of feeling has been coming over the landlords of Wales. They have seen that Disestablishment is inevitable, and they are coming to believe that it is desirable. They have seen that they will never have the least chance of recovering their hold upon the people of Wales until the Church is disestablished. This has been brought very vividly to their minds by the County Council elections which took place in Wales a little over two years ago. At those elections the ancient gentry were almost universally defeated. A few of them were returned for the wards and districts in which they live, but the immense majority found that they had no chance against the Nonconformists. This is all due to the same cause, and, though the aristocracy of Wales are as strong and zealous Churchmen as ever they were, their belief in the desirability of maintaining the Church as a State Establishment is fast diminishing. No doubt hon. Members will say I am proving too much, and will ask why I go in for disestablishment if it will be of advantage to the Conservative Party. I go in for it because the people of Wales wish for peace. At present there is nothing but discord, and there will be nothing but discord so long as this Church Establishment exists. I have shewn the bitterness that is caused by the way in which the territorial influence of the aristocracy has been unsparingly used in favour of the Church, and I will now conclude by saying that this religious question should be set at rest, so that all religious denominations in Wales may have liberty and freedom to devote themselves to the work of spiritual regeneration, instead of quarrelling and bickering amongst themselves. (8.31.)
    SIR J. BAILET: When, at the commencement of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian communicated with me and expressed a desire to follow

    1283
    his two supporters who Lad moved and seconded this Resolution, I felt certain that I was only doing what the House of Commons would have desired me to do in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, although it is extremely unusual for the leader of a Party to follow the Proposer and Seconder of a Resolution hostile to the other side of the House without any intervening argument having been heard from those who say they object to that Resolution. Nevertheless, when I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I felt that I could not regret the course I had taken, because, in the first place, it afforded me the greatest pleasure to hear the manner in which he corrected the numerous mistakes in Welsh history that had been made by the Proposer of the Motion, and because, also, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to raise the tone of this Debate from one of strong vituperation and personal attack upon Members on this side of the House, which, to say the least of it, is a tone most undesirable in the conduct of Parliamentary proceedings. Moreover, I could, not but recollect that I had heard a magnificent speech from the right hon. Gentleman on the same subject 20 years ago—at a time when he was not an irresponsible Member of the House of Commons, but was leader of the House and Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen. That speech was on exactly the same lines as the one he has delivered to-night, with one exception, which the right hon. Gentleman designates as "sufficient electoral support." When he came to the conclusion of his speech we had one more instance of the marvellous facility with which the right hon. Gentleman adapts his opinions to the altered circumstances of the day. I cannot refrain from reading to the House the concluding words of the speech delivered on that occasion. He was alluding to the Church of Wales, having touched on his connection with the Church of England, and he said—
    "I know the difficulties, and I am not prepared in any shape or form to encourage, by dealing with my hon. and learned Friend's Motion in any way except the simple mode of negative, the creation of expectations which it would be most guilty, most unworthy, most dishonourable on our part to entertain lest he should convey a virtual pledge. We cannot go in that direction. We do not intend to do so.
    1284
    We deprecate it, and we should regard it as a national mischief."
    That, Sir, is the conclusion to which the same set of facts as those with which we now have to deal brought the right hon. Gentleman 20 years ago. Now, Sir, one fact which seemed to influence the right hon. Gentleman's mind was that which he called "sufficient electoral support." He alluded to the small number of Welsh Members who sat on this side of the House and to the much greater number which sits on the other side. Now, I have two remarks to make on this: the first is, that the question of disestablishment was not before the Welsh people at that time. If you were to take the numbers of the Welsh people and the numbers of their Representatives in this House, and use the figures as conclusive argument that the Welsh people desire disestablishment, you must first be clear that they knew at the time of the election that the effect of their votes would be to bring about the disestablishment of the Church in Wales; and if that has not been the case you ought, at all events, not to judge the feelings of the people by the number of Representatives they return to this House, but rather by the number of voters who have voted for those Representatives. Now, what is the fact as to the number of Welsh Representatives? I give hon. Members opposite the full benefit of the fact that at the last General Election there were four constituencies uncontested; but as to the others, the number of electors who voted were 60,000 or thereabouts on the one side and 90,000 or thereabouts on the other side, or in the proportion of 3 to 2. The fact that there are only three Conservatives under such circumstances is one of the curious proofs which are sometimes given that the electoral system of this country may be very unfair to large minorities of the people. If the question of Welsh disestablishment had been clearly and distinctly before the people of Wales at the last election, I believe that two-fifths to three-fifths would have changed from one side to the other, for the Church has yet some hold on the affections of a large portion of the people. Now, Sir, I would remind the House of one other point which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with. He scattered

    1285
    to the winds the argument raised by the Mover of this Resolution—an argument which has so often been put before the House—that the Welsh Church is an alien Church and not the Church of the nation. What are the facts? The Welsh Bishoprics were founded before the English Bishoprics, Those who have any real knowledge of the Principality are aware that the names of the parishes follow the names of Welsh saints whom no Englishman, unless he has lived in Wales, knows anything about. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution dealt with the question of the Reformation, when, in his judgment, the old Welsh Church died, and something else was put in its place. I must say I do not think it lies with hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are nothing if they are not Protestants, not to give their entire approval to the doctrines of the Church as established at the Reformation. But I may put the point in a different form. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) spoke of the Welsh endowments being taken to supply the wants of the English Church. Doubtless, at the time of the Reformation Wales was dealt with differently from England, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners take credit to themselves for using the funds of the disestablished Welsh religious houses for ecclesiastical purposes; but the Commissioners did not use those funds for ecclesiastical purposes connected with Wales, but in order to enrich the English ecclesiastics who had nothing to do with Wales. I am well aware that at the present time the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in supplying the religious wants of large populations, especially in Wales, has given the Principality a larger sum than was formerly administered; but, at the same time, the loss incurred by the Welsh Church in the time of the Reformation accounts for the poverty of that Church during the last century. Then I come to the Act for the Better Propagation of the Gospel in Wales. In 1650 the idea of the better propagation of the Gospel in Wales was demonstrated by the ejectment of "200 malignant clergymen from the Principality," their places being supplied by "Godly and faithful men." These men may have been Godly, and they were probably faithful, but their
    1286
    literate capacity was very doubtful. The Church of Wales was unfortunately compelled to undergo for a few years the infliction of these faithful men, and this, coupled with the state of poverty to which the Church had been reduced, was doubtless the main cause of the trouble that came upon it. I do not know whether hon. Members fully realise the poverty of the Church during this period. In the Diocese of St. David's, in the year 1720, there were 37 livings under £50, 42 under £40, 60 under £30, 29 under £20, 39 under £15, 57 under £10, and 29 under £5 a year.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Will the hon. Member give the other extremes?
    SIR J. BAILEY: I am afraid I have not the figures showing the other extremes; but I have heard it said by an hon. Member, in a former speech, that he attributed much of the evils in Wales to the anti-national policy of that time. I do not want to deny that anti-national policy, but I do say that a great many of the evils which have arisen are referable to the poverty of the Church as well as to any anti-national policy that may have been pursued by the English statesmen of that day. The hon. Member has asked me to state what are the other extremes. I have told him I cannot do that, but I repeat that the Welsh Bishoprics at that time were so impoverished that a great deal of what has happened is attributable to that circumstance. It is this poverty which has been used as a justification for the pluralities existing in Wales, owing to the extreme poverty of the Church it was absolutely impossible for a clergyman to accept a Welsh Bishopric, unless in this way he had the means of maintaining the position. If, then, the Church was as poor as I have described it, how can you expect it to be able to meet a sudden emergency, such as has arisen from the enormous increase which has taken place in the Welsh population? It has also had to meet the bi-lingual difficulty, which is evidenced by the fact that, while 20 per cent. of the population speak Welsh only, 34 per cent. speak English only, and 46 per cent. speak both English and Welsh. It is when the Church is surrounded by all these difficulties that there suddenly comes upon the Church

    1287
    the vast increase of population I have alluded to. The population, partly from natural increase, but largely from immigration, has increased from 500,000 to 1,500,000. Railways have sprung up, the iron trade of the Principality has risen to great prosperity, and a Church has had to meet an increased growth among its people of from 50,000 to 150,000. Now, Sir, in comparison the present position of the Church in Wales with the ancient character of that institution, it must be borne in mind that for 14 centuries the Church was absolutely the Church of the people. It has been described by the Mover of the Resolution as having at the end of the 17th century comprised 96 per cent. of the people. They were then most ardent Churchmen, and until this century was somewhat far advanced. I do not believe Nonconformity had obtained anything like a strong hold upon the Principality. The father of dissent in Wales was a Magistrate of the district, and on his tombstone, which is in the parish church in which I live, his epitaph says: "He remained a faithful member of the Church of England until his death." I think that if that gentleman had known what his action was going to bring the Established Church to in his neighbourhood he would have re-considered it; at any rate, he must have thought he was taking upon himself a great responsibility, but he cannot be described, as the hon. Member opposite has described some Nonconformist ministers who have joined the Church in the present day, as a weak-kneed mediocrity. His death took place in 1811, and since that time the Nonconformists have had ministers of their own preaching the Gospel to the people. It was my privilege to know one who was considered to be the leader of the Nonconformist and Liberal Party in the county in which I live as well as the neighbouring Counties of Carmarthen and Radnor. He was the strongest speaker in that part of the Principality on the side represented by hon. Members opposite at the time of his death. He was buried according to the rites of the Church of England, and I was given to understand, and I believe it to be an undoubted fact, that it was by his special desire that his funeral was con-
    1288
    ducted in that way. That man, whose name I believe is well known to some hon. Members, though I will not mention it now, was a straight and honest man and a most sincere Nonconformist. While the Welsh people like the simplicity of the services in their various chapels, while they have an honest love for their chapels, yet I believe that in their inmost heart, and I speak not merely of the ministers but of the congregation, there is a strong—stronger than is thought—regard for the Established Church in Wales. Now, Sir, reference is often made to the number of Nonconformist chapels in Wales, but, if the House will permit me to say so, I regard that as a sign not of strength, but of weakness. Up to the middle of the 18th century every one knows that the Church was predominant in Wales. As a matter of fact, in 1742 there were 105 chapels and 769 churches; in 1851, 2,826 chapels and 1,180 churches; and in 1884, 4,200 chapels. In 1851 Nonconformity seated 58 per cent. of the population. What is the cause of this increase, then? The large number of Nonconformist chapels is caused by the splits among the congregations. Troubles occur, and part of the congregation build a new chapel—a circumstance which indicates, as I put it, weakness rather than strength. I have here a letter from one who is connected with a Nonconformist place of worship, and he writes: "There is a debt on the chapel of £760; we are only a few poor work people." This chapel is in a large and thriving centre, and no doubt there are well attended chapels all around it, and, while I sympathise with the people, still I think it an exceedingly imprudent thing on their part to burden themselves with another chapel when they had already plenty, thus creating that great source of trouble to Nonconformists—the chapel debt. My hon. Friend alluded to the number of Church burials—something like 20,000 Church burials and 1,400 under the Act of my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Osborne Morgan). The hon. Member who spoke last said on one notable occasion a clergyman had been found to do an injustice to his parishioners by refusing to bury in a grave which had been bought by a man for himself and wife. If these facts can be proved that clergyman would get no

    1289
    more sympathy from me than from the hon. Member. Still, such a circumstance is a reason, possibly, for re-considering the Act of the right hon. Gentleman, and, going further, but not for disestablishing the Church. I propose now to give some figures respecting the diocese of St. David's. The number of confirmations in 1886 was 2,533; in 1887, 3,004; in 1889, 3,206—in ten years, 26,041; a number greater than is recorded in most English dioceses. An hon. Member opposite says that the number is due to pressure brought to bear upon the people by the clergy, and that afterwards the communicants go back to Nonconformity. Such a statement is a libel on Welsh Nonconformity, and public opinion would not allow Welsh Nonconformists to at once desecrate their own form of religion and that of the Established Church. In St. David's, between 1879 and 1888, 25 churches have been built or restored—a number not reached by 25 other dioceses, while only seven have exceeded it. In Llandaff, in the same period, 42 churches have been built or restored—a number not reached by 27 other dioceses. The exact number of Church attendants cannot be got at with the facility which exists in the case of Nonconformists who erect their chapels in centres where they think there is need for them, whereas the Church goes to the thinly as well as the thickly-populated districts, and establishes its church for the ministration of the few as well as of the many. In the parish of Merthyr, in 1810, the population was 7,705, and in 1888 it was 58,000. There are 17 clergyman at work there, and since 1877 £41,200 has been spent on Church extension and £12,750 added to the endowment. And now I come to the parish of Rhondda. The hon. Member, when on a former occasion he spoke on this subject, referred to the fact that at one time there were only two churches in the parish. He said that there was an obligation to hand one of these over to the Roman Catholic Body, and that the other had been erected by a wealthy person, who had obtained the money by the sweat of the brow of the colliers of the district. Well, as to the former of the two churches I think it very difficult for the building to have been used for a better purpose than that to which the owner devoted it, pending the time he
    1290
    hoped it would be occupied by his coreligionists, while how could a colliery proprietor better expend his profits than by building a church for his workmen?
    MR. ABRAHAM: What I complained of was that the church was not built for the workmen, nine-tenths of whom were Nonconformists.
    SIR J. BAILEY: Well, it is not necessary to enter into that question now. We have been told that the increased Church activity is a fight for tithe. Whereas there were only two churches in Rhondda 20 or 30 years ago there are now 22. In one Church district, where the clergyman's income is £289 a year, he keeps no fewer than seven curates; in other church districts the clergymen get nothing at all for tithe. It has been said that the building of these churches has been a foolish expenditure of rich men's money, but can you imagine anyone being liberal or foolish enough, not merely to build 22 churches, but to enlarge the parish church as well? In nine of these churches Welsh services are given. To say that these churches are filled with the rich and wealthy landlord class, no one knows better than the hon. Member for Rhondda opposite that this is not the case, for the Valley of the Rhondda is certainly not filled with rich people. But this affords a striking instance of what is being done by the Church in large centres of population in Wales. There is one argument further I should like to put before the House. If Wales were separated from England by the sea, as is Ireland, or by an impassable range of mountains, I would leave the argument where it is. But such is not the case. As my right hon. Friend told us, Wales never has been a nation. There were only three occasions on which all Wales was united, and by no possibility can you name a town which could have been the capital of the whole country; and the reason is clear. In the South you have the great Valley of the Severn, connecting the mineral district with Bristol, Gloucester, and other English counties; and the railways, too, which are laid out to suit the requirements of the commercial classes, do not connect the South with the rest of Wales; they connect it with London and Liverpool. On one occasion lately we went so far towards considering

    1291
    London our capital that we held our national Eisteddfod there. Then we have the Valley of the Usk, connecting Wales with the Great Plain of Monmouthshire; and then the Wye, going into Herefordshire, through the Counties of Brecon and Radnor, the beautiful Valley of Llangollen, and if you disestablished the Welsh Church you would have farmers living next to each other under an entirely different religious policy. This is no mere chimera, and I do not think that any hon. Member opposite has thoroughly considered the vast interference with the Church, apart from the Established Church in Wales, which this Motion contemplates. The County of Monmouth is generally considered to be a county of England. It is part and parcel of a Welsh diocese. Are hon. Members going to break that diocese up? That would be the result of the adoption of this Resolution. You are not going to disestablish the Church merely in the 12 counties of Wales, but in the County of Monmouth as well. If you go a little further, you will find a part of Shropshire is in the diocese of St. Asaph. Are you going to break up that diocese? A part of Radnor and most of Montgomeryshire are in the diocese of Hereford, and a part of Flint is in the diocese of Chester. The Resolution means the disestablishment not only of the Church in Wales, but, to the extent I have mentioned, in England also. Mr. Watkin Williams (afterwards Mr. Justice Watkin Williams), when he brought forward this Motion, said—
    "If you disestablish the Church in Wales, you must on the same ground disestablish it also in Cornwall and Yorkshire. Whenever those places wish to disestablish their Church they shall have my hearty support."
    I hope that hon. Members who desire to disestablish the Church will bear that argument in mind. The time may come when Church disestablishment will be the battle cry at some General Election, and it will then be seen how deeply the Church has embedded itself in the hearts of the people. Let us beware of having our fortresses taken in detail. In this question, as in so many others, union is strength. No doubt this Resolution will be brought for ward year after year until the majorities may possibly fall off from very weariness. I hope the House will resist the temptation to
    1292
    weariness, and that they will stand shoulder to shoulder to resist a Resolution which is intended to injure, and perhaps destroy, an institution which in England, as in Wales, is the ancient Church of the people.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: We could have desired no one to meet us on this question better than the hon. Baronet the Member for Hereford who has just spoken, for we were well aware we should meet in him a courteous opponent, and that his arguments would be the arguments of a straightforward man. But I hope the hon. Baronet will forgive me if I say I failed to find any new argument in the speech he has just delivered. He has undoubtedly fallen into an error in which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General led the way. I must say I think that after the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to the work of the Church of England in Wales it was needless for the Postmaster General to spend so much time in adding his meed of praise. We might have been spared that, and also the praise showered upon it by the hon. Baronet, who is the Lord Lieutenant of a Welsh county, for time is far too precious thus to be expended. The Welsh people have constantly declared that they are not the enemies of the Church; they have no quarrel with the Church, and it is unreasonable year after year, in reply to their case, to bring out that sophistry and that contention. One quarrel is with the establishment in Wales, and I say that that ought to be the quarrel of the Church Party itself, for they have suffered from it more than the Welsh people have. To that position we desire to confine ourselves. The hon. Baronet said he doubted if the disestablishment of the Church had ever been really a test question at any General Election in Wales. He need hardly entertain that doubt, for, with his knowledge of the Principality, he must be aware that it is the special test raised at every election, and if he will stake the issue on that point alone, any single Member for Wales on this side of the House will gladly resign his seat if the hon. Baronet will agree to abide by the result. It must be patent to the whole House that we stand on Disestablishment because we have done so

    1293
    for the last three General Elections. We know it is the only ground on which we can present ourselves to a Welsh constituency, and to pretend that we are agitators and foment the feeling is unworthy of reasonable discussion in this House. But we are suffering from a severe disappointment this evening. Great as the evening has been on account of the important deliverance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, which will resound from one end of the Principality to the other, and which has at last lifted the question into the highest of all places, has placed it among the foremost to be dealt with, we regret that the Amendment on the Paper was not, as we understood it would be, moved by the hon. Baronet.
    SIR J. BAILEY: It was impossible to move it.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: At any rate, it stands here upon the Paper, and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, who is the official champion of the Church in Wales. It is impossible not to see how far that Amendment departs from the lofty assumption and from the position of superiority hitherto taken up by our opponents in dealing with this question. What are the terms used?—
    "That, inasmuch as the Church derives no portion of its revenues from taxation, and provides, in Wales as well as in England, spiritual ministrations for a larger proportion of the population than any other denomination of Christians, it is unjust, as well as inexpedient, to deprive the Church people of the Principality of the means to support the form of religious worship which they prefer."
    The Church by this Amendment drops into the position of a mere denomination. The Amendment practically concedes the point for which Welsh Members have always contended. We protest against its claiming a monopoly—against its claiming the sole right to administer to the spiritual wants of Wales. We say that in Wales the State ought not any longer to sanction and make valid this unjust and unreal pretension. And this Amendment practically abandons it, and treats the Church as one among other denominations. Well, let the State concur and then we shall be satisfied. But the Amendment goes on to plead ad misericordiam against any deprivation by the State of its present means of support. No more pitiful appeal was ever put
    1294
    forward on behalf of a great historical body than this one from the wealthy classes in Wales. If the Church cannot live in Wales without State support it ought not to live at all. If there is one thing certain it is that the Welsh people can and will support their own religion. A body which cannot live in Wales without extraneous support stands condemned. This pitiful appeal comes from the wealthy classes in Wales, the classes which own the land and most of the funded property, and it is addressed to this House against a proposition made by those who speak for the people of Wales, for those who are already adequately supplying the religious requirements of Wales out of their own pockets, and who deem this maintenance of their religion, not a burden, but an honour. We do not desire to say one word of disrespect to the Church. We desire rather to congratulate it upon its labours. We do not grudge it its success, if success there be; we only ask why should it be supported by the State, and why should it derive its support from endowments which ought to belong to the whole people of Wales? Now, the foundation of this singular plea is that this denomination, the Church, is superior any to other denomination in Wales in numbers. I will not go into figures more or less ambiguous. I will not follow the course taken by the Postmaster General, but I wish to mention, and am bound to mention, certain broad figures as to which there shall be as little doubt as possible. I do not think the broad facts of the case are always fully appreciated. The Church in Wales has 1,500 beneficed clergy and curates. The Calvinistic Methodists in Wales have 1,258 chapels and 284,000 adherents, and in 1890 collected, £182,000 for the maintenance of their chapels.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: How many ministers?
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I have not the figures just now in hand. The Congregationalists have 1,138 chapels and 283,000 adherents, and collected £124,000, while the Welsh Baptists have 753 chapels, with 100,000 communicants. It has been suggested that Nonconformity in Wales is standing still or decaying, but to refute this I will point to the amount of money collected for

    1295
    the maintenance of one of these denominations. Perhaps the amount of contributions is a more convincing test than the number of adherents. The average amount collected annually by the Calvinistic Methodists for the 10 years from 1871 to 1880 was £144,903, and for the years from 1881 to 1890 it amounted to £170,700, and in the last year, at a steady increase, it amounted to £182,000. I have not the figures for the Congregationalists, but I can give the number of chapels and of actual communicants as to whose genuine membership there can be no doubt. In 1861 the Congregationalists had 761 chapels; in 1882, 1,083 chapels, and by 1890 they had 1,138 chapels. In the same years the number of communicants were 97,647, 120,652, and 127,360. The growth in numbers of the Welsh Baptists has been still more significant. In 1872 they had 576 chapels and 62,887 communicants, and last year they had 753 chapels and 939,622 communicants. In short, if I may take the total number of chapels or congregations as a fair test, these have grown from 2,927 in 1861 to over 4,500 last year. These figures show a steady and uniform growth, and therefore any argument founded upon the decay of Nonconformity in Wales is erroneous and unfair. It must be remembered in considering these figures that the Welsh population is not increasing as the English population increases; in fact, in five counties the population has dwindled for the last five years at the average rate of 600 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire has dealt with an interesting point, showing how the Welsh Nonconformists carry their Nonconformity with them out of Wales. It should carry conviction of the manner in which Nonconformity is ingrained in the character of the Welsh people to see the touching manner in which they take their religion with them wherever they go. And in regard to the hundreds of Welsh congregations in the United States—all of whom look upon this question as one not only of justice to their religion, but of recognition of their nationality—I would urge the unwisdom of those who now hold a majority in Parliament solely upon the cause of Imperial unity, lending their numbers to defeat a Resolution which
    1296
    tends to bring together and reconcile to a great English Institution every Welshman throughout the Empire. Of course, it is alleged by those who see a decline in Welsh Nonconformity that there has been a great revival of the Church in Wales. We are not here to contest that, or to quarrel about it, though we may have our own ideas as to the manner in which it is seated, and our own view as to the value to be attached to some of the figures with which the statement is supported. But one thing we will not do, we will not follow the example set by those high in authority in the Church—we will not endeavour to improve our own position by blackening the position of others. It is for us to state our case to the best of our power in accordance with the facts, but it does not fall within our methods of controversy to attack those who are honestly working in the same vineyard. We have not the slightest desire to depreciate good work that is done, whether by the Church in Wales or by any other denomination. It may, however, be fairly pointed out that as compared with England the ministry in Wales is doubly manned. You find in proportion to Church population, twice as many Bishops and Chapters and beneficed clergy in Wales as in England, and we are not quarrelling with the fact, but it does appear to us to render it all the more significant and arbitrarily aggressive that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the exercise of the extraordinary powers given to them by Parliament over what some are nevertheless pleased to call Church property should annually transfer large sums of £30,000 or £40,000 as subventions from the undermanned Church in England to the already over manned Church in Wales. Now, after all, what is the result of what the Church has been doing in Wales? There has been an anti-tithe agitation. Is that a satisfactory result? I hardly think there is anyone will say it is. What is the constitutional test? The wish of the people as expressed in a General Election. Is there any doubt as to what the result of a General Election in Wales would be now, or a year hence, or at any time? Nobody can have any doubt. There are not many Conservative Welsh Members, and there are not many Conservative candidates, but I was interested in reading the other day of the attitude

    1297
    of one Conservative candidate who, having once represented a Welsh consituency, has a laudable ambition to do so again. He was "heckled" on the question of disestablishment, and what he said in substance, in reply, was—
    "I am a Churchman. I think disestablishment would be ruinous to the religious interests of the country and the Church, but if the majority desire it I will vote for it."
    That is a striking indication of what the state of feeling in Wales is, and of what the prospects of the next General Election in Wales are upon this question. I do not think the Postmaster General has assisted the Welsh Conservative candidates by his speech of to-night. It is a great event for us that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has spoken as he has, but if there is any speech second in value to us it is that delivered by the Postmaster General. The present authorised Church argument is represented, I take it, in the Amendment, but there is another bolder argument expressed by the Dean of Llandaff, who has urged—
    "How can you disestablish the Welsh Church? There is no Welsh Church. The Church in Wales is nothing more nor less than four dioceses of the Province of Canterbury."
    I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether in his view there is a Welsh Church or not? The Dean of Llandaff says there is no Welsh Church. If there is no Welsh Church, then it is not a National Church in Wales, and Wales has a fair claim to say that the English Church shall not have the national position the State assigns to it in Wales. If it is, as is thus admitted, an alien Church, why all this heat and show of indignation over the term alien? On the other hand, if it is a Welsh Church then it is the National Church in Wales, and Wales, as the inherent right of its nationality, may claim to deal with it constitutionally. Whether it be called a Welsh Church or not a Welsh Church, our position is unanswerable. We have a right to reject its claims to monopoly if it is not ours. We have a right to deal with them as we please if it is ours. The real truth is this is a question of the separation of four dioceses from the Church of England, and though the difficulty of the separation has been done full justice to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, is it such a serious matter?
    1298
    All the dioceses of the Church of England in the Colonies of Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape were, down to 1861, regarded and treated by the Church and the Government as part of the Establishment. In 1861, Lord Kingsdown's judgment decided that they were not, never had been, part of the Establishment. Since colonial dioceses were thus declared by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council not part of the Establishment, has the Church suffered any hurt? Has the discipline or the doctrine of the Church been affected? Has there been any conflict between the Established and the non-Established portions of the Church? On the contrary, no one seems to have been a whit the wiser or a penny the worse, and I venture to doubt whether the all important fact I now mention is within the knowledge of more than a very small minority of this House. It is no necessary part of Church unity that these four Welsh dioceses should be maintained as part of the Church of England. It is too late in the day to say that the separation of four more dioceses out of the hundred that belong to the Church of England can seriously affect her position, when already for the larger portion of those 100 dioceses are outside the Establishment. It is not essential to the life of a Church that she should be the creature of the State, and to make casuistical and sophistical difficulties over disestablishment in Wales is to exasperate a question which has already tried the Welsh people enough. Can any hon. Member, after hearing the arguments adduced on behalf of the Church, justify in his own mind the maintenance of the Establishment in Wales? I know that there is a sort of impatient idea that the Welsh people are Dissenters out of perversity, and why do they not, it is said, become members of the Church of England? I venture to say that, proud as the English people are of the Reformation, the Welsh people have as much reason to be proud of the redemption of Wales for Christianity by Nonconformity as Englishmen have to be proud of their Protestantism. It is not consistent with the self-respect of our peculiar people, our interesting race—call them what the Postmaster General will—to continue to tolerate the existence of the Establishment. Harmless as the Establishment may seem here, the people in Wales

    1299
    feel that they are unjustly kept under the Church yoke, and that their religion has cast upon it a certain stain of illegitimacy by the State giving exclusive and exhaustive spiritual authority to one denomination which is not that of the people. Consider what Establishment means. It means that the whole of the country of Wales is mapped out for the clergy, that the Bishops in Wales are the Bishops of every soul in their respective dioceses, and that every incumbent is by law the pastor of every soul in his parish. A smaller anomaly is that the Church of England recognises the Orders of the Roman Catholic priests, but will not recognise the Orders of Nonconformist ministers. Can it be supposed that a people like the Welsh, deeply attached as they are to their Nonconformist ministers, will willingly tolerate a state of things under which their ministers are in law discountenanced, their religion placed under a stigma as though of base birth, when it is in truth their highest glory, and when as a nation they are as justly proud to be Nonconformist as any Englishman can be to be Protestant. And who are the people you thus gratuitously insult and are willing to alienate? The people of Wales are religious, orderly, temperate, thrifty, and loyal beyond, I might say, other people; they are not intolerant of the Church of England doctrines; their objection is simply to its Establishment. As I well remember the late Mr. John Bright saying to me 10 years ago, when this question was first set burning in the minds of Welsh Members, the Church has ceased to be the Church of the people, not by its own wrong-doing as a Church, but by the action of Establishment. Establishment killed the Church, said Mr. Bright. And now I venture to say that it is Establishment which is rendering the Church odious to the people of Wales, and to contest the position of the Establishment, to try to save the Establishment, is to aggravate the position, and will make the inevitable change one of more severity to the Church. The real policy of those who care for the Church should be to reconcile the Church to the people, and that will best be done by disestablishment. I ask the House what harm the people of Wales have done to England
    1300
    that they should be so used? In what respect can it be said that they are in the wrong, or have ever acted wrongfully? Why are the English battalions here, and not the Scotch or the Irish, to vote against this Resolution? It is not our fault that Nonconformity has grown to be the form of our national religion; I do not say it is the fault of the Church even. It is the fault of the State, and the State must admit it, and withdraw its unhappy intervention as well for the sake of the Church as in justice to the Welsh people. Our demands are moderate, we do not wish to give effect to any revengeful feelings, we are not covetous of the goods of the Church. This is no claim for concurrent endowment, this is no proposal for a Maynooth grant. All we ask for is an honourable equality before the law for all denominations in Wales, and the people of Wales cannot do less than make this demand again and again until it is satisfied. Whatever the vote to-night may be, however English numbers may overthrow us, there is not one of the Englishmen who will go into the Lobby against us who will not feel that were we to do otherwise than fight this question as the one question for Wales we should be wanting not only in national self-respect, but in actual manhood, and in their hearts they would despise us.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down the magnanimous declaration that he was not going to blacken the Church to which he belongs, but I think most hon. Members will agree that before he sat down he had succeeded in giving the Church what is commonly called a "back-hander." The hon. Gentleman seemed rather satisfied with the Amendment I have put down upon the paper and thinks it is a step towards reconcilement—that it is making an advance towards those who belong to other denominations. I am glad he thinks so. For my part I have no quarrel with Nonconformists, I represent Nonconformity as well as Church feeling. I am certain that I represent a great many Nonconformists who disagree with the words of the Churchman who has just spoken. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution seemed to think that I am hardly capable in my position of speaking for Wales or Welshmen, but I may say I am a good deal more connected

    1301
    with Wales than the hon. Member who has spent twenty years of his life in Australia, and I think I know more about Wales than the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, whose connection with the Principality is merely apolitical one, who has no home in Wales, and does not speak the Welsh language. I have something more than a political connection with Wales. I am acquainted with Welsh sentiment, and I do not hesitate to say that Churchmen and Nonconformists and all religious men in Wales will be extremely shocked at the tone and language of the hon. Member who brought forward this Resolution. I am perfectly certain that I speak the opinion of Nonconformists, and that they will not approve of the virulent attack the hon. Member has made upon those whose religious views differ from his own. The hon. Member who sits for Merthyr was returned to Parliament, not upon what may be called the Nonconformist interest, for all of those connected with the chapels in Merthyr voted against him and used the strongest language in condemnation of his claims. They said—though I hardly like to repeat what they did say—"that he was brother to Judas Iscariot," and that he and all his friends were going to a very bad place. I do not know whether he has yet made friends with these electors, or if, by his speech, he hopes to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian has given us an interesting account of his own attitude towards this subject, and how for the last twenty years he has been patiently watching which way the cat would jump. There was to the last an uncertainty as to which way he would vote, and it was extremely interesting to note the anxiety depicted on the faces of Members opposite as the right hon. Gentleman described the zeal and activity of the Church. However he seems to have come to the conclusion at last that the cat is out of the bag and has jumped. The right hon. Gentleman's conscience is influenced by electoral, figures, his political conduct is governed by arithmetical rules, and upon the result of the elections of 1886 he has made up his mind that the number of Welsh Members supporting this Motion is sufficiently large to make it safe for him to support the Resolution. But I am not quite sure that he is right for in the
    1302
    election of 1886 the electors voting for the present Members numbered 60,000, and against them were 48,000, a proportion of five to four. Why, hon. Members who profess to represent Wales, represent only the "odd man." As an indication of the current of opinion at the present time, I may point to the recent School Board elections at Swansea, where the Church candidates, three clergymen, completely defeated the Nonconformists by more than 2,000 votes. [An hon. MEMBER: "The cumulative vote."] I think the idea that the feeling is all one way is based on a mistaken view of the facts. We shall this evening apply the microscope to Wales, but it must be remembered that this Motion affects five or six dioceses in the Southern Province and one in the Northern; it affects the Church of England in England as well as in Wales. The conditions of the Church in Wales are the same as in England, with this difference perhaps—that Churchmen in Wales show greater zeal and contribute more generously than in purely English dioceses, and that there are in Wales a larger proportion of communicants to the population than in England. But I specially wish to ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Stuart Rendel) what he means by the maintenance of the Establishment? Can he give us a definition; can the hon. Member who moved this Motion? Does he not know that the term "by law established" is a mere translation of "legibus stabitita," and simply means the recognition and protection which is by law accorded to every lawful religion? That the term is equally applicable to all denominations. The hon. Member does not understand, and greatly disparages the position of the denominations whose case he is endeavouring to put forward when he does not recognise this fact. For the last 200 years there has been what may be called concurrent establishment. If he doubts that allowance by law is of necessity a sufficient establishment, let me remind him of old statutes and judicial declarations. In 1767, in the House of Lords, Lord Mansfield in the cause between the City of London and the Dissenters on the nomination of sheriffs used these words—
    "The Toleration Act renders that which was illegal before now legal. The Dissenter's way of worship is permitted and allowed by the Act.

    1303
    It is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful. It is established."
    Hon. Members are perhaps ignorant of the law: they have not perhaps read Black-stone. It may be they have never heard of Lord Mansfield, who said the worship of Dissenters is established. Speaker Onslow supported that view, and in Dr. Furneaux's letters to Blackstone hon. Members will find the privileges to Dissenters described as legal establishment. For 200 years—from 1720 to 1850—the Dissenter denominations received State pay, sums of money being granted every year in the Appropriation Acts for their support, because they were considered to represent a legalised and established form of public religions worship. But Nonconformists are always asking for more establishment. Only the other day they asked for special rights to obtain sites for places of public worship. We have recognised the rights of Nonconformists: their ministers are relieved from serving civil offices: they are recognised by law.
    MR. STUART BENDEL: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. What I said was that the Established Church does not recognise the orders of Nonconformist ministers.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Still I do not quite know what the hon. Member means. The Church does not recognise the orders of Nonconformists or Nonconformists our orders. Of course, no Church recognises the orders of another, in the sense of allowing services to be performed by those who do not believe in the doctrines of the Church.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I am unwilling to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; but I must repeat and emphasise my statement that the Established Church does recognise the orders of the Roman Catholic Church, but not of Nonconformists.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg pardon; we do not recognise the orders of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do Roman Catholics recognise our orders in the sense I have referred to.
    MR. DE LISLErose, but
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONproceeded: I say we do recognise the position of Nonconformist ministers by law, by the State, by Acts of Parliament relieving them from service in offices where otherwise they would be compelled to serve, and so I say Nonconformity is established
    1304
    by law. But it is the endowments hon. Members want to confiscate, what do they care about the relations between Church and State? Why not be honest and say you want the money? For my part I can more tolerate though I cannot admire the narrow bigotry which would suppress every form of faith but its own than I can endure the canting hypocrisy which covers its predatory instincts under the cloak of religion. Here are the uses as set out in their draft Bill to which hon. Members would apply the money they get from the Church.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to directly mislead the House. His language is sometimes strong and his statements occasionally erroneous, he speaks of a draft Bill of ours; I can assure him there is no such thing in existence.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Oh, but I have the draft Bill here. ["Whose"?] Here are some of the purposes to which the funds of the Church are proposed to be devoted: music rooms, museums, observatories, eistedfodds. Will hon. Gentleman put all religious bodies upon the same footing? Dissenting bodies are richly endowed; let hon. Members regard the Church endowments as they do the endowments of their own denominations. The property administered by the Church is private not national property. If anybody doubts that I recommend him to learn law and history from the Nonconformist Selden, the Radical Chancellor Brougham, the Tory Eldon, the Unionist Selborne, the Radical historian Freeman. It is private not national property, and those who deny it assert what is morally, legally, and historically untrue. The Church has never been subsidised by the State, and is no burden upon the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said on a notable occasion that the clergy are not State paid. I do not know whether that declaration of fact will now be said to contain "an element of exaggeration." The statement of the hon. Member for Swansea that tithes were supplied to the Church, by Parliament, is historically and absolutely untrue. Now it is declared in this Motion, that the—
    "Church has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious

    1305
    interests of the Welsh people and ministers only to a small minority of the population;"
    but, as a matter of fact, there is in Wales no religious body which has so large a number of members. If all minorities are to be robbed of their endowments merely because they are minorities, then disendowment will have to begin with the Roman Catholics first, then the Wesleyans, the Independents, the Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Calvinists, and, last of all, the Church. It is not the Church of the few, but of the many. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, said the Church in Wales is in precisely the same position as the Church in Ireland; but he forgets that in Ireland Roman Catholicism has a far larger number of adherents than the Church of England. But there is no religious denomination in Wales that can compare in numbers with the Church of England. Hon. Members base their case upon numbers, but how is it they so bitterly oppose an authoritative return of their numbers—a religious census? Why do they object to a man stating the religion he belongs to? I do not know how it may be in the company hon. Members keep, but I have never heard of a Nonconformist being ashamed to acknowledge the religion to which he belongs. Hon. Members claim to have many friends, why are they unwilling to have them counted? An amateur census has indeed been taken by an important gentleman whose name has been mentioned in the Debate, though probably it is not familiar to many hon. Members—a gentleman of the name of Gee. Mr. Gee is an Irishman, and, therefore, would be counted an alien in Wales. We do not call such persons aliens, but they have been called so during the Debate by hon. Members who claim to represent Wales; but, alien or not, Mr. Gee is a very important person; he is practically father-confessor to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan), and generally an autocrat among the Radical Members for North Wales. He is, indeed, a sort of Welsh Schnadhorst. This gentleman set up a census in 78 parishes, and published the returns as they came in. From these returns it appears that the Church in these parishes stands in proportion of 5 to 1 to the Baptists, 5 to 3
    1306
    to the Calvinists, 3 to 1 to the Independents, and as 3 to 1 to the Wesleyans. This then, 1 say, is not the Church of the few, but of the many. This census further tells us that in Bangor the numbers are r the Church 5,306, Calvinists 3,549, Independants 1,026, Wesleyans 1,386, Roman Catholics 260. In Denbigh the Church 2051, Calvinists 938, Independents 609, Wesleyans 388. In Brecon, the Church 2832, Calvinists 148, Independents 189, Wesleyans 335, Roman Catholics 556. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who has lived long enough at Harwarden to know something of the poor, made the audacious statement that the Church is the Church of the rich. We all know that Nonconformity is strongest among the middle classes, and has but few adherents among the poor. It is not always easy to test this. But the Nonconformist Board of Guardians at St. Asaph determined to find out the strength of Nonconformity among the poor by counting the adherents of different denominations who were in the workhouse. It turned out that there were 96 Churchmen, 13 Calvanists, 9 Baptists, 6 Independents, 5 Wesleyans, and 5 Roman Catholics.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Can the hon. Member give us the statistics of the prisons?
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Here we have the result of the investigation by a Nonconformist Board of Guardians establishing the fact that among the extreme poor the immense majority belong to the Church. This does not look like the failure of the Church among the poor, while Mr. Gee's census proves their strength in large towns. But Nonconformists, if not hon. Members, are willing to admit the activity of the clergy. The Rev. John Thomas, D.D., at Carnarvon on Nov. 20, 1883, said:—
    "During the last 50 years, but especially during the last 25 years things have greatly improved. A large number of Welsh Clergy take a deep interest in their work and there is no end of their visitation among their parishioners. I admire their zeal."
    I have a good many other statistics which I put away because they have already been touched upon, and now I will say something upon what I may call the other side. I should like to know what means Dissenters have of supplying ministration to the poor, if a Motion like this under consideration is put into effect. There

    1307
    are 90 parishes in St. Asaph which have no resident Nonconformist minister. Something has been said about an alien Church. Do not hon. Members know that Nonconformity was first forced on Wales by Cromwell and Major General Harrison? Do they not know that the clergy were thrust out, that a State religion was set up, and ministers paid by Parliamentary Commissioners, who established the Calvinistic doctrine of religious inequality. The plan failed, and in 1676, or 20 or 30 years afterwards, the Nonconformists in Wales numbered only 4 per cent of the inhabitants. Methodism in the last century was the offspring of the Church. It was a brotherhood within the Church. In 1801, and again in 1834, the chiefs of the Methodist body said they did not want to separate themselves from the Church of England. It was only when politics overshadowed the chapels that the attack upon the Church was made in Wales. I would like to have one or two inquiries made as to Nonconformity in Wales. I would like a Royal Commission to inquire into the established Nonconformist denominations in Wales. The official statistics of the Calvinistic Methodists show that in 1884 in that body there were 10,000 communicants, while in 1886 there were only 6000. We have other official statistics printed by the Nonconformists to the effect that in 1883 there were 422 Baptist pastors, and in 1886, 360. I would like to have an inquiry as to how many chapels have been abandoned and used for secular purposes since 1860, and how many unnecessary chapels had been erected, because I find that at a meeting held last spring, at Shrewsbury, one of the speakers said it was nothing less than a scandal to their common faith to see, in a street 30 yards long, four chapels, any one of which would accommodate all the congregations. I would like to know how many chapels are used for political meetings. There is the scandal of that hon. Member who got up in the pulpit, and, having delivered a very racy address one Saturday evening to the political Nonconformists, put a pipe in his mouth and smoked. [Cries of "Order!"]
    Mr. W. PRITCHARD MORGANrose, and was received with loud cries of "Order!"
    Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTONrefused to give way.
    Mr. W. PRITCHARD MORGANstill essayed to speak, but his voice was drowned in cries of "Order!"
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I was not alluding to the hon. Member. Why should he put the fools cap on?
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Mr. Speaker——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order!
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Really, the reason——
    Mr. W. PRICHARD MORGANstill remained standing.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Leighton) does not give way he is in possession of the House.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I do not see why I should give way to the hon. Member when I referred to a scandal in which he was not the actor. The real reason for the present agitation is the decline of Nonconformity and the increasing strength of the Church. If we crippled the Church who would be the gainers? Will spirituality be renewed amongst Nonconformists by giving this blow to the Church? Methodism, which is 100 years old, is already on the wane. The Welsh Church is older than the See of Canterbury, and has given to the Welsh the translation of the Bible, which has been the means of preserving the language, and is to this day practically the dictionary of the Welsh people; the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales were never more active in Church work, in educational work, in philanthropic work, and I maintain that it would be unjust and inexpedient to paralyse the labours of such a Church; it would be to encourage class hatred and bitter sectarianism; it would take away from the poor the means of religious worship and retard the progress of the nation.
    SIR G.TREVELYAN: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member (Mr. S. Leighton) in his historical argument, but I must say that though I listened to his speech with great care and attention it was not easy to get hold of any tangible argument in favour of the Welsh Establishment. If the Church is to be saved it will be by speeches of a different kind. There have been speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite to which a much closer examination must be given. The hon. Member for Oswestry appealed to the age of

    1309
    the Welsh Church, but for our present purposes we need not go back very far in history—not beyond the lifetime of many living men. Two generations ago there were in Wales 300 or 400 chapels, and now there are 3,000 or 4,000. That shows the tendency of the current: that shows what the people want, and will continue to want, until the Resolution before us has been carried out by law. Speeches in defence of the Church have been made, not by Welsh Members, but by Members for neighbouring English counties. The Members for Hereford and Shropshire are as near an approach to Welsh Members as can be got to plead against the wish of Wales. The hon. Member for Oswestry told us that the cause of this movement was the decline of Nonconformity and the increasing strength of the Church, and the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir J. Bailey), my old schoolfellow, who I hope will allow me to call him my hon. Friend, who spoke in the tone which men should adopt towards their neighbours, made the very best case out for the Church—a case in which he evidently thoroughly believed. He said that the Church of England and Wales, or the Church of England in Wales, as the hon. Member for Merthyr called it—it does not greatly matter by which name it is called for the short time it will last as an establishment—has increased greatly of late years, and he gave instances of that increase. Other instances have been given on the other side of the question. Now, I beg hon. Members to look very closely into both cases. The hon. Member for Hereford took the case of Merthyr Tydvil, the constituency of the hon. Member who moved the Motion. He showed how Merthyr Tydvil has increased. He showed that it is a great community of some 60,000 people, and he showed, if I recollect right, that about £122 a year is paid in tithes.
    SIR J. BAILEY: The right hon. Gentleman is mixing up two cases. I think the sum in Merthyr Tydvil is, £800.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The sum, at any rate, was small. He showed how there was a small sum in tithes, and how, by the public spirit and devotion of Churchmen, a very large body of religious teaching has been set up, many churches built, and many curates en-
    1310
    dowed. In fact, the whole speech of the hon. Gentleman was a speech on the advantage of voluntaryism. Other cases taken by another hon. Member, who well knows the case of Wales, were Cardiff Swansea, and Llanelly. In Cardiff the tithes are £109, in Swansea £140, in Llanelly I can find no tithes recorded at all, but the populations are enormous; they are counted by scores and hundreds and thousands, and they afford a fine field for the exertions of rival religious bodies. Where the population is dense and the endowments are small there the Church of Wales was increasing as the Church of England is increasing in our great cities. That is an argument, not for Establishment, but for voluntaryism. We must not think that in these great centres Nonconformity is behind hand. The same causes which have given an impetus to the Church have given an impetus to Nonconformity. In Merthyr Tydvil for every seat which the Church has provided, four are provided by other bodies, and in the great centres of Monmouthshire for every seat provided by the Church at least three have been provided by other bodies. It must be remembered by those who, like myself, listen for the opinions of the people through the mouths of their constitutional representatives, that all these crowded districts, of whom my hon. Friend spoke, send by enormous majorities men charged to effect in Parliament disestablishment of the Welsh Church. But these places do not afford the strongest test; that is to be found in the rural districts, those Welsh speaking districts where, by the confession of a dignitary of the Established Church, the Nonconformists are in an enormous majority. And what are the statistics of the hon. Member who has just sat down when tried by the light of the confession of a Dean of his own Church, when he says—
    "Out of 1,006,100 souls who, according to Mr. Ravenstein, speak Welsh, 800,000 are attached more or less closely to the 3,000 chapels of the three different Nonconformist sects. Statistical apologists will hint that these Nonconformists exist only on paper. Paper adherents do not give money. The Welsh Nonconformists give far more than £300,000 a year."
    The truth is that it is these rural districts that are the real test rather than the great towns. These are the cases in which the excluded are the most

    1311
    numerous and the included are few, while the endowments are enormously great in proportion to any work done for the benefit of the population. The Postmaster General referred to these districts. He said that the great glory of the Church was that it kept up public worship and service for small congregations of two, three, and four people. If that were a valid argument, the Irish Church would be alive this very moment. It is quite idle to argue that these districts would be left without' any sort of public worship if this money were withdrawn. If any good work is being done in these districts, even if the money were withdrawn, why should not the Church as a voluntary institution with its rich adherents go on doing the work which is done by the Nonconformist bodies with their poor clients? It is not the case that the field would be left empty, for the field is a religious field. The Welsh are a religious people, and if in any places there are only one, two, or three going to church, that is because the majority go to chapel. The real defence of an Established Church is that it is the Church of the poor. I have never heard any hon. Member deny that the Nonconformist bodies in Wales are the churches of the poor, or argue that the Church in Wales, whatever it is, is, at any rate, anything but the Church of the rich. And yet the Nonconformist colliers, the small famers, and small shopkeepers keep their own ministers, silently and without complaint, in decent competence. I have very small sympathy with men who draw large rents from the land and get the profits from the large works, who endeavour in the English newspapers to secure sympathy for their ministers, and yet who let their clergy starve if the tithes are not regularly paid. That is the state of things in Wales. The rich have their religious worship kept up for them at the expense of national property of £260,000 a year at the least. The poor took out of their slender earnings at least £300,000 a year; and then the Postmaster General comes to us and says that Wales is to submit to this state of things for the sake of England. He says that to rebel against this state of things would be to "fritter away the oneness of this realm of England." The speech of the Postmaster General was worth a great deal to us. It is strange,
    1312
    Indeed, that so ingenious a Gentleman, who is arguing on behalf of an institution which he loves in so disinterested a manner as he does love the Church to which he belongs, should be so unfortunate in his language as to give weapons of the most trenchant sort to those who are endeavouring to overthrow its bulwarks. The references of the Postmaster General to the Welsh people I prefer to be read by the people in the Postmaster General's speech. The very mildest of them all was when he compared them to the more civilised districts of the Island. He used very much stronger remarks than these, but none of his epithets will go so home to the Welsh people as his absolute denial of a Welsh nationality. And on what ground does he deny this nationality? On the ground, so far as I can make out, that according to his reading of history until Wales fell under the power of England it never was united, bat was split into three Principalities. Are we to make that the test of nationality? England, indeed, may be a nation on those conditions, and so may France. But what do you say to the nation, the struggle for whose nationality has made the history of our lifetime—the Kingdom of Italy? Was Italy a united Italy without anything else attached to it before the time that it was united under Victor Emanuel? Indeed, if I were to scrutinise too closely the claims of Ireland on the principle laid down by the Postmaster General, Ireland would have no claim to nationality. No, Sir; the arguments that have been used against this measure have not been of a very persuasive nature. The most formidable argument, and the one on which our adversaries rely, is that the Church, though not a very successful authority, is still a Propagandist Church. A sanguine man in the Debates on the Irish Church Bill said it would take 4,000 years to convert Ireland to Protestantism; and I think it would take at least four centuries to make any impression on the Nonconformity of Wales. And what a prospect it is for Wales that all the endowments of the Principality should be placed during all that period in the hands of the adversaries of the creed of the majority. It is said that the Welsh clergy are politicians. How can they

    1313
    be anything else if the endowments are used to draw their flocks away from them? Politics has been to them a matter of conscience. They are bound to be politicians. The only way to send them back to their duties, and to give them the same interest which all good citizens have in politics, is to do justice—to pass this Resolution and found a Bill upon it, at the earliest opportunity—to give them the fair play that all citizens ought to have. If you do that, you may be very sure that they will retire into the ranks of private citizens. There remains only one argument that I know of of a serious sort, and that is that the Church of England and Wales is an organic and indivisible body, and that you cannot separate the parts any more than you can separate a limb from the body. Now there is an interior and visible, as well as a mystic meaning in this. The visible meaning was given by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said there were such very great practical difficulties on this question. He said—
    "Monmouthshire is part of the diocese of Llandaff, and how would you separate Monmouthshire from Llandaff and leave it, as an English county, under the influence of the Established Church."
    My answer is that we should not separate Monmouthshire from the rest of the diocese of Llandaff. What would have been said if we had been told two years ago that we would not have a Local Government Bill because the unions overlapped the boundary of this or that county? And as regards the mystical side of the question—"This is a single indivisible body which cannot be divided"—that I allow is too deep for me. It is not a practical objection at all, and Members of this House are not likely to have much sympathy with it. The Resolution is a practical suggestion. We know the thing can be done. We have done it in the case of Scotland 200 years ago. It was quite idle to give the Scottish people then the arguments which are now thought good enough for the Welsh Nonconformists. The Scottish people told English Churchmen in a very sharp manner that they will not have them. This has been done in the case of Scotland, and it has been done in the case of Ireland. We know, therefore, that it is
    1314
    practical. I will advance only one more argument, which I think has not been given already, but which I consider a very serious argument indeed on one side of the question—that is, the demoralizing effect in every department of social and municipal life of Church privilege. Just as in Ireland when you began to favour a particular Church in things religious, that favour was spread to civil matters, so the same thing has taken place in Wales. There are Welsh counties where religious opinion is made a test for taking part in civil duties. There is one county which returns six Members to Parliament pledged to disestablishment, and yet in that county a short time ago there were but two County Justices who were Nonconformists. In the County of Carmarthen four-fifths of the population are Nonconformists. In the Island of Anglesey not long since there was but a single Nonconformist on the Bench, while in Flintshire there is not one. Up to a very recent period the same state of things prevailed in regard to other public positions in Wales. But it is very different in all cases in which the Welsh people have the power to express their own wishes, as in the County Councils, for instance. The conscientious objections which many Welshmen have to the payment of tithe has produced great differences, and has been one of the great causes which have led during the last three years to the greatly increased desire for disestablishment. We know by recent and ancient history that a Church which is in a precarious and an invidious position may be safe so long as it remains quiet, but that directly it becomes aggressive towards its opponents it will be placed in great danger. The Church in Scotland will furnish an example of this in the case of the Patronage Bill, and it is now the case with the Church in Wales in connection with the tithe war. If the Welsh Nonconformists had been left alone they might have remained tranquil, but the Tithe Bill which is about to pass through Parliament has set their backs to the wall, and they are determined to fight the whole question. The feeling against the Established Church is stronger in Wales at the present time than it ever was. It has been growing rapidly, and

    1315
    in proof of that I will give the House one or two figures. The old Parliamentary representation of Wales was not in favour of religious equality. In 1856 only two Welsh Members voted in favour of Mr. Miall's Motion for Welsh Disestablishment. Later on in the same year, when a Motion was brought forward in the House to enable Dissenters to take part in the proceedings of the Cambridge University Senate, only one Welsh Member voted in its favour. In 1870 it would be found only seven Welsh Members voted in favour of disestablishment, while now the numbers were 27 to 3, with the difference that the three cannot be relied on to vote at all. The reason is that since then two things have happened—we have got the ballot, and household suffrage has been extended to the counties. That is to say, the great body of the common people in Wales have the franchise, and they use it without supervision or dictation. It is proved beyond all manner of doubt that the great body of the Welsh commonalty are attached to the Nonconformist faith, and are opposed to the Established Church. The feeling against the Established Church grew up in the last century under a very severe system of persecution, such as is impossible now in these days of publicity and humanity, and it is kept alive, and will continue to be kept alive, by the only persecution now possible—the favour and partiality shown by the law to creed as against creed—a favour and partiality which I earnestly trust will receive their deathblow to-night.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,: The House may well feel surprised that no attempt has been made by those who support the Motion to grapple with the propositions it contains. That Resolution made two statements of fact, and upon those statements based a recommendation. The statements are—first, that
    "The Church of England in Wales had failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people;"
    and, secondly, that
    "It ministers only to a small minority of the population."
    The first of those propositions has been refuted as much by the speech of the
    1316
    right hon. Member for Mid Lothian as by any other speech that has been delivered to-night. The very person who has moved this Resolution acknowledged that there has been an awakening to life on the part of the Church in Wales. If the Church in Wales needed any vindication at all it has received it in the speech for which this Debate will be memorable—the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who spoke of the Church in terms of deep and sincere admiration, and showed that in support of their creed and their Church the supporters of the Church of England in Wales have outdone even the generosity of the people in English dioceses. This directly negatives the first proposition put upon the Paper. The right hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think that he had answered the argument based upon the recent increase of churches in places like Merthyr by saying that the Nonconformist chapels had increased in like proportion. Surely that does not disprove the good influence of the Church in Wales. Is it not a good thing that the energy of the Church should inspire corresponding energy in other bodies? An honest rivalry amongst those who are teaching religion and endeavouring to do good ought to be a cause for jubilation. The second proposition in the Resolution is that the Church in Wales ministers only to a small minority of the people. Has that been proved? The expression "a small minority" has not been explained, and we know that the last Church census, in 1889, which was begun was not carried to a completion by those who, being opponents of the Church, had thought to make capital out of it. It is not uncharitable to suppose that if the results of that census could have borne out the views expressed by the opponents of the Church they would have been put before the country in their entirety. Does this Resolution mean disestablishment and disendowment? ["Hear, hear!"] Then why does it not say so? Why should an attempt be made to induce the House to accept a vague Resolution of this kind? If the Church is using the funds it possesses for the benefit of the people there is no ground for taking them away. The right hon. Member opposite delivered a speech 20 years ago which he had not

    1317
    recanted, although to-night, with a miraculous subtlety of interpretation, he has tried to minimise its effect. Speaking of the proposal then made with regard to the Church of Wales, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "We do not intend to go in that direction; we deprecate it, and we should regard it as a national misfortune."
    That was 20 years ago, and what has been the history of those 20 years? There is not a Welsh Member who does not know that to-day the Church in Wales is stronger and better and purer and more energetic than it was then. Can Parliament reasonably be asked to cripple this organisation, which is generally admitted to be doing good work to-day—to cripple it, not because any one suggests that there is any object under the sun to which the Church funds can be devoted with greater usefulness to the people, but simply because a section of the community wish to gratify a political antagonism? It is said that the Nonconformity of Wales is opposed to the Church; but it is not to the old and traditional Nonconformity of Wales that this movement can be referred. Welsh Methodism was began by Churchmen who had no thought of making their movement an assault upon the Church. Welsh Methodism was taught by Churchmen, most of whom remained faithful members of the Church. In 1834 there was an assembly of the Welsh Methodists at Bala, at which it was unanimously agreed that those present deeply lamented the nature of the agitation now so persistent in the kingdom, and which avowedly had for its object the severing of the National Church from the State, and recommended every member of the Connection not to interfere, and pray that "They might lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty." If those men who founded Welsh Dissent and restored to the Church by their bright example much of the efficiency that it had greatly lost, had been alive now, I believe that they would have raised the strongest voice against the Motion of their successors, who now ask to have the National Church disestablished and disendowed. The history of the Welsh Church has been a long one. For 1,300 years its tradition has been continuous, and because 200
    1318
    years ago, through the action of a Monarch to whom England has not much reason to be grateful—I mean William III.—an unpatriotic, hard, and not a national administration of the Welsh Church occurred, by which it was for a time divorced from the people and weakened in its hold, that is no reason why, when we find the Church regaining its authority and strength, sounding the note of purity, of energy, and of a true faith, we should not let the Welsh people enjoy in its increasing strength and fulness the administrations of a Church which for 11 centuries has been dear to them. It is too late to deal with any matters of statistics; but I would observe, in conclusion, that for neither statement made in the Resolution has sound reason been given in the speeches of hon. Members opposite.
    MR. BYRON REED: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Mr. DILLWYNrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 203.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.

    SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) BILL. (No 49.)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on nomination of the Select Committee [10th February.]
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I crave the indulgence of the House for one moment in reference to the nomination of this Committee, and I ask the attention of the House to the proposal which I have to make, as it may relieve it from the dilemma in which it is placed. A few weeks ago it was agreed to appoint a Committee on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member

    1319
    for Evesham, to consider the question of the superannuation of the teachers of London, but no sooner was it done than a natural and general wish was expressed that the scope of the Committee should be extended, so as to deal with the whole question of superannuation. The result has been that it was agreed to appoint another Committee on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, to deal with the question of the superannuation of teachers as a whole. Thus we shall be in the position of having two Committees sitting upstairs to deal with the same subject if the present Motion is agreed to. In the interests of peace and of the teachers, I appeal to the hon. Baronet to postpone his Motion to-night, so as to allow an Instruction to be moved enlarging its scope and adding a few names. It is true my hon. Friend may urge that he will be placed at a disadvantage if the scope is enlarged, as his Committee was appointed for a specific purpose and in regard to a Bill in a concrete form now before the House. But I may venture to point out this to the House: that Returns have been moved for from the Education Department giving a large amount of information which will enable the Committee to deal thoroughly with the question of the superannuation of teachers as a whole; and until those Returns are forthcoming the Committee could be dealing with the subject of my hon. Friend's Bill, and afterwards deal with the general question. I only suggest this as a via media out of what I think is a dilemma, and I urge it in the interests of the whole body of elementary teachers.
    MB. T. H. BOLTON: I hope the hon. Baronet will not assent to the suggestion unless it is distinctly understood that the case of the London teachers shall be considered separately and distinctly from the general question. The London teachers have already a fund which amounts to something like £60,000 for purposes of superannuation, and they only ask to he at liberty to put that fund on a satisfactory basis. They do not ask for any public money. Unless their case is dealt with first, and separately from the general question, the Bill may have to be postponed indefinitely.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I should like to say a few words in confirmation of what has been stated by my right hon. Friend. It is quite true I thought it undesirable to deal with the case of the London teachers without going into the whole question of the superannuation of teachers. At the same time, we have no hostile feeling to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham. The general question cannot be gone into immediately, as it appears that the Returns will not be ready for a few weeks, and, therefore, there can be no objection to my hon. Friend's Bill being considered pending the receipt of that information. But it would be inconsistent to have two Committees of the House sitting on practically the same subject and at the same time. If my hon. Friend will consent to the enlargement of the Instruction, then the matter can, I think, be brought on again next week without prejudice.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I think the suggestion a satisfactory one, as the Committee will be able to consider and report on my hon. Friend's Bill before dealing with the general question.
    SIR R. PAGET: I do not think that that should go forth as the arrangement. It might be deemed preferable that the Committee should defer its Report on the hon. Baronet's Bill until after it has considered the general question, as they might seriously hamper themselves by a premature decision. I do not wish to oppose any obstacle to the consideration of my hon. Friend's Bill; but the Committee must not be directed to report on it before they have dealt with the other branch of the Reference.
    Debate further adjourned till Tuesday next.

    EAST INDIA (FACTORY ACT).
    Address for—
    "Copies of Despatches from the Secretary of State in Council to the Government of India, dated the 13th day of May and the 3rd day of July, 1890, relating to the amendment of 'The Indian Factory Act, 1879.'"—(Sir George Campbell.)
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

LORD TRIMLESTOWN.
Petition of Christopher Patrick Mary Barnewall of Trimlestown in the county of Meath, and of Turvey in the county of Dublin, Esquire, claiming a right to vote as Baron Trimlestown at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
THE EDUCATION CODE.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords I beg to put a question to the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council of which I have given him private notice. It is to ask if he can account for the fact that although the New Education Code has been delivered to Members of the House of Commons, and has even been reviewed in the newspapers, it has not yet been distributed in this House? This is a matter of special importance, because it is only within 40 days of the Code being laid on the Table that attention can be called to any of its provisions with the view of taking the opinion of Parliament upon them before it becomes law.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I am very sorry I cannot account for the Code not having been delivered. It was laid on the Tables of both Houses at the same time, and I suppose the printers have been unable to distribute it to the Members of both Houses simultaneously. I believe, however, it is now in course of distribution to your Lordships.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP SANITA TION BILL. [H.L.] (No. 28.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships a very short time upon this occasion, in asking for a Second Reading. This is a very un-ambitious Bill, but I hope it will prove a profitable one. Its chief object is to
  1186
  remove the greatest of the evils which were shown to exist in the course of the inquiry before the Sweating Committee in the foul dens—no words are strong enough to describe the horrors of them—in which the humbler classes only too often have to work. It will only be necessary for me to explain very shortly what the existing law is, and then to state briefly the amendments which I propose to make in that law. The existing law is contained in two Acts, one is the Public Health Act of 1875, and the other is the Factory Act of 1878. The stronger sanitary regulations are contained in the Factory Act; and, as I propose to consolidate the law, I have set out those clauses in Clause 2 of my Bill. Those regulations comprise the maintenance of cleanliness, and freedom from effluvia arising from drains, they provide against overcrowding, and secure ventilation, the removal of gases, and other injurious products. There is also a further clause providing for whitewashing and painting within certain times. This law the facts of the case, as given in evidence, show to be sufficient, where it is properly administered, and the remedy that is required is not so much in relation to the law as to its administration. With respect to the administration of the law, workplaces—for that, perhaps, is the most generic term to use—are divided into two classes: first, workplaces under the Factory Act, and, secondly, workplaces under the Public Health Act. Workplaces under the Factory Act are really and truly, in the first place, factories which are not used as dwelling-places; and, secondly, workshops in which children and young persons are employed. Those are the only class of workplaces to which, under the Factory Act, the Sanitation Clauses apply. All other cases come under the Public Health Acts. First, I must explain very shortly what the factories are. They are defined to be buildings in which mechanical power, such as steam, is employed in conducting certain processes, or used in certain trades which are unusually unhealthy, and, therefore, are considered necessary to be included in the Act, such as calico-printing and bleaching processes. Workshops, on the other hand, are workplaces to which the employer has the

  1187
  right of access. With respect to the places I have mentioned, the only ones under the Factory Acts are those which are not used as dwelling-houses. All the rest are under the other Act. Now, as to the remedies. The mode of dealing with these places proposed is principally by inspection. Inspection under the Factory Acts is conducted by the Inspectors appointed for that purpose; inspection under the Sanitary Acts is conducted by the ordinary Sanitary Inspectors. In these cases inspection is absolutely necessary. With respect to the factories, I have left them as they are now under the Act; but I have also added workplaces with more than 50 people; so that all large workshops will be under the Factory Inspectors, and all other workplaces will be under sanitary inspection. It is perfectly certain that at the present moment the local Sanitary Inspectors are, on the whole, slack in their duties, and there is great difficulty in enforcing the regulations. Therefore, what I propose to do is to place the inspection of workshops entirely under the County Councils—to give them full control over the whole of the local inspection. By full control I do not mean to appoint the local Inspectors; but I mean, if the local Inspector does not do his duty the County Council may remove him and replace him by another person. Now, with respect to the proceedings by which this law is enforced apart from inspection. They are principally proceedings at Petty Sessions. If the regulations are not complied with the Inspector may take proceedings in Petty Sessions, and the Court of Petty Sessions may make an Order that the Local Authority shall do what is necessary if it thinks fit. Those proceedings have, I think, so far acted pretty well, and I have retained them. I have also added here an important clause. The Inspector may himself desire the person who has neglected to comply with the regulations to do so. He may say, "So-and-so ought to be done; such-and-such filth ought to be removed," the person having the right to appeal; but if that direction is not appealed against the law will immediately become operative. The man may say, "I do not think this is legal," and he may appeal against the Order, but if not the Court will confirm the Order. The truth is that in these
  1188
  cases what is wanted in the way of remedial measures is in respect of what we should call trivial matters, and what is principally required is that they should be cheap and ready and easy. So far with regard to that part of the Bill. What I have endeavoured to do is to put under the Sanitary Law all the large workshops. I have taken away the exemption which existed, that if used as dwelling-houses they are not to be inspected. With respect to workshops, I have not altered the ordinary law, but I have provided for enforcing that law by making the County Councils masters of the situation. Then with regard to the other matters, they are not very material to notice now. Clauses 5 and 6 were taken from the Victorian Act on the subject. This was found in Victoria exceedingly beneficial for the purpose of preventing sweating; that is to say, that the heads of factories should keep a list of outworkers which should be open to the inspection of proper officers. The truth is that in a great many of these wrongs which are committed, these evils which exist, you will find that a man keeps a factory which is very well regulated, but, at the same time, he has a great number of outworkers—these miserable people of whom we have heard so much, and whose dreadful state is so much to be deplored. In Victoria, owing to the fact that the Inspectors can ascertain who those workers are, they are enabled to make the necessary inquiries, and to find out their condition; and that has been found to operate as a great check upon sweating. I may refer to the recent book of Sir Charles Dilke, on Greater Britain, in which he notices this Act of Victoria and its beneficial results. Then Clause 15 prohibits women using hammers in workshops. The necessity for that provision arises from this fact. In the Cradley Iron Works the women use an instrument called an "oliver." This instrument is used by means of a treadle, and when the hammer is of great weight it puts a pressure upon the strength of women which is altogether more than they should have to endure. It was also proved to us upon the Sweating Commission that it was a very unhealthy employment in the case of women. On the other hand, I do not think the prohibition in regard to work of that

  1189
  kind ought to be altogether absolute, because when the treadle is used and the hammer small it is perfectly innocuous. I have put the limit of weight at 4 lbs., but if that is objected to it can easily be altered for any other figure that may be desired. Then it was proved to us that a great many women are employed in welding heavy chains, and they have also to cut cold iron for that purpose. Such an operation is certainly beyond the strength of women, and I have therefore inserted a clause prohibiting it, when the weights are too heavy and the links beyond a certain size. That is, in reality, the whole of my Bill. I believe that, as a practical measure, it will have a very great beneficial effect indeed. In the first place, it removes the difficulty which has been found to exist under the Factory Acts. Under those Acts the Inspector has great doubts as to his jurisdiction. Another defect arising under the existing Acts which it will remove is that there is a dual authority. The Factory Inspector and the Sanitary Inspector have jurisdiction over the same place. The Factory Inspector is directed by that Act, for instance, to apply to the Sanitary Inspector when any defect arises from drains. It is quite clear that such a dual authority is extremely injurious, and, therefore, I have entirely removed it by giving the Factory Inspector complete jurisdiction wherever it is required. I do not think I need say much more in explanation of the Bill. I have not attempted to shorten the hours of labour, or to go further into the many difficult problems which are connected with the labour question; because I do not myself think we had sufficient evidence before the Sweating Committee to enable us to judge of what would be the proper course to be taken with regard to those most difficult and complex questions. I conclude by recommending this Bill to your Lordships, as I believe it will bring light and cleanliness into those dark spots of which we heard so much on the Sweating Committee, and brighten and make healthy what must be admitted to be the harsh and unlovely existence of many a humble artisan and many a hard-working woman. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Thring.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, not as your Lordships may imagine to endeavour to dissuade you from giving it a Second Reading, for I hope it will be read a second time, not only on account of the intrinsic merits of the Bill itself, but because, if it is not read a second time, another Bill, which perhaps I may be pardoned for thinking far superior to it, will not be given a Second Reading. But there are one or two matters connected with this Bill which it appears to me will militate against the very object which the noble and learned Lord opposite wishes to bring about. My noble Friend spoke of the necessity for inspection. I wish to point out to him that the condition precedent of a thorough inspection is a complete system of registration; because one of the difficulties which was most clearly proved in evidence before your Lordships' Select Committee on the Sweating System was the great difficulty that was experienced in discovering where the smallest class of workshops commonly called "sweating-dens" were situated; and this Bill contains no provision whatever for registering workshops or workplaces. Factories, of course, are registered under the existing law, but workshops are not. Almost the same remark affects Clause 5 of the Bill. That is a very useful clause, which requires a record to be kept of outside workers—or work that is put out, work that is sub-contracted for, the work, in fact, that goes into these small sweaters' dens, and places of that kind. But the noble Lord has in this Bill made a new definition of what he calls "workplaces," that is to say, all workshops where less than 50 people are employed. I imagine that would be 99 in 100 of all the workshops in the country, because there are not a great many in which more than 50 persons are employed, and as "workplaces" are omitted from this clause no register of outside work will be kept, practically speaking, in any of the workshops in the country. I have no objection whatever, on general principles, to the powers and authorities which the Bill proposes to give to County Councils; but I would point out that the way in which that power is granted by the Bill will cause a great deal of confusion. The County

  1191
  Councils are charged with superintending the inspection of workplaces; that is to say, all workshops where less than 50 people are employed. The effect of that will be, I should imagine, that the Local Authorities would not do their duty in the matter; that is to say, that in order to save themselves from the obloquy of raising the rates they will do nothing, and will throw the responsibility upon the County Councils, preferring that, as far as possible, their local work should be done for them and paid for out of the county rates. That is not a matter which I think will commend itself to your Lordships. Then the County Councils are given by the Bill power to dismiss sanitary officers; but the power of dismissing the sanitary officers is not, at the same time, interfered with in any wav as regards the Local Authorities. Therefore, the unfortunate sanitary officers will be under the thumb of two masters, and I am afraid that their difficulties in doing their duty will be somewhat oppressive in that respect. I have made these remarks because, as it appears to me, those provisions in the Bill to which I have referred will destroy the very objects which my noble Friend has in view; and I trust if the Bill is read a second time, as I hope it may be, he will consider those matters carefully before the Bill reaches another stage.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, there are at present no fewer than five Bills, which have either been presented to Parliament or shortly will be, dealing with this question. The first is a Government Bill, which I am informed is down for Second Reading in another place next Thursday. I have a proposal to make, which I trust will meet with your Lordships' approval, and with the approval of the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. As there are so many Bills before Parliament, I hope the noble Lord will wait until the Government measure has been read a second time, and then consent, if your Lordships approve, that this measure should go before a Committee at the same time as the Government Bill. I do not know whether he has seen the Government Bill; but I think I can assure the noble Lord that he will find clauses in that measure which will
  1192
  meet with his approval. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote one instance as showing why I think the noble Lord would do well to consent to that course. This Bill deals almost entirely with sanitation, which is largely the ground of the Government Bill; and were it to be proceeded with now, some confusion would be created owing to the introduction of fresh terms differing from the Factory Act of 1878. This Bill does not, for instance, repeal clauses in the existing Factory Act; and workshops should have, according to this Bill, a different meaning from that employed in that Act. Again, the Bill does not re-enact the qualification requiring the occupier to have a right of access; and the use of the term "workplace" might be likely to lead to an undesirable interference with private home work. That is a very important point, and your Lordships will remember that in our discussion last year on the Sweating Committee's Report that matter of labour in private dwellings engaged your Lordships' attention a good deal. Under the circumstances, therefore, I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time, on the understanding that the noble Lord proceeds no further with it until there has been an opportunity of discussing the Government measure.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I hope, as I was to some extent instrumental in passing the Bill of 1878, which consolidated the Factory Acts, I may be allowed to ask the noble and learned Lord one question. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord who has just sat down that the Definition Clause of this Bill and that contained in the Act of 1878 are different in one important particular. Under that Act it will be found that there is no limit of 50 persons being employed on the premises, but that the workshop must be a place under the control of the master, and to which the master had access. The object of that provision, as the noble and learned Lord must know well, because he drew the Bill according to my instructions, was to prevent the law from applying to domestic houses, where members of the same family are at work on their own account, getting their own living; but, as the noble and learned Lord has drawn his Bill, the words applying

  1193
  to those cases are left out in the definition of workshops and workplaces, and according to Clause 17, any place where, say, the daughters of a family were at work for a living, having no master at all, but simply doing their own private work in their own house, would come within the provisions of this Bill. Was that the intention of the noble Lord, or not? I would ask him, therefore, whether those words of definition in the Act of 1878 were purposely left out?
  LORD THRING: With regard to the criticism which has been made on the definition of workshops and workplaces, I think "workshops" is accurate. Workplaces are under the present Act, the Public Health Act, and are subject to sanitary inspection without any conditions whatever. What I have done is this: I have really and truly only levelled up workshops with more than 50 workers into the class of factories, in order to put the people employed there in the same position as factory workers. But I have not, as far as I understand (though I will certainly endeavour to alter my Bill if that be so), given the Inspectors a greater right to enter private houses than is contained in the two Acts together at the present time; because, although the Factory Acts to which the noble Lord has referred exempt workshops which are used as private dwelling-houses, and places to which a manager has not access, they are still under the jurisdiction of the Sanitary Inspector; and what I have wished to do is to strengthen the powers of inspection of the Sanitary Inspector, and to put the larger workshops under the Factory Inspectors. But I think the noble Lord will see that I have not authorised any invasion of private houses or mere family workplaces by the Inspector to a greater extent than under the existing law. The difference is that in one case the Factory Inspector has access, but that the Sanitary Inspector has access in every case. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to your Lordships. With respect to the proposal made by the noble Lord, that I should go no further with this Bill until the Government Bill has been read a second time in the other House, of course, if he insists upon it, I must submit; but the only question is whether
  1194
  it would not be better to pass this Bill through your Lordships' House, and then send it down to the other House to be committed with the other measure.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 27.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I hope your Lordships will permit me to say a few words concerning this Bill. It is some what more ambitious in its scope than the measure to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, although in some respects it may be said also to deal principally with sanitation. This Bill is founded principally, if not entirely, upon the evidence that was brought before your Lordships' Committee of Inquiry into the Sweating System, and was designed to meet, if possible, some of the graver evils and scandals which were proved before that Committee. Into the question, of the general state of things that was then revealed I do not propose to go at all. The evidence before that Committee resolved itself principally into three classes. It was shown that men in some of those sweating trades worked the most inhumanly long hours for most inadequate pay. Well, that question of adult male labour I have not attempted to touch in this Bill. Whether it may ever be considered right to restrain men from working these inordinately long hours, and from practically, in consequence, compelling other men to do the same thing, I will not discuss at all. It is, at any rate, a matter that is not within the range of practical politics at present, and I have nothing whatever to do with the question of male labour in this Bill, except in so far as it extends to workshops where adult males only are employed the sanitary provisions which are applicable under the Factory Acts in places where women or young persons or children are employed. Then there was a great deal of evidence given of the most valuable kind as to the terrible insanitary condition of work places, and the

  1195
  horrible want of the ordinary decencies of life. I have endeavoured to deal with that question in this Bill. The other fact that was brought out in evidence was the facility with which the law was broken, I mean the facility with which the law affecting protected persons, the law restricting hours of labour and so on, was broken in the smaller workshops and sweating dens, the inevitable result being that work was attracted out of factories, and large and well conducted workshops into these ill ventilated, badly drained, and insanitary small workshops. My principal object in this Bill is to make the existing law more universally applicable. I have no great fault to find with the law; I believe the law is sufficient as it is. What I complain of is, that the law cannot be applied, that the Act of 1878 contains so many loopholes for escape, so many modes of evasion, that such facilities are given to breaking the law that not only would it be easy to drive a coach and four through it, but there would be no practical difficulty in the whole Coaching Club driving through the provisions of that Act at any time if they thought fit. I also aim at quickening procedure. I have endeavoured to bring it about that the law shall be enforced equally in factories and other places where work is carried on. I have no doubt, myself, that it would be far better if all the work of the country could be carried on in large factories and workshops, properly conducted and inspected, and where the law is properly maintained; but that is impossible. It would be most unwise, most tyrannical, to interfere with home work. The great difficulty in dealing with questions of this kind, the great difficulty in factory legislation, is to reconcile those two principles; not to interfere too much with the liberty of the subject to work as they please in their own homes, not to prevent honest men and women and girls from earning an honest livelihood at home, but at the same time to extend as far as practicable the laws which have been passed for the benefit of labour to labour employed in places where that law is not at present applicable, or at any rate is not applied. Your Lordships must recollect that the mere fact of restricting hours of labour, and of insisting upon proper times for meals,
  1196
  and, in fact, the whole effect of factory legislation is to a certain extent to increase the cost of production; and, therefore, if work can be carried on in small workplaces, which are not known to the Inspector or where the law can be evaded, the cost of production is smaller in those places, the work is more cheaply done in them than in larger factories and workshops. The result is that a fictitious advantage is given to the sweater, work is naturally withdrawn from the larger workshops, and sweating, and the whole system of subcontracting, about which we heard so much before your Lordships' Committee is encouraged. As regards the provisions of the Bill, I will deal first with the question of sanitation, and I lay down the minimum amount of cubic space per person that is to be provided in all factories and workshops. I take the moderate estimate of 250 cubic feet by daylight, and 400 cubic feet by gaslight. I do not interfere in any way with the existing powers of the Secretary of State, but what I do is this: The cubic space to be allowed per person in factories is at present legally determined by an Order of the Secretary of State. I wish to embody the order and general rule in an Act of Parliament laying down the minimum: it should be at least 250 cubic feet, and 400 cubic feet. But I wish by no means to be understood as saying that that space is sufficient; and if your Lordships read this Bill a second time and it goes into Committee, I shall certainly not oppose any extension of that cubic space. Then I also propose that no work shall be carried on in underground places or cellars which, according to the law, could not be inhabited as dwellings legally. I do not think it fitting or right that human beings should be allowed to work from morning to night, and in many cases from night to morning too, in places which the law says are unfit for human beings to live in. That is not a matter which I think will meet with any opposition in your Lordships' House, and therefore I will pass very lightly over it. Then I come to a more important matter, the providing proper sanitary conveniences. Nothing was more disgusting than the evidence given before the Sweating Committee as to the condition of many workshops in

  1197
  those respects. The accommodation was absolutely insufficient, and in a great many cases—in numberless cases—there was no separate accommodation for the two sexes. Well, that is a state of things which I am perfectly certain ought not to be allowed to continue to exist. It is degrading, it is disgusting, and it cannot but fail to conduce towards immorality. What I propose to do is, in the first place, to compel Local Authorities to do what by the existing law they may now do in that respect, and to extend to the Metropolis the provisions of the Public Health Acts, so far as providing proper sanitary conveniences and separate sanitary conveniences for both sexes are concerned. That is also a matter which I do not think will meet with much opposition. Then as regards cleanliness, lime washing, and so on, I merely apply to workshops the law which at present applies to factories, and embody in an Act of Parliament what is now the law by reason of the orders of the Secretary of State. That is practically, my Lords, with the exception of a few minor matters with which I will not trouble the House now, what I propose to do with sanitation. I extend the existing provisions in regard to sanitation under the Factory Acts to all workplaces except domestic workshops. I prohibit work being carried on in cellars which are unfit for human dwellings, and I provide for a sufficient amount of decency, and for the ordinary requirements and necessities of human nature. But in this matter of sanitation some supervision by authority is necessary; and, I also, like my noble Friend (Lord Thring), give some authority to County Councils in this matter. I also provide that the two authorities who have to deal with sanitary questions—that is to say, the Sanitary Officer and the Factory Inspector—should assist each other, and should check each other. I impose upon the Sanitary Officer the duty of reporting to the Factory Inspector, if he finds that sanitation which comes under the Factory Acts, but not under the Public Health Acts, is deficient; and I further provide that if the Factory Inspector takes no action on that Report the Sanitary Inspector shall report direct to the superior officer of the Factory Inspector; that is, to the Home Secretary. Then, on the other
  1198
  hand, the Factory Inspectors are now required by the existing law to notify to the Sanitary Authority if they find any default in matters of sanitation under the jurisdiction of the Sanitary Authority. To that duty I add the duty that they are also to report to the Sanitary Authority in case of any default in fulfilling the requirements of the law as to sanitary conveniences, and cellar workplaces, which are provided for in this Bill, and in that case also I also introduce the County Council as the supreme authority; and I make it the duty of the Factory Inspector, if he finds that the Local Authority take no action on his Reports, to report the matter to the County Council. I differ from my noble Friend opposite as to the powers which I give to the County Council. I do not give them any power of doing the necessary work themselves, which would have the effect of relieving the Local Authorities of responsibility, a unwise thing to do; but I give the County Councils the power which is at present possessed by the Local Government Board and by the Home Secretary—that is to say, they can employ police constables to see that the requirements of the law are carried out, and such officers can recover the money from the Local Authority. That, I venture to think, is a better plan to pursue, because the responsibility, as far as money is concerned, would still rest upon the Local Authorities, and it is essential that upon the Local Authority should rest ultimately the duty of seeing that sanitation is carried out in their own area. It would be a fatal thing if Local Bodies could relieve themselves of taxation, and throw the burden of sanitation upon the County Council and upon rates raised by the county. Then, my Lords, I have endeavoured also to do what I can towards quickening procedure. I allow Factory Inspectors, in the event of their finding a factory or workshop not to be in conformity with the Act, instead of taking legal proceedings, or, in addition to taking legal proceedings to fine the occupier, to serve him with a notice specifying the necessary work that is to be done. Of course, I grant the occupier the ordinary right of appeal, and then, if the requisition is not complied with, I empower the Factory Inspectors to see that the work is done,

  1199
  and to recover the amount expended from the occupier, of course on receiving authority to do so from a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It will be objected at once to that that the Factory Inspectors have no funds, and could not therefore do such a thing them selves. I am not myself clear how far that is so or not; but if it is so, it would be necessary to provide the Inspector with the necessary means for providing for the execution of the work required to be done, and then to recover the cost of it from the defaulting person. One point was brought out very clearly before your Lordships' Committee, and that was the great difficulty experienced in compelling the occupiers to do anything in those sweating dens and small workshops in the way of improving the condition of their premises. Where the rateable value of the premises is below £40 I provide that proceedings may be taken against either the owner or the occupier. In fact, most of these little workshops and places commonly called "sweating dens" are held at a small rent of about £1 a week, and it has been found useless, practically, to proceed against the occupier. He is a man of straw; he has got no capital; he has no means of any kind. These little places spring up like mushrooms in the night, and they fade away with equal rapidity if the occupier is interfered with. It is impossible to get them to do anything, and it is useless to try; and I think it is not only wise but perfectly just and equitable that in such cases the owner of the premises should be held responsible. That is all I have to say as regards sanitation and the quickening of the proceedings which have to be taken in sanitary matters. But I should like to say a word or two about some provisions of the Bill which deal with the periods of employment of protected persons, which deal with the powers given to Inspectors, with the question of registration, with the definition of domestic workshops, and with exemptions under the Act. My whole object is to apply the existing law as far as practicable to all places where work is carried on. My principal objection to the operation of the Act of 1878 consists in the number and character of the exemptions contained in it. For instance, it draws a distinction,
  1200
  totally unwise in my mind, between women employed in non-textile factories and women employed in workshops. Women employed in workshops can work longer hours than they can if employed in factories. I can see no earthly object in that; on the contrary, if women were to be allowed to work longer hours in one place than in another, I should say they ought to be allowed to work longer hours in the factory; that is to say, in the larger, better regulated, and better ventilated places. What I have done is this: I have placed the women, as far as the limitation of their hours of work is concerned, on precisely similar terms and conditions, whether they work in factories or whether they are employed in workshops. I propose to repeal Section 15 of the principal Act which allows women to be employed for 15 hours in one day. The intention of the law is perfectly clear; the law insists that they are to have 4½ hours for rest and meals, but there are no particular times specified for taking that rest and those meals, and it is, therefore, impossible for the Inspectors to find out whether that condition of employment is observed. Unless you have a whole army of Inspectors, so that an Inspector can be told off to every single workshop where women are employed, and where no young persons or children are employed with the women, it is impossible for the Inspector to ascertain whether the women are afforded those 4½ hours for rest and meals or not. As a matter of fact, the law can be broken with complete impunity, and is so broken. Practically speaking, there is nothing to prevent women in those workshops where no young persons or children are employed from being compelled to work 15 consecutive hours if their employer thinks fit. I can see no object in drawing this distinction between women employed in factories and those employed in workshops. As I have said, in drawing this Bill what I have done is to put women on exactly the same level as regards hours of work, whether their work is done in factories or in workshops. But the sections of the principal Act to which I entertain the strongest objection are Sections 16 and 69. Those are the sections which define a domestic workshop, and which enact that an Inspector, wishing to

  1201
  enter a workshop, which is used also as a dwelling, can only do so with a warrant if the occupier objects. According to the definition of a domestic workshop, any room or place where any number of people work and dwell is, practically speaking, exempted from the operation of the Act, except in so far as it affects young persons and children. But that is open to any amount of abuse. How is it possible for the Inspector, who seems to be expected to do the work of ten men, to tell when he sees a number of people at work in a place whether they are all members of the same family, or are all dwelling in the place in which they work? There is no limitation in numbers. If all the members of one of the various great families of Smiths, Browns, Joneses, and Robinsons in London chose to hire the Crystal Palace as a workshop and dwell there, they might do any amount of work under any conditions they pleased without coming under the operation of the Factory Law. The fact is, the definition, is too loose—it can be abused, and is abused, to any extent. What I propose to do is to say that "where not more than three people, members of the same family, work together that shall constitute a domestic workshop." That would cover all places where a man and his wife, and a son or a daughter work, places where a woman and two children work, and all places where two or three girls work together at sewing in rooms where they live. It would cover all places which may be described as really bonâ fide, purely family work places, and provides, in my opinion, quite a sufficiently large exception. But in case it should be considered that it is interfering too much with family home-working life, I have provided also that where more than three, but not more than six, persons "members of the same family" work in the place in which they also dwell, on proving before a Magistrate that they are really members of the same family and do dwell there, they can obtain a certificate constituting that place a domestic workshop. I, myself, do not think that advisable. If your Lordships recall the frightful evidence that was given before your Select Committee as to the condition of things obtaining in places, for instance, where clothing is made up, I think you
  1202
  will agree with me that it is necessary to put somewhat strong restrictions on the way in which that kind of work is carried on. We hear over and over again of children lying ill with all kinds of infectious diseases covered with clothing in an unfinished state upon which the family were at work, which was destined to be disseminated not only through the Metropolis, but through the whole country and among all classes in the country. It is not a question merely affecting the working people themselves. This is a question which affects the health and well-being of the whole community. There is nothing that carries contagion more readily than clothing, and certainly steps should be taken to take care that clothing which is sent all over the country should not be made up in the circumstances and under the conditions in which it is now made up, as proved before your Lordships' Committee. If this Bill goes into Committee, and any noble Lord moves the rejection of this last provision which I have mentioned, namely, that where more than three, but not more than six, people work together at home they may get a certificate making the place a "domestic workshop," I certainly should not object to having it cut out. Then I propose to repeal Section 69. That section makes it necessary for an Inspector to obtain a warrant or an order from the Secretary of State before effecting an entry in any case where the occupier refuses to permit him to enter; that is to say, of course, where the place is a dwelling as well as a workshop. Your Lordships will see in one moment what is the effect of that clause. All that a man has to do who desires to evade the law is to put up anything in the shape of a bed where any number of people are working and he can refuse entry to the Inspector on the ground that the place is a dwelling. What has the Inspector to do then? He has to go off and get a warrant, and, of course, long before he can return with the warrant which empowers him to enter the place is temporarily put within the requirements of the law. The moment he is seen coming, presumably with the warrant in his pocket, the children, young girls or other persons, are hustled out of the room and stowed away somewhere till he is gone. As long as that section stands,

  1203
  it is impossible with any number of Inspectors to see that the law is carried out. The only objections to my proposal that I can see are that it will give too much power to Inspectors, and that it will interfere unduly with private life. In all cases of the administration of a law of this kind a great deal must be left to the tact and discretion with which the officers entrusted with it carry out their duties; and I am bound to say that there was a universal consensus of opinion among all classes of witnesses before your Lordships' Committee on the Sweating System as to the admirable manner in which Her Majesty's Inspectors under the Factory and Workshops Acts perform their very difficult, very arduous, and very delicate duties. I am sure that, judging by that evidence, your Lordships and the country may have perfect confidence in the discretion and the wisdom of Her Majesty's inspectors. But I will further point out this: Public opinion would never for one moment permit any tyrannical exercise of powers of inspection. And your Lordships must remember that an Inspector, though he can enter at any time by day a place which he has reasonable cause for thinking or believing to be a factory or a workshop; he can only enter at reasonable hours by night, not any place which he thinks is a workshop, but a place which he knows to be a workshop, and in which he has reasonable ground for supposing that work is being carried on. All that he could do that might possibly be tyrannical, or that could possibly interfere with private life, is to enter a place at reasonable hours at night, where he has reasonable ground to think that work is being carried on, and which he knows to be a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Act. If he forces an entry at any other time, or under any other circumstances, he is of course liable to an action for trespass in the same way that any other individual would be. Therefore, I do not think there would be any danger to the rights of the public in regard to privacy following upon the repeal of this section, which practically, in a great number of cases, makes the law perfectly inoperative. I also repeal the section which exempts from the general provisions of the Act places where work is carried on at irregular
  1204
  intervals, or where the work does not constitute the whole or the principal means of living of the family. There is another case in which obviously the law can be evaded with the greatest ease. How is it possible for any inspector to find out whether the work carried on in such a place constitutes the whole means of living of the family, if the head of the family chooses to say it does not? It is impossible. And, on the whole, I fail to see the logic or sense of saying that women or protected persons shall not work for more than a certain number of hours in the 24 in one trade, and at the same time allowing them to work an additional number of hours—any number of hours more in certain other trades. What is the use of saying that if these people have only one trade, they may only work 10½ hours or whatever it is, but that they may work those hours and any number of hours more at any other trade that they like to work at. That is all I have to say about the exemptions in the Act which are dealt with by the Bill. The Bill limits the size of the iron allowed to be cut by females in the making of nails and chains. This will have the effect of preventing the use of heavy hammers. The Bill also introduces minimum as well as maximum fines in certain cases, and in this I am in agreement with Her Majesty's Government. I repeal certain words in the definition of "workshop," which has the effect of denying an inspector access to premises. This I do to meet the case of "stallers" in the nail and chain district, who at present are exempt altogether from the provisions of the Act. Registration is a most important matter, and I have provided that not only all factories, as at present, but workshops of every kind shall be registered except domestic workshops. I do not propose to provide that domestic workshops shall be registered; but all workshops of other kinds are to be registered. But I would point out that, in the case of these domestic workshops where more than three people are employed, and where a certificate from a Magistrate must be obtained, that would be tantamount to registration. So that, practically, what I propose is that every place which is a workshop within the meaning of the Act,

  1205
  except places where two or three persons, members of the same family, work in their own home, shall be registered and shall be open to, the inspectors. Then I provide, as does my noble Friend opposite, for keeping a register of all work that is put out, and I, like him, copy a clause in the Victorian Act. On the question of overtime, a very important question, I do nothing except to endeavour to ensure that the law shall not, as regards overtime, be broken. There was a great deal of evidence and very weighty evidence, as many of your Lordships will remember, before the Committee in favour of doing away with overtime altogether. It was claimed that the system of working overtime was abused; that all the legal overtime was worked as far as possible in consecutive days during one short busy season of the year, or perhaps during two short busy seasons of the year, in the spring and in the autumn, and that the hands were working short time during the rest of the year. It was complained that that was only done for the convenience of the employer, and that trade could equally well be carried on if that system were abolished—that it would only equalise the hours of work generally throughout the year. I am inclined to think that is the case. I am inclined to think that if overtime was abolished the industries of the country would adapt themselves to the change, but I am not sure about it; and on the other hand it may be that great inconvenience might be occasioned to "season" trades and some local industries by doing away with overtime. I therefore leave the question of overtime untouched and merely provide means for seeing that the law is not broken as we have had ample evidence it is at present. Those are the principle points that I have to trouble your Lordships with. I propose to raise the age of children employed in factories or workshops, from 10 to 12 years. That is a very large question and a very important one. I have done this principally on account of the health of the children in view of the fact that education is now made compulsory. I have felt it necessary to do so because we have been compelled to provide compulsorily for their education. You might work their bodies pretty hard without injury
  1206
  to them, if you did not work their brains also, and no doubt you may work their brains, provided the children are well nourished, if you do not at the same time work their bodies too hard; but especially when they are not well fed, as is too often the case, to work both their bodies and brains at the same time is burning the little candle of life at both ends, and the result cannot but be harmful to the individual and eventually very harmful to the whole nation also. In raising the age to 12 years, I am following out what was practically the opinion of our Representatives at the Berlin Conference, and, if we adopt that course we shall only be carrying out the general rule which obtains in foreign countries. In Italy the age at which children begin work in factories is 9; in Hungary and Denmark, 10; in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, and Sweden 12; and in France, Austria, and Switzerland 14 years. So that this country which has taken the lead in these questions affecting labour, and in endeavouring to improve the conditions of labour, is far behind Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, France, Austria, and Switzerland, upon this question of the age for allowing young children to work. On the other hand, there are close upon 90,000 children employed in factories in the United Kingdom; of course, I do not know how many of those are between the ages of 10 and 12 years; but it is a very large question, and one that should be very carefully considered. In my opinion it is advisable that the age should be raised; but that is a matter, which, when the Bill comes into Committee if your Lordships think fit to send it, I may leave in safety and with perfect confidence in the hands, and to the wisdom of this House. That is practically all I will trouble your Lordships with now. I have gone somewhat more into detail, perhaps, than is general on the Second Reading of a Bill; but after all an amending Bill, as this is, is practically a question of details, and it is impossible to avoid going into them. What I wish to do, broadly speaking, is to extend the operation of the existing law; to take care that the net of the law is fine enough to draw as far as practicable all labour within its meshes. I want to prevent the tendency for work

  1207
  to go out of factories, and out of large and well regulated workshops into small work places and sweating dens, which is brought about by reason of the immunity from regulations and legal restrictions enjoyed by the occupiers of those small shops and sweating dens. The facility and impunity with which they break the law gives them an advantage over the better class of masters, and over factories and large workshops, which is most injurious to the workers employed and to the quality of the work produced, and this state of things will continue until the law is made applicable to them. There must be great encouragement for work being carried on in places of that kind, instead of in properly conducted factories and workshops; and my object is, as far as possible, without interfering too much with home work, or with the liberty of the individual is to apply the existing law to work wherever it is carried on. I do not imagine for a moment that this Bill is going to produce any miraculous results. In the first place, the evils complained of before your Lordships' Committee on the Sweating System require the amendment of other Acts—as, for instance, the Truck Act, the payment of wages in public houses and the liability of employers Acts. But I do not think that legislation of any kind is going to cure. All the evils which were then brought to light. In my opinion the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken with regard to Government contracts will do more perhaps than legislation could do; and I am very sure that if the Municipal Bodies throughout the country and other corporate employers of labour will follow the action of Her Majesty's Government in respect of stopping unnecessary and injurious subcontracting, and ensuring that the current rate of wages in the trade is paid by the contractors, immense good will result. There is also the great question of foreign immigration, which has more to do with what is commonly called "sweated" labour than any other factor in the case. I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that as long as British labour is subject to the competition of the cheapest and poorest class of foreign labour that can be imported into the country it is practically impossible for English workers to help themselves
  1208
  either by combination or in any other way. Therefore, I do not intend to prophecy for this Bill if it becomes law that it will have any miraculous or extraordinary effect, but I believe that it will have a good effect, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I would ask to be allowed to say a few words upon a portion of this Bill upon which the noble Lord laid a little stress at the end of his speech. The Bill chiefly relates to the sanitary condition of workshops; and the noble Earl has, I think, done great service in bringing forward the subject. He is deserving of the fullest recognition of his labours on the Commission, which produced very important information. But it is not upon the sanitary portion of the Bill that I want to speak. It is upon what he says himself is a very important principle, involved in one clause of the Bill, and that is with regard to the hours of labour of young children. He says very truly that he has avoided the question of adult labour except in reference to women; but in regard to children he introduces in one clause a very important change in the law. That is, he proposes to raise the age of all children who may be employed in factories and workshops from 10 years, which it is at present under the Act of 1878, to 12. Now I will not commit myself as to any arguments in support of this proposition, which may be brought forward, but on the face of it it seems to me there is a very prevalent mistake being acted upon at this moment in reference to education. The noble Earl himself seemed to say that he makes this proposal in the interest of education. That observation seems to shew that he has not much appreciation of the education of work, which to the working classes, is, I think, the most important part of their education. It seems to me not in the interest of education to keep children of the working class at school as long as possible, after general elements and to keep them away from work. Now I believe that the earliest time at which they can safely leave the elementary school and begin apprenticeship to industry is the most important point in the educa-

  1209
  tion of the working classes, and I think a very great mistake has been made in failing to see that for the working classes practice, intelligence, and honesty in work is education. The noble Earl may possibly be able to make out, when he defends his Bill, that factories and workshops are exceptionally injurious to children on account of their unhealthiness. That, I think, is the only kind of argument by which he will be able to fortify his proposition for raising in factories the working age from 10 to 12. He proposes to make factories much more healthy; and let me point out to your Lordships that when once exceptions begin to be made on the ground of unhealthiness others will be proposed. Depend upon it, if that is done all other employments will follow. There is now a general claim for immunity from labour, and we shall find if we go on in that direction that education will be considered as leading to something separate from labour, as being a much higher thing, while labour will be regarded as being rather a degrading occupation for an English citizen. The Education Department is now trying to carry technical instruction into schools; whereas the reverse is to my mind the right thing to do, that is to pass on schooling into practical technical instruction. All the great manufacturers who have promoted technical instruction have said that the best training for working children is in the workshops themselves, and that it is a total mistake to suppose that schools are the only place of education for the working classes. For myself I think it is absurd that we should, for instance, hold a sailor-boy back from getting early accustomed to the sea and detaining him at school until he can read a historical play of Shakespeare's. That seems to illustrate an absurdity of treatment generally for the working classes and not in their interest at all. The noble Earl says that foreign countries are in advance of us in these matters. I think when he comes to discussion in Committee he will find the comparison is not exactly as he has placed it. The question is whether the law has been found deficient in this country under the Act of 1878, and whether he can show any reason why it should be altered. He has not told us that now, and of course he is perfectly right in reserving all mat-
  1210
  ters of detail for Committee, but I thought that as a question of principle, although involved in only one clause of the Bill, it should be mentioned at this stage, and that it would not be advisable to let it slip through in a Bill of this sort as if it was a matter of no importance.
  LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, we have here another valuable Bill, the result of the Sweating Committee, and I propose, if your Lordships approve, that we should take the same course with it as we did with the Bill of the noble and learned Lord opposite. The noble Earl behind me has brought forward a Bill which is most useful and most important in its provisions. I do not know whether he has yet had time to read the Bill which has been brought in by the Secretary of State; but if he will look over it and compare it with his own Bill he will see that there are nine clauses in it which I think attain the objects he has aimed at in this measure. That will show your Lordships, besides the consideration of the mass of detail which has been put before us to-day, how necessary it is that these Bills should be well thought over and well worked out before a Committee. I hope, and I believe every Member of your Lordships' House hopes, that the Government measure will have good progress in another place, and that it will come up to us speedily, so that we may deal with it and with the two noble Lords' measures of to-day, and from them produce something which will, I hope, give satisfaction to the wishes of many who were concerned with the Sweating Committee of last year. The two Bills of to-day show, as I have already said, what different lines proposals may be made to amend the existing laws on the subject; and I am sure it is best in all respects that the measure which the Secretary of State has brought in should be well discussed in another place and well threshed out, so that when it comes here we shall be able to form our conclusion on the whole mass of labour Bills that are now before Parliament. I may remind my noble Friend that a right hon. Gentleman in another place brought forward a Bill a very few nights ago, which also passed the Second Reading, dealing with the same subject. Therefore, my Lords, if the noble Earl behind me will consent to the course

  1211
  that has been pursued with the previous Bill, I hope your Lordships will give this also a Second Reading.
  Question agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.