Sitting of 21 March 1895

Preamble
The House, met at Three of the clock.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Copy presented—
"Of Returns of the names, objects or business, places where business is or was conducted, date of registration, number of persons who signed the memorandum of association, total number of shares taken up by such subscribers, nominal capital, number of shares into which it is divided, number of shares taken up, amount of calls

1535
made on each share, and the total amount of calls received of all Joint Stock Companies formed since the first day of January, 1894, to the 31st day of December, 1894. inclusive, distinguishing whether the Companies are limited or unlimited, and also the number of shareholders in each of the said Companies at the date of the last Return, and whether still in operation or being wound up. Of the total number having their registered offices in the City of London, or within five miles of the General Post Office. And of the total number and the paid-up capital of all registered Companies which are believed to be carrying on business at the present time."— (Mr. Burt.) [No. 183.]

HONG KONG.
A Petition, presented by Mr. HENNIKER HEATON, from Hong Kong, was, on motion made, read by the Clerk at the Table. The Petition, signed by leading bankers, merchants, and citizens of Hong Kong, prayed for a measure of representative government. The Clerk read the Petition at the Table. It set forth their local grievances, and asked for the people the right of controlling the local expenditure, of the country where Imperial considerations are not involved; and for the privilege of electing a majority of the members of the Legislative Council, subject to the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament, and also to the Governor's veto.
QUETIONS.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been able to obtain the assent of the Sublime Porte to erect the four lighthouses at the southern extremity of the Red Sea which are necessary for the security of the navigation, and whether any steps have been taken towards erecting a lighthouse at the eastern end of the Gulf of Aden; if no hope be entertained of such arrangement, will Her Majesty's Government consider the propriety of placing lightships near the most dangerous points of Abu Ail and the Mocha Shoal; and, whether the sum
  1536
  of £40,000 has been surrendered by the Egyptian Government from the excess of light dues hitherto levied by them; and, if so, to what purpose it is being applied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): A decree issued by His Highness the Khedive of Egypt on this subject was published in the London Gazette of the 12th February last. By this Decree the Egyptian Government surrender from and after the year 1894 an annual sum of £E40,000 of the excess of light dues hitherto levied. It is expected that out of this amount a sum of about £60,000 will be available for the construction of new lights in the Red Sea, but the arrangements to be made for this purpose have not yet been completed.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether some of the so-called labourers in the Ordnance Survey Department are receiving as low a rate of wages as 16s. 6d. per week, and whether, although called labourers, their work is really that of surveyors' assistants, and when in the office they are chiefly employed as assistant printers; and, whether he will take steps to fix their minimum wage at 20s. per week, the same as is now paid to the Admiralty labourers at Deptford?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,): The rate of wages mentioned by the hon. Member is a probationary rate for men who are really learning their work. At the end of the probationary period, which has recently been reduced from three years to one, the labourers employed in the field receive 18s. per week, and the printers' labourers at Southampton and Dublin gradually rise from 18s. to 21s. a week. It would not be correct to describe the former as surveyors' assistants or the latter as assistant printers. I have on more than one occasion looked into the case of these men, at the request of hon. Members behind me, and, taking into account their other privileges and all the conditions under which they work, I do not

  1537
  think that they are insufficiently paid, or that their position compares unfavourably with that of any Admiralty labourers employed on similar duties.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the number of civilians employed in the Ordnance Survey Department, and how many are classed as permanent civil assistants entitled to pensions, and how many are called temporary civil assistants not so entitled, and if there is any difference in the nature of the work performed by these two classes; whether a distinction has lately been made in the temporary class, whereby those who joined before 4th January 1873 become entitled to pensions, while those who joined a few days later are excluded; and if he will make it a rule in future that 15 years' continuous service shall qualify an employé for a pension?
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: The number of civil assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey is 1,672, of whom 336 are entitled to pension and 1,336 are not so entitled. Under an arrangement sanctioned by the Treasury early last year a civil assistant appointed to any one of the 76 important and responsible situations on the Survey will be entitled to pension if he obtains the necessary certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, but otherwise the right to pension depends not upon the nature of the duties, but upon the date of appointment. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Evans) recently brought under notice the case of the civil assistants appointed between September 1870 and January 1873, and the right to pension has now been conceded by the Treasury to 57 of those assistants on the ground that it was not until the latter date that the final decision abolishing superannuation was notified to the Survey. It rests with the Treasury to say whether any modification of the conditions under which temporary civil assistants have joined the Survey since the 4th January 1873 should be made, but there can be no doubt that at the time of their appointment those assistants had no reason to suppose that their engagement carried with it any right to pension.

  PRISONS CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, by the closing of prisons and a number of classes, promotion in the prisons clerical staff is congested; and, if so, is it in contemplation to give the staff more permanent relief than that provided by the tentative scheme of December 1890?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The promotion in the clerical staff of the prisons can hardly be said to be congested, when there are 55 first class clerks who have not attained their maximum salaries and only 15 who have attained them; as regards the second class there are 36 clerks at their maximum, and 24 who have not yet attained it.

  THE CHECK WEIGHMAN'S ACT, 1894.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Dykes, who had within the last two months been duly appointed check-weighman by the miners at Bellfield Colliery, Coalburn, Lanarkshire, belonging to William Barr and Sons, but whom the manager, Robert Leggat, had refused and still refuses, to allow to enter upon his duties, although expressing willingness to recognise any other checkweighman whom the miners might appoint; whether he is aware that at this same colliery two years ago this same checkweighman was refused, and that this refusal was urged as one of the reasons for passing the Checkweighman's Act of last Session, and also that in order to avoid this particular checkweighman the manager has altered the payment of the men from that of per ton weight to that of per fathom measurement; whether he will order a prosecution on the ground of there having been a violation or evasion of the Act; and whether he will also consider the expediency of cancelling or suspending the certificates of colliery managers who may be guilty of obstructive violations of the Check weighman's Act?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The

  1539
  Secretary of State's attention was called last month to a complaint in this matter, and he was informed by the gentleman who made it that he had laid it before the Inspector, and that it might result in a prosecution; and he was requested to consider the expediency of causing the certificates of managers to be suspended in such cases. He has not heard again from the gentleman, but he caused the Inspectors to make a report to him upon the case, which shows that the facts are complicated, and that some of them are disputed. The papers have been placed in the hands of the Scotch Law Officers with a view to a prosecution if they consider that there is a legal case for one. The question of cancellation of certificates cannot arise under Section 27 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887 until there has been a conviction.

  COMPANIES WINDING UP.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that, so far as possible, the cash balance from time to time standing at the credit of particular companies being wound up by the officials of the Board of Trade, under the provisions of The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, shall be invested by the Board of Trade under Section 17 of the Act, so that the income derived there from may go to the credit of the particular company, instead of being paid over to the Treasury under Section 16 of the Act, to be invested as part of a general fund the income of which goes to the Board of Trade towards payment of their expenses; and whether, seeing that the income derived by the Board of Trade from these investments during the year ended 31 March, 1894 was £13,926, and that the Board have made large profits every year since they undertook the liquidation of Companies, he will consider the feasibility of returning to the different companies some part at least of the income obtained by investing their funds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): I have no power to give the instructions asked for. It rests with the Committee of Inspection, in each case, to request the Board of Trade to invest funds for the benefit of the company. The Board of Trade are not making large profits
  1540
  from fees and investments under the Companies (Winding-up) Act. The income, which during the early years of the new Act showed a surplus, it is not now materially, if at all, in excess of the necessary expenditure.

  THE BALFOUR GROUP OF COMPANIES.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been, and is, the general practice of the Official Receivers of the Board of Trade, when winding up companies under the Act of 1890, to wind them up by carrying them on, and to borrow money for that purpose, and, in particular, whether the Official Receiver acting with regard to the Jabez Balfour Group of Companies has borrowed £300,000, in order to expend it in carrying on the Salisbury Street property; and whether he will state the total amount of the sums borrowed by Official Receivers in connection with the Balfour Group of Companies, and the rates of interest paid thereon?
  MR. BRYCE: It is not the general practice of the Official Receivers when winding up companies to carry on the business, or to borrow moneys for that purpose; on the contrary, it is their general practice to realise and distribute assets as speedily as possible. But in certain cases, where an immediate forced realisation would be disastrous to the interests of the shareholders or creditors, or both, Official Receivers, when acting as liquidators, and when so desired by the Committee of Inspection or under the sanction of the Court, have carried on the business, and have in the name of the company borrowed moneys in order to protect the assets from a forced realisation. But such moneys are borrowed solely on the security of the assets of the company, and without any liability on the part of the Official Receiver or the State. In the particular group of cases referred to by the hon. Member the Official Receiver has borrowed various moneys from time to time, amounting collectively to about £1,280,000, the amount outstanding at the present date being £813,000. Interest is paid at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, and there is to be a commission of 10 per cent, upon any surplus ultimately available for distribution among the unsecured

  1541
  creditors or contributories. The money has been borrowed solely on the security of the assets of the various companies, and for the purpose partly of completing properties and rendering them market able, and partly of paying off prior mortgagees, who were threatening an immediate sale or foreclosure, and some of whom were receiving interest at the rate of 16 per cent, per annum. These transactions have been entered into only at the express desire of the Committee of Inspection, and after approval by the Court. The Official Receiver is himself of opinion that if this course had not been adopted, and if the properties had been left to be realised by the mortgagees, there would have been no surplus available for the unsecured creditors.

  HIGHER EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any steps have been taken, in the direction indicated by him a year ago to a deputation of those interested in the higher education in Scotland, of discussing a scheme for coordinating the work of the Science and Art and Agricultural Departments with the Department of Scottish Education; and whether he hopes soon to be able to submit some such scheme to the House?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN,): The Departments have been in consultation upon this matter, and I am in hopes that some arrangement will be found possible. But several difficult questions are involved, and these require most careful consideration.

  SCOTCH FISHING HARBOURS.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has recently received petitions from the County Council for Shetland, asking that some additional leading lights may be erected at the entrance to several of the chief fishing harbours, and that some of the principal islands still without telegraphic communication may be connected by cable; and whether any provision has been made in the Estimates for carrying out these works?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I have duly received the petitions referred to by the
  1542
  hon. Member, and they will be carefully considered, along with similar claims from other districts. The sum at my disposal for carrying out the further construction of lights and telegraphic extensions is £2,500, of which about £1,000 is already allocated to the maintenance of existing lights erected under the Highlands and Islands Public Works Vote.

  THE MURDER OF MR. BIRCH AT PERAK.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are in existence any documents in the nature of evidence purporting to connect the ex-Sultan of Perak, Abdullah, with the murder of the British resident, Mr. Birch, in 1874, by certain Malays, other than those published in the Papers laid before Parliament and communicated to the ex-Sultan; and, if so, whether, in face of the persistent, affirmations of innocence on the part of the accused Prince and the unanimous testimony of those about him to the same effect, he will communicate to the ex-Sultan or to the hon. Member for Canterbury the documents referred to, so that His Highness may have an opportunity of refuting or disproving them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am not aware that any documents bearing on the question of Abdullah's alleged complicity in the murder of Mr. Birch are in existence other than those already published in the Papers laid before Parliament.

  VACCINATING SCHOOL CHILDREN.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware, that the medical officer of Bally mahon Dispensary District, entered the national schools of the said district, and there, during school hours, vaccinated the children, without either the permission of the managers of the schools or the consent of the parents of the children; by what authority, or by whose directions, did he perform this operation, as the Poor Law Guardians of the union, as also the members of the

  1543
  dispensary committee, disclaim all responsibility in connection with the matter; is he aware that, when asked for his authority for doing so, the medical officer alleged having received directions from the Local Government Board; and, if the medical officer undertook to perform this duty without authority, is be to be paid out of the rates for any number he asserts he has successfully revaccinated; and, if so, what check can there be on the account furnished by him to the Poor Law Guardians?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Local Government Board have communicated with the medical officer referred to in the question, but have not, I believe, received his reply. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat the question on Monday next.

  SAMOA.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letter of the late Robert Louis Stevenson on Samoan affairs, published in The Daily Chronicle of the 18th instant; whether he is in a position to affirm or deny the accuracy of Mr. R. L. Stevenson's statement that Mataafa, after surrendering, was brought to Apia in the ship of Captain Bickford, who pointed to a British ensign and declared he was safe under that flag; whether, notwithstanding this declaration, Mataafa and his chiefs were transferred to a German warship and carried away to exile in the Marshall Islands; whether any official report of the circumstances attending the deportatation of Mataafa to the Marshall Islands has been received from Captain Bickford; and, if so, whether there is any objection to making it public; whether he can suggest any explanation of the nominal fine of 100 rifles imposed on Tamasese for a serious rebellion, as compared with the punishment of indefinite exile to a low island, to which Mataafa has been condemned, for merely constructive rebellion; and, what is the latest official information with respect to the condition and treatment of Mataafa, and the facilities, if any, afforded him for communicating with his friends?
  SIR E. GREY: I have seen the letter in question. Mataafa surrendered in consequence of an ultimatum sent to him by the consuls of the three Powers, and was taken to Apia in H.M.S. Katoomba, commanded by Captain Bickford, who gave him no assurance except that his life would be spared. This assurance was kept and Mataafa was, under an agreement between the three Treaty Powers, taken to the Marshall Islands in a German man-of-war. Captain Bickford had no concern with the deportation. His duty ended after he had brought Mataafa to Apia. The circumstances as regards Tamasese and Mataafa were quite different. The former surrendered peaceably on arranged terms; the latter when in open rebellion on the condition only of safety for his life. The latest information is that Mataafa and his chiefs are well treated; arrangements have been made that they shall be joined by members of their families, but communications with the outside are of course under strict control.
  MR. HOGAN: Is the hon. Baronet aware that Mataafa is a devoted Catholic, that in his present place of exile he has no facilities for the exercise of his religion, and that he feels this deprivation very acutely? Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson suggests that Mataafa's place of exile should be changed to Fiji, where a number of Catholic priests are stationed, where, in Mr. Stevenson's own words, he would have—
  "the food and fresh water of his childhood, where some of us could see him, where we could write to him and receive answers, where he might have a tolerable old age."
  Will the hon. Baronet use his influence with Germany to secure the early removal of Mataafa from the Marshall Islands to Fiji, and thus carry out the dying wish of a writer who has endeared himself to the English-speaking world?
  SIR E. GREYsaid, as it appeared that Mataafa was being well treated where he was, there seemed to be no pressing necessity for urging the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. He was informed that Mataafa had full facilities for the exercise of his religion.
  MR. HOGAN: My information—and it comes from a local authority of the highest repute—is directly to the contrary.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether it is the intention of the Government to remove the Fishery Board of Scotland from the office in Edinburgh, which it at present occupies in the centre of the city.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the Government have no intention of removing the Fishery Board from their present office in Edinburgh, which is admirably situated for the conduct of their business.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that some of the assistant keepers in the South Kensington Museum are receiving smaller salaries than the junior assistant keepers, and even than some of the messengers, though they are placed over them and superintend their work; whether any correspondence has passed on the subject; and whether this system is to be continued.
  "THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (MR. A. H. D. ACLAND,): There has been some correspondence with the Treasury with a view to obviate the present somewhat anomalous condition of things. I am glad to say that arrangements are on the point of being concluded with the Civil Service Commission for an entrance examination instead of an examination for both the office of Junior Assistant and Assistant Keeper, so that the succession to the latter office will be by promotion from the former. This will, to a great extent, if not wholly, remove the present anomaly.

  POTATO DISEASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Irish Land Commission have made experiments with the Strawson process for the prevention of the potato disease in Ireland; and, if so, what, have been the results?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Field experiments for testing the value of applications of
  1546
  copper sulphate, and lime to the potato plant, as a preventive of potato disease, were carried out by the Agricultural Department of the Irish Land Commission in the years 1891, 1892 and 1893. The results obtained from the experiments conducted in 1892 and 1893, proved conclusively that a proper application of the mixture used is of great value as a preventive of potato disease; it was not, therefore, considered necessary to continue the field experiments in 1894, but field demonstrations were given in a small district of the counties Derry and Antrim in that year, the same mixture, being used, The firm of Messrs. Strawsons, Limited, supply a concentrated mixture of copper sulphate and lime for application to the potato plant by spraying machines in the ordinary way, but this special mixture was not used in any of the experiments or demonstrations carried out by the Land Commission.

  ACTION AGAINST IRISH CONSTABLES.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the action brought against five constables for illegal arrest, assault, and battery of a man, named Charles Braynor, in which the decree given by County Court Judge Webb was affirmed at Lifford by Mr. Justice Holmes on the 14th instant, and whether the costs of the Defendants are to be paid out of public funds; and if so, will he explain why?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware of the facts of this case. No application for costs has yet been made by the constables, and should such an application be received, the matter will be considered with care. It appears that Judge Holmes was satisfied that Braynor was drunk on the occasion of his arrest, but that the evidence did not sustain the joint charge of drunkenness and disorderly behaviour, and the point at issue in the case seems to have been the power of the police to arrest for simple drunkenness. The action of the police on the occasion, was, I understand, bonâ fide.

  MINING AND MINERAL STATISTICS.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the

  1547
  Departmental Committee on Mining and Mineral Statistics recommending amongst other matters the publication of early returns of fatal accidents, the addition of information concerning the numbers employed in mines and quarries, further statistics as to non-fatal accidents, the earlier publication of the reports of Inspectors of Mines, and the publication of a general annual report to be compiled by the Mineral Statistics Branch under the superintendence of an Editing Inspector; and, whether he will take early steps to carry out all or some of the recommendations of the Committee?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir; I have adopted all the recommendations of the Committee mentioned in the question. The early return of fatal accidents was published on the 29th of January, and active steps are being taken to give effect to the other recommendations.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government propose, during the present hostilities between France and Madagascar, to allow either belligerent to make use of ports or roadsteads in British Possessions or Dependencies (as, for example, at Mauritius, or the Cape, or Aden) for warlike purposes, or to coal or provision themselves beyond what may be necessary for immediate use; does the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, apply to this case; and, are Her Majesty's subjects entitled to exercise the same rights as in time of peace, or are they subject to the obligations lying on neutrals in time of war; and, if the latter, at what date did these obligations begin to take effect?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The situation is, for the purposes of this question, the same as that which has existed on previous occasions when Great Britain has been carrying on hostilities in different parts of the world. In these cases, while there have been in fact hostilities proceeding, it has not been thought necessary to bring into operation the obligations which would arise from the recognition of a state of war; no proclamations of neutrality have been issued, nor has the trade of other countries, or the use of their ports been in any way curtailed. Her Majesty's Government propose at present to follow the same
  1548
  course, but no part of British territory would be allowed to be used as a base for hostile operations.

  IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) what is the amount available under various Acts of Parliament for the annual guarantee towards the payment of interest on the construction of railways in Ireland; (2) what has been the average amount which the Treasury has been called upon to pay up to the present in respect of this guarantee, and what has been the maximum in any one year; and (3) will he give a Return of the railways in respect of which a guarantee has been given by the Treasury; the amount guaranteed; the corresponding amount guaranteed by baronies or counties; and the amount, if any, which railway companies taking over the new lines have undertaken to be responsible for in reduction of such guarantees?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is £30,722. As regards the second paragraph, it would be misleading to give any average, as lines have only come into working order by degrees. The maximum audited payment hitherto was £19,506 in 1893–4, and the estimated payment for 1895–6 is £25,386. The information asked for in the third paragraph will be found at page 71 of the Estimates for the coming year. No responsibility on the part of any company is known to exist except in the case of the Claremorris and Swinford line, where the Waterford Company is to pay to the County Treasurer such sum as may be necessary to keep the net receipts in each half-year up to £400.

  THE EXPEDITION TO CHITRAL.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a force of 14,000 men has been organised to proceed against Umra Khan, some 200 miles beyond the Indian frontier; and, if so, whether the expedition is being sent under instructions from the Secretary of State; whether he will inform the House what action on the part of

  1549
  Umra Khan has rendered this expedition necessary; and whether the expenses of this military operation are being defrayed from the Revenues of India; and, if so, whether this is being done in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 of 21 & 22 Vic., c. 106.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The facts are approximately as stated in the first clause of the hon. Member's question, but the distance is less than 200 miles. Chitral is a State under British protection, being tributary to Kashmir, and is the residence of a British Agent. In consequence of recent troubles in Chitral, and in response to a request for recognition from the de, facto ruler, Dr. Robertson, the political officer at Gilgit, was sent in January to Chitral to inquire and report. Since then Umra Khan, the ruler of some neighbouring Pathan States, has invaded Chitral with a large force, and is believed to be now investing Dr. Robertson and his escort in the Chitral fort. Considering the urgent necessity for relieving Dr. Robertson without delay, the Government of India have summoned Umra Khan to evacuate Chitral by the 1st of April; and in view of the possibility of his refusal, are preparing a force to March from Peshawur on that date. The Government of India state that they consider no other method of relief to be possible; they have duly notified to the Secretary of State the measures which they propose to take, and they have been informed by him that the steps which they deem necessary for the relief of Dr. Robertson and his party have his full approval. The expense of these preparations is being defrayed by the Government of India, and the Secretary of State is advised that nothing has been done in contravention of Section 55 of the Act for the Better Government of India.

  A VOTER'S GRIEVANCE.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Robert Buchan, of Buckie, in Banffshire, who duly paid his rates, but whose name was removed from the list of voters for the municipal election be-cause the collector of burgh rates had erroneously reported that he had failed to pay his rates; whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the facts of the
  1550
  case, and whether any redress is now possible; and, if not, whether he will consider what amendment of the law might be made to prevent similar grievances in future?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: My attention has first been called to the case by the hon. Member. I regret that Mr. Buchan's name should not have been recorded on the list of voters, and that, he lost the opportunity afforded to him by the publication of the list, of making his claim. I fear there is no available means by which his name can now be inserted in the list, and I accordingly see no sufficient reason for causing any inquiry into the matter.

  LORD THURLOW.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement that the Master of the Rolls, in the Appeal Court on Saturday 16th March, in the case of Lord Thurlow, to the effect that there was evidently something behind the action of the Official Receiver in appealing against the order of Mr. Registrar Linklater, refusing to adjudicate the debtor bankrupt; and also to the effect that no Official Receiver had any right to interfere, except under the order and directions of the Court; and that no Department of the Government had any right to interfere, it was the Court above which could interfere; and whether the Department of the Board of Trade had given to the Official Reciver any instructions or directions with reference to his interference in this case, or had authorised him so to interfere, or had empowered him to incur costs or other expenses in regard to such interference?
  MR. BRYCE: My attention has been called to the matter referred to, but I have as yet only seen a brief and necessarily imperfect report in the newspapers of the judgment. The appeal from the Registrar's decision, refusing to adjudicate Lord Thurlow a bankrupt, was taken and conducted as such appeals always are, on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown; but I am not aware that the Official Receiver in any way interfered in the matter except by exercising the ordinary right of appeal which he is entitled to do without any directions

  1551
  from the Court, and which it is obviously proper that he should do upon the opinion of the Law Officers. The costs incurred in the appeal were sanctioned in accordance with the usual practice by the Board of Trade.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Had the Official Receiver the authorisation of the Board of Trade to incur costs before starting any of the proceedings?
  MR. BRYCE: The Official Receiver had the opinion of the Law Officers and the sanction of the Board of Trade.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Attorney and Solicitor Generals?
  MR. BRYCE: Certainly.

  PARISH COUNCIL ACCOUNTS.
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when he is going to issue an order prescribing forms for accounts for Parish Councils; and whether the current accounts are to be made up for the purposes of audit to 31st March next or to 31st March, 1896?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): The Order is now in preparation, and I hope that it will shortly be issued. The current accounts of Parish Councils must be made up to the 31st instant, and they will be audited up to that date.

  LANCASHIRE ENDOWED CHARITIES.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, when the Digest of the Endowed Charities of Lancashire will be issued?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): It is expected that the Supplemental Digest of Endowed Charities in the County of Lancaster will be issued in the course of the present Session. The Digest, together with the General Digest of Endowed Charities for the county printed by order of the House in the year 1869 will furnish the particulars of all the Charities of the county. If further information should be required, proceedings should be taken under the Charity Inquiries Expenses Act, 1892.

  POST OFFICE UNIFORMS.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a contract extending over three years, and valued at £300,000 per annum, for supplying uniforms for the Postal Service, has been given to a contractor at Newcastle-under-Lyne; whether the contract was formerly held by a London firm; and under what circumstances it has been transferred to Newcastle?
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether the whole of the clothing contracts for the Metropolitan service of the Post Office, which have been held for many years by a London firm, have now been given to a firm in Staffordshire; whether he is aware that a large number of persons will thus be thrown out of employment; and what were the amounts of the tenders for each contract respectively made by the London firm and by the firm to which the contracts were given? I also beg to ask a supplementary question of which I have given private notice. Are the contractors to whom the Post Office clothing contracts have been given the same firm which about three years ago took the contract for the Metropolitan Police clothing, and after trying to carry it out for a few months, asked and obtained leave from the Home Office to give up the contract; and what steps the Postmaster General has taken to assure himself that the contractors are responsible persons and able to carry out the present contract?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): I purposely directed that separate tenders for making up the cloth garments for Post Office uniforms should be invited for the Metropolitan area and for six other districts, so that as far as possible the work should be localised and that manufacturers in every part of the country might have the opportunity of tendering for their own districts. The tenders which I received from the successful Staffordshire firm were the lowest in the case of each district in Great Britain for which the tenders were invited. I had no alternative, therefore, but to give this firm the contract. But I may point out that the amount involved is not £300,000 a year but

  1553
  £300,000 in three years, or £100,000 a year; and that of this £100,000 no less than £75,000 represents the cost of the cloth which is supplied by the Department to the firm, and £10,000 the cost of trimming, &c. The real sum involved, therefore, is not £300,000, but £15,000 a year, which covers the wages paid and the contractor's profit. There was a considerable difference in the case of each of the tenders between the successful firm and the London firm which previously held the contract, but it would not be in accordance with the accepted practice to state the amount of each tender. I am afraid that the consequence must be to throw a certain number of persons in London out of employment, but I hope that some of them may be able to follow the work. As regards the incident mentioned in the Supplementary Question I am informed that it took place not three years ago but about eight years ago, when the firm was in a smaller way of business; and I am assured that they are fully able to carry out the present contract.
  MR. W. ALLENasked whether it was not a fact that the tender of the Newcastle firm was lower than that of others for this contract; whether their work had not given satisfaction on previous occasions; and whether they did not pay as high rates of wages in all cases, and in some higher, than other firms tendering?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I do not know what the rates of pay at Newcastle-under-Lyme are, but there is the fair-wages clause in the contract.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDTE: May I ask whether, in giving out the contracts, allowance was made for the different rate of wages prevailing in Newcastle-under-Lyme as compared with London?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have no knowledge of the rate of wages. The fair wage clause was introduced.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: As this is a United Kingdom, is there any objection to receiving tenders from any part of the country.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: There is no objection to tenders from the part of the United Kingdom which the hon. Member represents. A tender from an Irish firm for the supply for Ireland was accepted on the ground that it was as low as any other tender.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Swazis have agreed to accept Boer administration; and whether any Boer armed force has entered Swaziland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Sir H. Loch has telegraphed a summary of the proceedings which took place at the meeting of the South African Republican Commission with the Swazi King, Queens, and a large number of Swazis. All those attending were unarmed. General Joubert, taking Ubunu by the hand, said that he recognised him on behalf of the South African Republic as paramount chief. General satisfaction was expressed at this statement. The Swazis requested permission for "killing off, which was, of course, refused. The meeting was very orderly. Immediately after the meeting the Generals Joubert and Smit started on their return journey to the Transvaal. No Boer armed force, except the escort accompanying the generals, has entered Swaziland.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to know whether the Swazis have agreed to accept the Boer administration, and whether the Swazi King was informed of the meaning of the statement made to him by the Boer generals?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I take it for granted that what was said by General Joubert was translated into Swazi. That would be the only way of conducting such proceedings. As regards the question, I have to say that it is apparent the Swazis have peaceably accepted the administration of the South African Republic.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Member state whether the Boers have initiated or set up any form of direct administration in Swaziland, or whether the relations between the Swazis and the Boers are confined to the simple statement of the Boer representative that, the new King was their captain-general?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No. The position, as I understand, is this: A special Commission of Generals Joubert and Smit was sent there to see the King, and to recognise him as paramount

  1555
  chief. Besides, there is a Transvaal administrator in the country, whose name was submitted to us, and we approved it. There is also a British Consul, Mr. Stuart; therefore, the Boer administration is practically existing in Swaziland.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to know whether the hon. Member has been directly informed by Her Majesty's representative in Swaziland that the Swazis have recognised the administration of Mr. Krogh, or of whomever has been named Boer agent in Swaziland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I must ask notice of the question.
  MR. C. R. DISRAELI: Can the hon. Gentleman give the date of that communication?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It was received yesterday.
  MR. DISRAELI: Is it true that those communications are under the control of the Boers?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That has been stated; but the statement is absolutely untrue.
  MR. DISRAELI: Then why cannot you get more information?
  No answer was given.

  POST OFFICE SORTERS.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he received a petition from 200 sorters at the General Post Office on 12th December, 1893, and what reply, if any, has been forwarded?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: No trace can be found of any memorial from sorters in the General Post Office bearing the date named. It is possible that the memorial referred to is one dated the 16th November, 1893. This memorial, however, asked that a deputation might be received by the Postmaster General. This request was acceded to, and some of the representations made by the deputation, which was received in May last, are still under consideration. I may add that a decision on those representations would doubtless have been arrived at long ago were it not that, in one important particular, the memoralists undertook to show how that which they asked could be done at little, if any, additional cost; and a plan has been only recently received, and, that, as I understand, does not express their views as a body.

  DEAD BODIES FROM THE SEA.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government contemplate proposing any change in the law which now lays upon anyone picking up a corpse at sea the expense of interment?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Government are not prepared to initiate legislation, but they will favourably consider any proposal in the direction indicated.

  THE VICTORIA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, MADRAS.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the Victoria Technical Institute, Pantheon Street, Madras, founded 22nd March, 1890, to commemorate the Jubilee of the Queen-Empress, is now completed at the cost of £14,000, and that the purposes for which the building was intended, as set forth by an inscription on the foundation, stone, were those of a free library and Victoria Technical Institute, the latter being an already established body and whether the Government have refused to apply any portion of the building to technical instruction, but have handed it over instead to the Madras Dramatic Society, an amateur theatrical society of which the Governor is the patron; if so, will he order that the building shall be devoted to the purpose for which it was originally intended?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend's question refers, but he will make inquiry.

  MALABAR MARRIAGE SYSTEM.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Commission which was appointed in 1889 by the Government of India to inquire into the marriage system prevailing in Malabar, and as that Commission reported in December 1891, have final orders yet been passed upon it by the Secretary of State?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Commissioners were divided in opinion, but the Indian Authorities preferred the views expressed by the President, the late Sir T. Muthesamy Aiyar, and the Bill is under revision accordingly. The

  1557
  Secretary of State has not yet seen the revised Bill, nor has he passed any orders on the subject.

  THE HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet received the Report of the Hemp Drugs Commission; and when the Report of the Opium Commission is likely to be issued?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has received copies of the Ganja Commission Report, but not of the orders passed by the Government of India thereon; as was stated by the Secretary of State on the 11th of last month, it is anticipated that the Report of the Opium Commission will be ready by Easter.

  CHARGE AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the unusual action of a court of Crewe magistrates in holding a court in the evening of the 1st of September, 1894, from 8 p.m. to 11.20 p.m., to hear a charge against a certain Dr. Lawton of criminal assault, when the defendant was acquitted upon his own unsupported evidence; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances of the case?
  MR. ASQUITH: Dr. Lawton was, I am informed, on his way to America with his family when arrested at Liverpool, and a special court was summoned in the evening so as to enable him, if acquitted, to catch his ship and join his family. There is no reason for supposing the magistrates acted with any bias or unfairness. In any case, the matter is not one in which I could interfere, since the defendant was acquitted.

  COTTARS IN LEWIS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a petition from a number of landless cottars, residing at Breanish, Uig, Island of Lewis, in which they express a hope that the present Government will take action on their behalf without delay, and giving amongst other reasons for their urgent application that they are without land,
  1558
  that there is sufficient land in the neighbourhood suitable for crofts now under sheep and deer, and that their families were evicted from this land; and whether he sees his way to bring in a Bill this Session to meet the case of these and other people similarly situated in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I have received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot, as I have more than once intimated, announce the proposals of the Government until I introduce the Crofters' Bill.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS WORKS ACTS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any works have been treated as exceptional cases under Clause 6 of The Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Acts, 1891; and, if so, will he state how many, the names of the places and works, the cost of each, the amount of the local subscription, and the value of the free labour in each case?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The pier at Golspie, Sutherlandshire, has been treated as exceptional under Clause 6 of the Western Highlands and Islands Works Act of 1891. The original estimate of this work was £2,000, of which Government agreed to pay £1,400. The amount locally subscribed was £600. There, was no free labour promised. While the work was in execution urgent reasons were shown for extending it 50 feet further into the sea at a cost of £400, of which Government were asked to pay £300, raising the estimate to £2,400, of which Government were to pay £1,700. After consulting with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade I considered that this might be treated as an exceptional case, and the larger scheme was sanctioned accordingly.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how much of the sum voted last year for works under the Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891, had been expended up to 1st March, 1895?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The sum expended up to March 1, 1895, on works under the Western Highlands and

  1559
  Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891, was £5,000.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state more definitely when the Report of the Highlands and Islands Commission will be issued; and if he can say how soon he will be able to introduce the Highland Land Bill to be founded on the said Report?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The Report and the evidence of the Highlands and Islands Commission has now been presented to Parliament, and the Stationery Office has been requested to issue the Report at the earliest possible date. I shall introduce the Crofters' Bill at the earliest opportunity that occurs after the report is in the hands of Members.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the earliest possible date will probably be?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: It will be the earliest possible day.

  THE TRAINING SHIP "NORTHAMPTON."
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state when the Northampton, or other training ship, may be expected to visit Stornoway?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Northampton may be expected to arrive at Stornoway about May 23.

  ERBUSAIG ROSS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Erbusaig, Lochalsh, Ross-shire, to the effect that, in the interests of the fishing and crofter population, there should be at least three openings in the embankment of the new railway at that place; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the construction of the embankment without the necessary openings to the sea.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: I have received the petition referred to by the hon. Member, and have transmitted it to the Board of Trade, within whose province the matter lies, for consideration.

  LIGHTHOUSE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade to inform the House what expenditure for new lighthouses, and new apparatus for existing lighthouses has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade during the ten years ended 31st December, 1824, on the application of each of the three Lighthouse Boards—the Trinity House, the Board of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights respectively?
  MR. BRYCE: Full information as to the expenditure by each of the three Lighthouse Authorities will be found in the Account of the Mercantile Marine Fund, contained in the Civil Service Appropriation Accounts. The latest return is at page 181 of the Appropriation Accounts for 1893–4. If the hon. Member desires any further information on the subject, and will communicate with me, I will give him whatever I can.

  SHEPHERDS' CHILDREN AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  SIR M. STEWART (Kircudbright): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Scotch Education Department, in the interests of education, will recommend a small grant for the lodging of the children of shepherds and such persons, living in remote parts of the moorlands, to enable them to send their children to the Board Schools, seeing that these young children cannot walk the great distances, although compelled to attend school?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The Code offers special grants for making educational provision for children living in remote districts, and we are prepared to make inquiry, and suggest means by which this may be done in all cases brought before us. But the Department has no power to make a payment from the Parliamentary Grant towards the lodging of children, nor can the School Boards defray this cost from the School Fund.

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has considered the great inconvenience to which local parish council voters in large

  1561
  parishes must be put at the coming election, when, in order to record their votes, they will have to walk great distances, in some cases nine miles, seeing that there is only one polling station in each parish; is he aware that two polling places were allowed to those parishes at School Board elections; and it he will make some arrangement before the 2nd day of April whereby this inconvenience may be remedied?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The matter referred to by the hon. Member lies by Statute within the province of the returning officer; but I have communicated on the subject with the county clerk with a view to seeing whether it is possible to make a different arrangement.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received from the county which I represent a resolution paused at a large public meeting there stating dissatisfaction felt at the existing arrangements; whether the returning officer has been asked to make the necessary arrangements; and whether the Government is prepared to give him the authority to do so?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am not sure whether I have received such a resolution. We cannot go beyond the Act, but we are quite prepared to construe the Act in as large a manner as possible, in order to enable the returning officer to make such provision for the polling stations as is desirable.
  SIR MARK STEWART: If the returning officer takes the responsibility of establishing polling places, will the Scotch office exonerate him?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: We cannot go beyond the Statute. Up to a very late date these changes can be made by the local authority, if it chooses to make them.

  AGED POOR COMMISSION.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor will be issued; and whether he will at once lay the evidence upon the Table?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The Report and evidence have now been laid before the Queen. As soon as they are returned to me they shall be laid before Parliament and issued.

  ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS.
  MR. W. R. CREMER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the evidence laid before the House of Commons Accommodation Committee during last Session, concerning the number of rooms at the disposal of the officials of the House, he will endeavour to make arrangements for increasing the accommodation for Members before a new Speaker is appointed?
  THE FIRST COMMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): I am afraid I cannot undertake to do what the hon. Member asks.
  MR. CREMER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the proposal to reappoint the Committee which sat last year?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I do not think it would be desirable to reappoint the Committee. No practical advantage would come of it.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has approached the Governments of Russia and France, inviting their immediate and effective co-operation, with a view to putting an end to the barbarous misdeeds, tortures and murders which have been and are being perpetrated by the agents of the Porte in Armenia and other parts of Asiatic Turkey, and of which many examples are given in the, telegrams of the special correspondent of the Daily Telegraph in its issue of the 18th instant, dated from Knoussaberd, 9th March, and in the telegrams appearing in other papers from Reuter, &c.?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I rise to order. Before the question is answered, I wish to ask whether it is in order in a question to make against the agents of a friendly Power the charges made in the question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better omit that part which presumes that barbarous outrages have been committed.
  MR. SCHWANN: Alleged, Sir.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Cases of hardship or ill-treatment, which have been brought to the notice of Her

  1563
  Majesty's Government by the reports of British Consular Officers, have already formed the subject of separate representations to the Porte. I can assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government will spare no effort to promote the effective co-operation of other Powers to secure the introduction of reforms in the Government of Armenia, but, in our opinion, this object would not be attained or helped by making further proposals for international action at this moment.
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether it is the fact that the other great European Powers—namely, Germany, Austria, and Italy—have declined to put this pressure on the Porte, and, if so, why have they been declined?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that notice had better be given of the Question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would ask the question on another day.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Daily Telegraph of the 16th instant from Vienna, that, whilst three months ago some 150 Armenians, falsely accused of revolutionary conspiracies, were liberated from the prison at Amassia, Bekir Pasha, the Governor, has found means, under various pretexts, to re-arrest the majority of the discharged persons, and place them again in insanitary cells, subjecting them to tortures; and whether Her Majesty's Government, if these particulars prove true, will insist on the dismissal of Bekir Pasha?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Bekir Pasha, Mutexarif of Amassia, was appointed last spring in place of an official who was removed by the Turkish Government in consequence of the number of arbitrary arrests he had made. In November last it was reported that most of the political prisoners had been released. The report referred to by the hon. Member will be sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople for inquiry.

  OCEAN DERELICTS.
  MR. J. C. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the, Admiralty, whether he is aware that Captain M'Kinstry, R.M.S.,
  1564
  of the White Star steamship Adriatic, reported on the 15th instant that on Friday the 22nd ultimo, in latitude 51·10 N., longitude 16·25 W., he passed a derelict barque named Lyndsay, with all rigging standing, and fore and main lower topsail set, that had drifted west by north over 100 miles from where she had been seen four days previously, as reported by the steamship Catalonia; and since that report, the White Star steamship Teutonic, on the 19th instant, reported her owners' offices in Liverpool that on the 1st March, at 1.48p.m., in latitude 50·28 N., longitude 21·40 W., she passed a derelict Norwegian barque Birgitte, waterlogged, not far from the coast of Ireland, in the direct track of Transatlantic steamers; and whether, under these circumstances of great peril to British commerce and passenger traffic, he will take immediate steps to discover these derelicts?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The circumstances of the reports of these vessels are not such as to put them into the category of those rare cases which have caused the Admiralty, from time to time, to consent to the diversion of a man-of-war from her other duties, for the purpose of searching for a derelict. There is no evidence to show that these, vessels (which have not been reported since the dates named, except that the Lyndsay was seen again the next day, the 23rd) have not followed the usual course and foundered after floating for some days; while the presence of a large quantity of floating wood not far from where the Lyndsay was last seen, seems especially to point to this conclusion in her case.

  ICELAND FISHERIES.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the fishing population of Iceland have, for some time past, suffered great loss through the depredations of British steam trawlers; and whether any representations upon the subject have been received from the Danish Government?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A representation was received from the Danish Minister in 1893 asking that British vessels should be warned not to fish in the territorial waters of Iceland. A

  1565
  notice was issued accordingly by the Board of Trade in April of that year.

  FOUR COURTS OFFICERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Officers of the Four Courts, Dublin, constitute practically the only branch of the Civil Service in Ireland which is not affected by Rule 65, although they are not entitled to a retiring pension under the Superannuation Acts, and are therefore primâ facie subject to the Rule; whether there are a number of the principal officers who are considerably beyond the age limit prescribed by the Order in Council; and whether, in these circumstances, he will advise the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to consider the propriety of enforcing the application of the Order in Council in such cases without any further delay.
  SIR. JOHN HIBBERT: The question whether the Order in Council of August 15, 1890, was applicable to the staff of the Supreme Court, Ireland, was considered in February 1892, by the then Lord Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court, who gave their opinion In the negative. There is no official information as to the ages of the principal Officers of the Supreme Court. The Government has under consideration the extension of such provisions of the Order in Council as are applicable, to the establishments of the Departments of the Supreme Courts in the three Kingdoms.

  A RACING DISPUTE IN MADRAS.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that serious charges have been made in the public Press of Madras against Captain Holmes, one of the aides-de-camp to the Governor of Madras, to the effect that he had acted unfairly in the matter of a horse race; that, in consequence, an inquiry was made by the stewards of the Western India Turf Club, who have published their decision, stating that the jockey who acted with Captain Holmes was unfit to hold a trainer's licence, which was accordingly revoked, and that Captain Holmes himself had shown an undoubted desire to conceal the fact of the
  1566
  trial of his horse with another both before and after the race, and that it was his duty to have ascertained beyond all possible doubt that the owner of the other horse was made aware of it, a duty which he neglected to perform; and, is Captain Holmes still aide-de-camp to the Governor?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but has no doubt that if the facts are as stated they will be inquired into by the authorities in India, and the necessary action taken.

  ALLOTMENT LAND IN SURREY AND KENT.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the counties of Surrey and Kent some of the parish councils established under the 1894 Act have purchased land for small allotments at sums varying from £8 to £9 per acre, the price of such land previously only being at the rate of from 30s. to 35s. per acre; and, if he is not in possession of this information, will he make inquiry into the matter, and lay a Report thereon upon the Table of the House?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have no information on this subject, and I do not know what parishes are referred to. I may, however, point out to my hon. Friend that a parish council is not empowered by the Local Government Act, 1894, to purchase land for allotments. The Act only enables them to hire it.

  WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the want of a proper supply of water at a serious fire which occurred in Gauden Road, Clapham, at 2 A.M. yesterday (Wednesday); and will he order an inquiry into the matter for the purpose of protecting life and property?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The accounts I have read of this fire do not allege any failure of water. I have no authority to direct inquiry otherwise than on the application of twenty ratepayers.

  JOURNAL OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that reports of the proceedings of Chambers of Commerce are regularly published by the Board of Trade in the Board of Trade Journal; whether he will consider the desirability of publishing in the same way reports of the proceedings of Chambers of Agriculture and Farmers' Clubs in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture; and if this journal can be sent to all Members who apply for it?
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I believe the hon. Member correctly states the practice adopted in the case of the Board of Trade Journal, and I shall be glad to consider whether a similar arrangement could be adopted in the case of The Journal of the, Board of Agriculture. I would say, however, that the available space is more limited in the latter case, and it could not be greatly extended without an increase of its price, which I am anxious to keep as low at possible. I should be pleased to place the name of any Member of Parliament on the list of those to whom the Journal is sent gratuitously on receipt of an intimation of the desire to receive it.

  EDINBURGH TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. H. PAUL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a memorial, signed by 200 telegraphists in Edinburgh, and complaining that they were deprived of their statutory holidays was received at the General Post Office last July; if it has been received, why no notice has been taken of it; and when the memorialists may expect a reply?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The memorial referred to has been received, and has been duly considered. It raises questions which affect a large number of other offices, and has therefore taken considerable time to investigate. What I understand the memorialists to ask is that an exception may be made in their favour to the general rule of the service which prescribes that only work done within the 24 hours in which the Bank Holiday falls can be paid for at the extra Bank Holiday rate. I am considering how far this rule can be modified in
  1568
  favour of the staff, not at Edinburgh only, but throughout the kingdom.

  INCOME TAX IN NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that the New Zealand Government claim the payment of income tax by temporary residents in that Colony on their whole incomes derived from Consols, railway and other stocks in England, which are also taxed in this country in the ordinary way; and, whether there is any redress?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. No complaints on the matter have reached the Colonial Office.

  THE BELFAST GUARDIANS.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. David Mitchell, a Guardian of the Belfast Union, to the Local Government Board stating that the Guardians had accepted 300 mattresses 25 per cent. less than the contract weight, and proportionately less in value, and had paid the full contract price for them. What course is usually pursued by the Board when goods greatly inferior to sample are knowingly accepted by Guardians and paid for at the full price: and, what course the Board proposes to adopt in this case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board received the communication referred to in the question. The Belfast Guardians have stated, that owing to a difficulty in manufacturing the original sample mattress, they permitted a slight deviation there from, and that the mattresses have been received and paid for. The Local Government Board have informed the Guardians that they consider their action in the matter irregular, and that they will draw the Auditor's attention to the transaction. The Board cannot compel the Guardians to adhere to the terms of their contract; but, if the Auditor is of opinion that the ratepayers have suffered loss owing to the proceedings, he can surcharge the Guardians with the amount, or part of the amount, paid for the mattresses.

  FOURIGN BOUNTIES.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House, obtaining (if necessary) the required information from the Foreign or Colonial Office, a Parliamentary Paper setting out in detail an account of any systems of bounty, direct or indirect, now offered, either by any Foreign Government or by any British Colony, to stimulate, the export to Great Britain and Ireland of any agricultural produce, and stating, so far as information can be obtained, the quantities and values of any such articles of agricultural produce so protected and imported into the United Kingdom during the past year, or any recent series of years?
  MR. BRYCE: Information as to bounties on agricultural produce is being obtained through the Foreign and Colonial Offices, and the information will, in some form or other, be communicated to this House.
  SIR R. PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House how soon he expects the information to be ready?
  MR. BRYCE: It will take some little time to get the information, but I hope it will be ready on no very distant date.

  THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he can state, with some degree of definiteness, when he will be able to announce his decision on the tenders of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for the accelerated mail service between Kingstown and Holyhead?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I am still in negotiation with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and am awaiting a further communication. I am unable to fix a date for making a definite announcement.
  DR. KENNY: Is it not the fact that the Steam Packet Company are awaiting a communication from the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: No, Sir, I am now awaiting a reply to a letter which I sent yesterday.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan (MR. VESEY KNOX) I beg to ask
  1570
  the Postmaster General, whether he will endeavour, in connection with some proposed changes in the Time Table of the Midland Great Western Railway, to arrange for a connection between the limited mail service from Dublin passing Inny Junction, and Cavan, and Killeshandra, whereby the mails could be much accelerated; and, whether he can say what would be the cost of transmitting mails to Dublin by the goods train leaving Cavan by the Midland line at 9.30p.m.?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The, Day Mail now arrives at Cavan at 11.20 a.m., and it would not arrive until 12.36 p.m. if sent via Inny Junction. I understand that the Midland Great Western Railway Company do not contemplate any alteration at present in their train service to Cavan. As regards Killeshandra, the Day Mail now arrives at 2.19 p.m., and includes letters from Belfast, Scotland, &c., as well as from Dublin. A Day Mail, from Dublin, arriving at 12.47 p.m., might be afforded, but as such a mail would not include a considerable number of the letters arriving in the present mail, it is doubtful whether the arrangement is desirable. Further enquiry, however, shall be made on this point. The additional expenditure involved in forwarding a mail to Dublin, from Cavan, by the Midland Goods Train at night, would not be very large, but the change would be attended with some disadvantage, and the question, therefore, requires fuller consideration. I will communicate further with the hon. Member when the necessary enquiries have been completed.

  THE TELEPHONE SERVICE COMMITTEE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Municipal and County Authorities will be allowed to tender evidence before the Select Committee on Telephone Service; and, if so, will he say what arrangements have been or will be made to carry out that object?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have made arrangements with the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow in regard to evidence which is to be tendered on behalf of the Scottish

  1571
  Corporations. I have also made arrangements with regard to the London County Council and with regard to Municipal Corporations. Any other local authorities not thus represented which desire to give evidence should communicate with me on the subject.

  THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now name the day on which he will announce the manner in which he intends to include the Christian Brothers in the grant for primary education?
  MR. J. MORLEYwas afraid he must give the same answer as he had given previously. There was not the slightest chance until after Easter, and possibly considerably after.

  THE BALLINA UNION, MAYO.
  MR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that great distress prevails in the Letterbrick Electoral Division of the Ballina Union; that 57 families, comprising 256 persons, have petitioned the Ballina Board of Guardians for relief works; and that no works have yet been opened in that district; and what steps he proposes to take in order to relieve those poor people?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector of the Local Government Board visited this division yesterday, and carefully inquired into the condition of the people. He reports that, as a rule, the people are comfortably circumstanced, their lands and grazing are very good, and that they have both cattle and sheep. There are some cases of chronic poverty in the division, but there are only five cases of persons receiving out-door relief, of whom two are small landholders. Under all the circumstances there seems to be no necessity at present for the establishment of relief works within this district.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why, as the Turkish loan of five millions issued in 1855, the interest on which was guaranteed by this country and France, was made a first charge upon the Egyptian tribute,
  1572
  subsequent Turkish loans have been issued the interest on which has been made a charge on that tribute, which appear to have a prior claim upon it; whether £1,177,000 of the bonds of the loan have been redeemed, and consequently the outstanding liability has been reduced to £3,823,000; whether, of these outstanding bonds £2,695,000 have been drawn for redemption, but have not been redeemed, and whether powers were taken when the loan was issued to pay off the whole loan at any time; what portion of the total interest due on the amount of the loan outstanding, amounting to £152,120 per annum, is paid out of the Cyprus tribute, and from what sources the excess over that tribute is provided; whether he is aware that 2½ per cent. Consols are now quoted at 102¼ and that consequently a British guarantee enables money to be borrowed at 2½ per cent.; and whether, in view of the capacity of Cyprus to pay tribute and costs of her administration having been overestimated to the serious loss of the British taxpayer, he can convey to the House any hope that the loan will be converted into 2½ per cent, securities, and that at the same time negotiations with Turkey will be commenced urging on that country, in consideration of Great Britain and France having to meet their guarantee owing to its default, to reduce the tribute paid by Cyprus by the amount saved by the conversion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. Harcourt, Derby)said the hon. Gentleman had developed a rather elaborate financial scheme which he was afraid he could hardly criticise in answer to a question. The truth was that there were so many interests involved that he was afraid he could not see his way to an arrangement.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether, if the loan might be paid off at any time, it might not be paid off without the consent of the bondholders.
  SIR W. HARCOURTwould rather not express an opinion on the subject.

  LAND TAX.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what, is the amount of the Land Tax now collected in England and Wales; who are the collectors of this tax; and how are they paid?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The amount of land tax now collected in England and Wales is about £1,000,000: the collectors are local officers appointed by the local Commissioners of Land Tax. Their remuneration is fixed by the Act 55 and 56 Vic. cap. 25, and 54 and 55 Vic., cap 13.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in a great number of country parishes it was the rule for the collector's, with the assent of the Land Tax Commissioners, to raise, not only the proper amount of the tax, but about 10 per cent, besides, and receive that 10 per cent, as payment for collection?
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the matter had been regulated for the last two or three years by Act of Parliament, and he was not aware of any such arrangement as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  MR. WEIRinquired whether the collectors were paid by salary or by Commission?
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that formerly the payment was by poundage, but a new system had been established.
  MR. HANBURYasked if there was any authority for a collector collecting more than the fixed quota of land tax.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he should say that no one was entitled to collect more than the proper amount.

  H. M. S. "HORNET."
  MR. E. T. GOURLKY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if it is true that the piston rods of H.M.S. Hornet have broken; and whether it is the fact that the maker's original design and arrangements of these pistons were refused by the Admiralty, and altered to suit their views, and, this being the cause, of the breaking, they are now being fitted according to the maker's original design; if so, do the Admiralty pay for the alterations?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the Conciliation (Trade
  1574
  Disputes) Bill, introduced by the Government, which was down amongst the Orders of the Day, whether, as the Government had blocked the other Bills dealing with the same subject, facilities would be given for the consideration of all those Conciliation Bills.
  MR. BRYCE: I stated last night, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University, that I was quite willing to allow the Second Reading of that Bill as soon as the Government Bill was read a second time, and that they should go together to the same Grand Committee. I have no objection, at all to the third Bill.
  MR. BARTLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give facilities for the consideration of the Bill at reasonable hours?
  MR. BRYCE: I think I have answered that question. I gave a promise the other day to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, as a matter of course, if the Government Bill got its Second Reading.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH,), who on rising to move, the Second Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill was received with loud cheers, said: Mr. Speaker, the time has now come when, in accordance with our ordinary practice, the great issues of principle which are raised by this measure can be appropriately discussed, and it is my duty, in fulfilment of the promise I have made more than once, to state, on behalf of the Government, the grounds of policy which have led to its introduction. Sir, the questions involved in a proposal of this kind must, under all circumstances, be questions of the utmost delicacy and gravity. But in the present case the difficulty of dealing with them is greatly enhanced by the extreme and, at the same time, the perfectly intelligible sensitiveness of feeling which this controversy with respect to the Welsh Church has aroused, both upon the one

    1575
    side and upon the other. On the one hand, we have the, overwhelming majority of the representatives of Wales, who see in this measure the means, long delayed, ardently, and I think I may say passionately, desired by the vast bulk of their people for the removal of what they conceive to be a grievous and glaring injustice. On the other hand, we are confronted by those who look upon this Bill as nothing better and nothing worthier than a veiled attack upon the Church of England, promoted, as they tell us, upon false pretences and for sordid reasons, and fraught, if it should ever succeed in passing into law, with injurious, and even disastrous consequences, as well to the spiritual as to the temporal interests of the Church. Sir, no wonder that in an atmosphere charged with these currents of feeling, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) the other day, lamenting, as he said, that we seemed to be divided from one another by a distance as great as that which separates the poles, should almost have despaired of even a common meeting ground between us for argument. For my part, Sir, I desire, and I am certain that all who are responsible for the conduct of this Bill desire, to avoid, as far as we can, the importation into the discussion of unnecessary heat. I shall endeavour, to the best of my ability, to do so, and I trust that I may appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who feel so strongly and so sincerely upon the subject, at any rate to give me a forbearing and an indulgent hearing, while I on my side will ask from them in advance forgiveness if unwittingly, by any phrase or argument of mine, I give offence to a sentiment which, whether I share it or not, I at any rate understand and respect. Now, Sir, the object of this Bill is to terminate the legal Establishment of the Church of England in Wales. That is its central and its essential provision. Everything else in it is subsidiary to that main and governing purpose. I think, therefore, before I come to deal with the special circumstances of the particular case of Wales, it may be useful, even at the risk of repeating facts which are familiar to the House, if I ask and if I attempt to answer the question, in what does
    1576
    Establishment by law of the Church consist? Sir, as we are all aware, the relations between the Church and the State in this country are very different at the present time from what they were in the earlier stages of our constitutional history. In those days, and down to a time which is comparatively recent, the Church and State were co-extensive in area. They were different aspects, or to speak more accurately, different organisations, of one and the same society. No man could be a citizen unless he was a Churchman. Heresy was a crime punishable by law, and dissent in those who avowed it exposed them to every kind of civil and political disability. That was Establishment in the strict and full sense of the term. As we know, by the operation of forces with which the student of history is familiar, at first in the guise of toleration, then in the more formidable shape of a demand for religious liberty, that complete and logical system of Establishment was slowly undermined; and it is instructive to observe, and not at all irrelevant to the question now before the House, that at every stage and every step of that process champions of Church Establishment resisted the change on the ground, for which, in my judgment at any rate, there was a much greater logical foundation in those days than there is for the corresponding argument to-day—that if you once admitted to civil and political rights, to a full share in the making and administration of the law, men of all religions and of no religion, the national profession of religion embodied in the Established Church would cease to have any meaning or reality. We listen to the same arguments to-day; but they are arguments advanced in the defence of what, though it is still, as I shall show, a very formidable framework of legal protection, is after all only a meagre and attenuated remnant of the Establishment of the past. For what is the Establishment of the Church by law to-day? In the first place it means the incorporation of the law of the Church into the law of the land. It means that the Courts of the Church in ecclesiastical matters have, a coercive jurisdiction, which, in the last resort, the civil power will enforce. It means that the Bishops of the Church functions in the

    1577
    House of Lords. It means that the legislature of the Church, Convocation, is summoned by the Crown and is constituted according to law, and that without the license of the Crown it has no power to make any enactment which has any binding effect. It means that the doctrines and the ceremonies of the Church, whatever other sanction or authority they may have, have also the statutory authority of Acts of Parliament behind them. As to endowment, it means that a large number, a very considerable proportion of the benefices of the Church, are at the disposal of persons who for the time being hold important offices of State; and as to that which is in Wales, at any rate, the main source of the revenue of the Church, the tithes, it means, in contradistinction to every other form of religious endowment possessed by other religious sects, that in the last resort the machinery of the law and the arm of the law will be brought into operation to enforce them. Sir, if that be so—and I do not think I have stated anything that will be controverted—the Established Church has privileges and obligations to which no other religious denomination in this country is entitled or subject, and which have this common characteristic, whether they spring from the common law, or whether they are derived from statute—that they were conferred and are maintained by the State. I have dwelt upon these facts, familiar as they undoubtedly are, because I wish at the outset of the argument to dispose of two familiar fallacies. In the first place, I say, the statements I have made show conclusively and bring out in the clearest possible light a distinction which is obvious enough, that if the Church is a spiritual body, which is one, which is identical, which is continuous, and which does not change, the Church is also a State establishment, which is subject, as to all its forms and all its laws, to the shifting currents of public opinion, which is at one time protected by Parliament to a certain extent, and which at another time is protected by Parliament within, much narrower and more contracted limits. There can be, in my judgment, no delusion more injurious to the true interests of the Church, or more fatal to a true understanding of our Constitution, than to confuse these things, which are
    1578
    separate, in their origin, separate in their purpose, and have absolutely no necessary connection between each other. But, Sir, there is a second and an equally fallacious argument which is often introduced into these discussions, and which, I think, is shown to be equally untrue by the short summary with which I have troubled the House, and that is, that the State, by altering the condition of establishment, or by getting rid of the establishment altogether, is in some way or other making a formal repudiation on the part of the nation of its religious character. Sir, upon that point I will not use any language of my own, because I am glad to be able to appeal to a much higher authority, one of weight and eminence, who will be recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite; one of our principal opponents in this controversy, one of the ablest and most distinguished lawyers this country has produced—the Earl of Selborne. I quote the words which he used in this House on March 22, 1869, upon the Second Reading of the Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church. Sir Roundell Palmer, as he then was, used these remarkable expressions:—
    I cannot agree with those who say that the severance of the political relations of the Church with the State is, and necessarily must be, an abnegation of national Christianity or an act of national apostasy. It appears to me that such a view is founded upon an entirely false notion of the vocation of Civil Government and the nature of national religion. … National religion is not any profession embodied in laws or forms and ceremonies made by those at the head of the Government, but it is in the religion of the people who constitute the nation. … Therefore we must approach the question of any political privileges given to the Church by considering whether the privilege is for the public good."
    That, Sir, is the test laid down by that high authority, which I propose to apply to the case of Disestablishment in Wales. Before I proceed to the particular facts of difficulty—I mean that class of questions sometimes raised as to the right of the State to interfere with the Establishment or Endowments of the National Church. I assert that from the earliest times in this country the State has claimed and exercised a controlling voice in the civil government and regulation of the

    1579
    endowments and privileges of the National Church. I hold very strongly that it is an historical fallacy to represent the Church of England as ever having been a mere offshoot and dependency of the Church of Rome. I think the whole of our mediæval history shows, first of all, that our kings, then our Parliaments, as soon as they acquired a dominant position, kept a tight grip of the government of the Church, refused to allow the intrusion of any foreign Power or any outside ecclesiastical authority in the regulation of our National Church, and, as you see in the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Statute of Provisors, and a hundred other Acts of Parliament, the State in this country has insisted that the position of the Church, its status, privileges, and endowments should be kept constitutionally within the control of the supreme authority of the Crown and Parliament. We are often referred on this question to the legislation of the Reformation. It follows from what I have already said, that I am not one of those who think, as used to be currently assumed, that the legislation of Henry VIII. transferred the privileges and endowments of a National Establishment from the Church of Rome to the Church of England. I believe that view rests upon imperfect historical information. I am quite prepared to admit what I believe the best authorities of history now assert, that there has been amidst all these changes and developments a substantial identity and continuity of existence in our National Church from earliest history down to the present time. But that does not in any degree affect the importance of the legislation to which I am referring. What was that legislation? It was the ssertion of a claim upon the part of the Crown and Parliament first of all to establish and define the royal supremacy over the Church; next to confine the Church, even in purely ecclesiastical matters, as its final Court of Appeal, to a Court of secular Judges appointed by the Crown; to change the doctrines, modify the ceremonies, taught and practised by the Church; at one moment to prohibit and at another moment to permit, and then prohibit again, such an institution as the marriage of the clergy. I defy anyone who has studied with an impartial mind
    1580
    the legislation for the 40 years between 1530 and 1570, who has followed the course of the revolution in the reign of Henry VIII., the counter revolution in the reign of Queen Mary, the restoration of the pre-existing state of things in the reign of Elizabeth—I defy any fair-minded man acquainted with that history to dispute the proposition that Parliament did at that time assert and exercise the right to prescribe the conditions of tenure upon which every ecclesiastical benefice of this country was to be held. I am not saying that in many respects the time of the Parliament at that period was usefully employed. Many of these Statutes we can only read with amazement and consternation that a body of laymen should have deemed themselves qualified to deal with that subject-matter. But this is the price which the National Church pays for the so-called privileges of Establishment. It is for them to consider whether the privileges and disabilities which result from that status are worth the price which, as history shows, they have always had to pay, and which they will always have to pay for that state of things. The result is this: the Church of England here and in Wales at the present moment is a Church which is absolutely without either judicial or legislative autonomy. It is a Church as to the interpretation of whose formularies, not merely in matters affecting property, but in matters affecting ecclesiastical doctrine, in the last resort the appeal is to a secular Court. It is a Church which is impotent to alter a single form or ceremony or line of its doctrines or service without first of all obtaining the licence of the Crown, which may be given upon the advice of a Minister who is not even a Christian at all, and without further obtaining the assent of a Parliament which is open to men of all creeds and of no creed. I am not going to enter into the question—which is not relevant to my argument—whether or not that is a desirable state of things in the interest of the Church, though I will venture to protest respectfully, but, at the same time, very strongly, against some language which was used by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol upon the First Reading of this Bill. He quoted a passage in a speech of mine somewhere in the country in

    1581
    which I had ventured to express the opinion that the Church might be a better Church in Wales, and would be better and more capable of discharging, with general acceptance and real effect, its spiritual mission, if relieved from the privileges and disabilities of Establishment. The right hon. Baronet, temperate and fair-minded controversialist as he usually is, has not found any better terms in which to describe that language of mine than that of political cant. Are we to assume that it is impossible for any man, however highly and strongly he may value the teachings and traditions of the Church of England, honestly and sincerely to entertain the opinion that these series of chains and fetters, which I have been describing, are not a help but a hindrance to her in the discharge of her mission? It augurs very badly for the conduct of this controversy if motives of that kind are to be so rashly and lightly imputed. It follows, from what I have said, that it is impossible to say that, in regard to such an Establishment as I have described, Parliament has not now the same right, which she claimed and exercised a hundred times in the past, to deal with its civil privileges and pecuniary endowments on grounds of public policy and in accordance with its own will and discretion. It is not necessary to labour that point. We have placed on the Statute Book within the lifetime of the present generation, and within the memory of most of those whom I have the honour of addressing, in the Irish Church Act, the most complete assertion which this or any other Legislature has ever made of its power to do as it pleases with the status of an Established Church, and to divert the endowments of such a Church, if it likes, to purely secular uses. There may still be differences of opinion as to the policy of that Act, and I believe there are abundant grounds for asserting that there are differences of time and circumstances, and of local conditions, between the case of England and Wales. But all that is not the point. Morality does not change its colour when it crosses St. George's Channel. That which Parliament assented to in the measure for the Second Reading of which, I believe, Lord Salisbury gave his vote in the House of Lords in 1869—a measure which now, at any rate,
    1582
    stands upon the Statute Book with the assent of the Queen, Lords, and Commons, has never been in any way repealed; and that measure may surely be pointed to as a sufficient justification and precedent when we are assailed with these charges of sacrilege and plunder. Having, I hope, cleared the ground of these preliminary objections, I now proceed to consider the special case of Wales. It follows from what I have said, that the existing Establishment, both in England and in Wales, represents the remnants of far larger privileges and powers which she once possessed. It is equally true that the State has always claimed the right to deal, on grounds of policy, with this Establishment; and it is further true that this Bill, whether it be politic or impolitic, raises no new question, either of constitutional practice or of the limits of what I may call the moral competence and the moral authority of Parliament. What is the case of Wales? What is the Establishment in Wales? Is it a National Church in the sense of the definition that I have read from Lord Selborne? Is it the Church of the nation? Is it, by its history and by its present position and prospects, the natural organ and vehicle of the religious sentiments either of the whole or of any considerable majority of the Welsh people? Is its ascendency and position of privilege among the other religious sects of the country admitted or acquiesced in by the bulk of the Welsh people? I am aware that we are told that we have no right in this case to separate Wales from the rest of England. From the formal and technical point of view, it is perfectly true, as has n said, that these four Welsh dioceses are parts of the Provi of Canterbury. The argument, I understand, is that, however strong may be the case in these four dioceses for Disestablishment and Disendowment, even though it went to the point that there was not one single Welshman who was a member of the Established Church, yet, inasmuch as you cannot separate dioceses from the province of which they form part, you must not treat Wales separately, but must take the question as affecting England as a whole.

    1583
    To that I entirely demur. The President of the Board of Trade, in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, explained, as it seemed to me with admirable force and cogency, what we mean when we speak of Wales, not as a mere geographical expressson, but as the home of a people. I know this is called Separatism. In the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is Separatism to recognise that there are such things as separate nationalities the combination of which goes to form the United Kingdom of which we are all a part. We take a different view. We believe that the best way of recognising and consolidating the true union of the kingdom as a whole is to recognise, and within the limits of Imperial unity to defer to, those separate national sentiments which have their root in the history of the past and which form the salt of the life of our local communities. In that sense I assert—the Government assert—that the Welsh people are a nation. Whether you look to race, language, literature, to their temperament and genius, to their national memories and traditions, there is as clear a case for maintaining the distinctively national and corporate individuality of the people of Wales as of the people of England, Scotland or Ireland. If you look at the ecclesiastical history of Wales, the case is still stronger. Why? The Welsh Church is sometimes described, and, in my opinion, justly described, if you have regard to its later history, as an alien Church, because just as a thing that is imported from abroad may become acclimatised, and in the truest sense, national, so a thing which is indigenous, if it is distorted and adulterated may become in the truest sense alien. What is the origin of the Welsh Church? Here I am sure I shall have the entire assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Welsh Church, as they are fond of telling us, existed before the English Church existed. It was founded before the Mission of Augustine to the Saxons. There is a tradition in Wales—I do not know whether it is still alive, but it used to be very vivid—that there was a time in the golden past when the See of St. Davids was a Metropolitan See. I do not believe that the Welsh people have ever lost the sense that, instead of borrowing their religion
    1584
    from England, and instead of being dependent upon a mission from here the introduction of Christianity into their country, it was in the true sense of the word a spontaneous and a native growth. The case of Wales is the case of a Church which in its origin and inception was national, which was separate entirely from the Church of England, but which by incorporation into the Anglican Church, and by the subordination through long centuries of its interests and its needs to the interests and needs of England, has become denationalised. Is that statement true, or is it not? It is a fact which rests upon indisputable authority that certainly from the time of Henry II., Onwards, down to the Tudor and Stuart period, the Welsh Church was treated by our Norman and English Kings as an instrument for the Government of the Welsh people. They appointed Norman Bishops, who did not understand the language, who were hostile to the temperament and to the sentiment of the nation. And an eminent authority declares that during these centuries the leading clergy in Wales were a kind of ecclesiastical police sent by the Kings and Parliaments of England to keep watch and ward over an unruly race. There is a very remarkable circumstance in that connection which may perhaps not be familiar to all hon. Gentlemen, and that is an incident which occurred, I think, in the reign of Henry II. or King John, when Giraldus Cambrensis, an eminent Welsh writer and historian of that time, was elected by the Chapter to the See of St. Davids. The King of England disapproved of it, and insisted on the Chapter taking a nominee of his own. Giraldus, who was a man of considerable enterprise, went on a pilgrimage to Rome, in order that he might solicit the intervention of the Pope, and obtain, a favourable recognition of his claim as against the Royal nominee. He took with him a petition from the Princes of Wales, which is very interesting and so relevant to the question which the House is now discussing that I will trouble them with one or two citations from it. This is the petition of the Welsh Princes as far back as the end of the

    1585
    twelfth century, to Pope Innocent III., and what they say is this:—
    "Be it known to your fatherly goodness the great sufferings and the danger of losing souls that have fallen upon the Church in Wales since by kingly oppression, and not by the authority of the Bishop of Rome, she became subjected to the authority of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury."
    Now the right hon. Baronet opposite told us the other day that it was in the 18th century that the State and the King by this course of neglect and abuse lost the hold which the Welsh Church had previously possessed upon the affections of the Welsh people. Let me read the description by the Welsh Princes of the state of things in the 12th century:—
    "The Archbishop of Canterbury sends us English Bishops, ignorant of the manners and language of the land, who cannot preach the word of God to the people, nor receive their confessions but through interpreters. And since these Bishops that are sent to us from England do not love us or our land, they do not seek the good of our souls; their ambition is to rule over us and not to seek our benefit, and on this account they do not but very rarely fulfil the duties of their office among us. And whatever they can take from its by just means or unjust—" [that sounds like a description of the Irish Church]—"is carried away by them into England and squandered in the monasteries that are given to them by the King of England. And like the Parthians who shoot backwards from afar as they retreat, so do they from England excommunicate us as often as they are ordered so to do."
    That is the description given by the Welsh Princes themselves, on the authority of Giraldus, of the state of things which prevailed in the twelfth century; and I assert that, with rare intervals, that represents fairly the history of the Welsh Church and of its treatment by England during the period of six-centuries. There were times, I agree, in the reigns of the Tudor Kings, and even in the reigns of the Stuart Kings, when a better state of things prevailed, but, upon the whole, I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that from the beginning until a very recent time the Welsh Church has been treated as a kind of annexe of the Church of England—a convenience for the disposal of offices and benefices among persons who have no claims upon the Welsh people, who did not understand their language, and who are out of sympathy with them and their temperament. And where that state of things has prevailed, just
    1586
    as it prevailed in the case of Ireland, you cannot wonder that, the Church has ceased to have any hold on the real affections of the people. I do not wish to dwell too long on merely historical matters, although until you realise the history of the question it is impossible to understand fully the feelings of the Welsh people. I pass now to say one or two words with respect to the growth of Welsh dissent in the 18th century. The Welsh people, in spite of all the abuses to which I have referred, were a people who had a natural affection for their national form of religion. The Reformation, it is said, took but slight hold on them, and we know that Puritanism never got any great lodgment in Wales. At the beginning of the 18th century, and after the Revolution, there are said to have been not more than 100 Dissenting congregations in Wales. Very shortly after the beginning of the 19th century there were nearly 1,000 Dissenting congregations in Wales. What was the cause of this change? The cause of the change was this—that there sprang up in the Welsh Church, by way of protest against its lukewarmness, its rigidity, and its narrow Anglican character, a body of men whose names are cherished in Wales—men like Griffith Jones, Rowlands, and others, all of whom were members of the Church of England, all of whom started within the bosom of the Church their great work of reformation—[An hon. MEMBER: "And stayed there."]—and some of whom, I agree, died in the religion of the Church, but who were the founders—against their will and in defiance, I will not say of their convictions, but certainly of their desires and hopes—the reluctant and unwilling founders of Welsh Nonconformity. What became of these men? They were driven away, and what was their crime? These men, who introduced education as well as religious faith among the great mass of the population in Wales, had committed the unpardonable, enormity of preaching the Gospel in unconsecrated places—in the streets, upon the hillsides, and even in Nonconformist chapels. The Bishops of that day, supported, as they appear to have been, by the opinion and the sympathy of the great body of their clergy, declined to ordain men who were guilty of practices such as these, with the result that these apostles, as they may

    1587
    truly be called, of the revival of Welsh religion were driven out of the so-called national Church of their country, taking with them whatever was real, vital, and progressive within that Church. That is the history of the foundation of Welsh Nonconformity. An hon. Gentleman thought it expedient to remind me just now that some of these men died in the Church. So they did, and that is a proof of how eagerly they tried to reconcile the claims which the Church had upon their allegiance and loyalty with what they conceived to be the still higher and still stronger claims of their religious faith. It was not until 1811—until this movement had been going on for nearly 70 years—that, finally, the the Bishops absolutely refusing to ordain fresh ministers for their work, these men were compelled to separate from the Church and found the sect of Calvinistic Methodists. That sect was founded as a separate body in 1811. In 1816 it already numbered some 900 congregations. At the present day it contributes a considerable proportion of the 4,000 and more chapels belonging to the different dissenting communities. Let me read one more passage on this question. It is from the well-known work of an ardent Churchman, entitled—
    "A Prize Essay on the Causes which have produced Dissent in Wales from the Established Church,"
    by Arthur James Johnes, published in 1831. I quote from p. 25 of the first edition:—
    "On putting to a gentleman, upon whose accuracy I can rely, the following question— 'What proportion of the collective income of the Welsh Church is held by Englishmen?' I received the following answer:—'Four bishoprics'—I suppose that is all there are—'a great portion of the deaneries, prebends, and sinecure rectories, and many, if not most, of the canonries. During the reign of the Houses of Tudor and Stuart several Welshmen were mitred; but not one since the accession of the House of Brunswick. The consequence was that the prelates brought into their respective dioceses their sons, nephews, and cousins to the ninth degree of consanguinity; the next consequence was a change of service (on the borders) from Welsh to English; and a third and important consequence was the desertion of the Church. Conventicles were erected in every direction.'"
    That is the opinion of a friend of the Church as late as 1831. The right hon. baronet, the Member for Bristol, took me
    1588
    to task with some severity for having said that the National Church in Wales was associated in the minds of the people with injurious and humiliating memories. Does not the story, the bare outline of which I have given, amply justify that statement? Here is a Church which I agree in its origin was of native and spontaneous growth, but which for centuries was used, with rare and brief intervals, not merely by the State—the blame must not all be thrown on the State—but by the Church of England as a dependency of its own. It may be said this is ancient, history. It is not so very ancient after all; but even if it were, that does not affect the question. There is no truth more legible on the page of history than this, that for institutions, as for individuals, there are opportunities and chances which, if they are neglected and abused, never recur. There are times of probation, which, if they have once expired, cannot be renewed or enlarged; and, if you want to find the secret of the comparative weakness of the Anglican Church in Wales, if you want to understand why it is that 31 out of 34 of her representatives have conic to this House pledged to have that Church disestablished and disendowed, you have only to look at the history, the mean and ignominious features of which it has been my painful duty to bring before the House. You find there the reason and justification for it. I now pass for a moment to the existing state of things. I do not deny—no fair-minded man would deny, nor is it to our interest to do so—that since 1831, when the passage I have quoted was written, there has been a large and a most beneficial change in the spirit and temper of the Anglican Church in Wales. The State, on the one hand, has appointed Bishops, deans, and canons who knew the language and understood the people, and the Church, animated by a new spirit, has developed a beneficent spiritual activity in many parts of Wales. Still, when, every allowance has been made, when everything that can be done has been done, what is the state of affairs? It is not disputed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as I understand, that the Church in Wales is still the Church of the minority.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Nobody knows.
    MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman says nobody knows. I will try and give him some materials for judging. I do not want to dwell again on the question of Parliamentary representation, and I should not now touch on the point but for the efforts of the most militant of the Welsh Bishops to endeavour to get rid of facts and figures which he had better have left alone. The Bishop of St. Asaph has been at the pains to calculate the votes given for and against Disestablishment. He brings out—and I have no reason to doubt his figures—that 145,000 persons voted for Disestablishment, and 86,000 against it. If you take a total electorate of 340,000, that brings out that only 47 per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of Disestablishment, and the proportion who voted against Disestablishment was26per cent. Then, says the Bishop, as it is clear that only 47 per cent. of the registered electors voted for Disestablishment, you cannot claim to have a majority of the Welsh people on your side. You have only got to add the 26 per cent. who voted against it to the 27 per cent, who did not vote at all, and you get 53 per cent. not in favour of it. I do not know whether this is a fair specimen of episcopal logic. I do not think it is necessary, at any rate in this House, to attempt to demonstrate the fallacy of it. The truth is, it is quite enough to dispose of the Bishop and his logic to state that in 18 of these constituencies the majority in favour of Disestablishment ran into four figures. When people know that they have a majority of 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000, you feel there is a strong temptation, if not a justification, for some of them to stay at home and not trouble about going to the poll. Passing to the question of actual numbers, the House has never approached this question without our being taunted with unwillingness to expose the question to the test of a religious census. But I confess that the more I have considered the matter the more unsatisfactory and inadequate has it appeared to me that a religious census would be. What is it? It consists of a man writing in a column of a census paper what is his creed or what is the particular denomination to which he
    1590
    belongs. Is that, in itself, any test whatever of whether he actually belongs to one Church or another? The real question that you want to ascertain is, what is the actual working strength and living membership of the different communions in Wales. I will venture to quote on that point a passage, which seems to be peculiarly relevant, from Lord Macaulay. In his history (edition 1858, vol. IV. chapter 13, page 272), he writes regarding the comparative strength of religious parties in Scotland in 1689:—
    "The effective strength of sects is not to be ascertained merely by counting heads. An Established Church, a dominant Church, a Church which has the exclusive possession of the civil honours and emoluments, will always rank among its nominal members multitudes who have no religion at all; multitudes who, though not destitute of religion, attend little to theological disputes, and have no scruple about conforming to the mode of worship which happens to be Established; and multitudes who have scruples about conforming, but whose scruples have yielded to worldly motives."
    I think these considerations are equally applicable to the numbers in a religious census in Wales. But, apart from the question of a religious census, we have means of testing the comparative strength of the real, living, active membership of the different religious communities in the Principality. By looking at the numbers of communicants which are regularly published we find that, taking the four leading Nonconformist bodies, they number 381,000, against 118,000 in the Church. In other words, the Nonconformist communicants are in a majority of 263,000. If that is to be regarded as a fair test—[An hon. MEMBER: "No!"] Why not? I do not like to discuss these questions with too much acerbity, or to go too closely into them; but is it to be supposed that the Members of the Church are more lax in this matter than the members of the different dissenting bodies? If not, where does the inaccuracy of the test come in? I should have thought that we might take it as almost exactly the opposite, and might have considered that the Church of England, in proportion to its actual adherents, would have a larger number of communicants than the Dissenting bodies. I find, however, that the Calvinistic Methodists and Congregationalists alone have each a larger number of communicants than the Church of England in Wales. Exactly the same lesson is taught by another

    1591
    test—namely, the attendance at the Sunday schools. The total attendance at Church Sunday schools is 145,000, while in the Sunday schools of the Nonconformist bodies the attendance is said to be 515,000. Therefore, whichever of these tests you apply, you find that the proportion of Nonconformists to Churchmen in Wales comes out at something between three and four to one. Another argument that is often used is in relation to the difference of the two systems with regard to the residence of their ministers. We are constantly being told that, although the Church may be in a minority, yet that its national mission is vindicated and its national character demonstrated by the fact that every parish has a resident minister, whereas in many parishes the Nonconformists have none. According to the Bishop of St. Asaph, whose figures I am content again to take, says that out of 1,000 parishes there are 520 with a resident Nonconformist minister and 480 without. Is the Bishop so ignorant of the actual facts of the religious organisation of the Nonconformists of Wales? Is he so ignorant of the great Calvinistic Methodist movement, and of the fact that in the Nonconformist churches the system of itinerancy early took root and was found to be most effective for religious propaganda? I am informed that of the 4,000 Nonconformist chapels in Wales there is not one among them destitute of Sunday service, sometimes conducted by the minister residing in the parish or in charge of two adjoining parishes, sometimes by laymen who are qualified for the duty. In the large majority there are two preaching services and a Sunday school as well, and in most of the remainder there is one preaching service, one Sunday school, and one prayer meeting. I am told that there is not one of these chapels in which the Sacrament is not administered once a month. Now, let me ask, How does the Church stand in this respect? Is it very important to have a resident minister in a parish when he has no congregation? I am not going to weary the House, but I wish to go into one or two details. I will take the case of the county of Anglesey. I am told, and I invite inquiry, that there are 76 parishes, and out of these 27, or more than one-third, are without rector, vicar, or curate resi-
    1592
    dent in them, In three of these parishes there are no buildings of any kind where the service of the Church of England can be held—the churches have been demolished. In several of the parishes service is held only once a month. In one case the service was attended by 11 persons, including the minister, the sexton, the gamekeeper, and the servants of the squire. The tithes of these parishes which I have been describing, I am told, amount to more than £7,000 a year. This state of things is not due to the religious apathy of the people. The Nonconformist bodies are strong and flourishing in these parishes. The Calvinistic Methodists have in Anglesey 84 chapels and 34 school-rooms, and their communicants number 11,000. Therefore, I hope we shall not hear much more about the necessity of a resident minister. I must not de ain the House more than a few minutes more, but I must answer the question put to me the other day, in view of the fact I have been describing. The question was put by the right hon. Baronet opposite, What is the reason of the hostility of the Welsh people to the Established Church? What was his answer? The right hon. Baronet said the best answer he could discover was that it was a social grievance. A social grievance! He said the Church attracted the most educated classes, and that that was the reason there is this feeling of animosity. Was there ever a more impotent view taken of such a state of feeling—a feeling amply justified by the past history of the Church, and deeply ingrained in the hearts of the great masses of the Welsh people? I can easily make good our proposition. This is not, in the sense of the definition of Lord Salisbury, a national Church. It is not the Church of the Welsh people. It is not the Church which, whatever may have been its origin, for six centuries past or at the present day is looked to by the Welsh people to give natural expression to their religious sentiments and their religious feelings. I shall not again go into the general details of this Bill, which I have twice—once at great length—explained, and before I sit down I will only deal with two or three of the main objections which have been taken. One of the objections urged by the hon. Baronet, and stated with great force,

    1593
    was that in her new status the Church will be left in a state of ecclesiastical anarchy; that, every clergyman will be a law unto himself, free from jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which would be gone, or from any other jurisdiction. I confess I listened to that argument with surprise. The clergyman of the Church will be bound by contract to fulfil the duties of his office, and if he violates that there are abundant remedies. But surely our experience of the Disestablished Church in Ireland, and of episcopal churches in America and the Colonies, shows that these are difficulties not likely to arise. Then, as to the property of the Church, we are accused of dealing with the Welsh Church in a less liberal spirit than was displayed in the case of the Irish Church. Well, we propose that the Disestablished Church shall retain the churches and parsonage-houses and modern endowments, following the precedent of the Irish Church. We propose that the glebe, which in Ireland was sold, shall be transferred to the Parish Council for the benefit of the parish. As for the burial-grounds, I agree that in Ireland the great majority were handed over to the representative body, whereas here we propose to vest them in the County Council. Why do we make that provision? I heard with great admiration the speech of my noble friend, the Member for West Edinburgh, on this point, and I entirely appreciate his position; but the burial-ground cannot be regarded as the property of any particular religious body. By the common law everyone who dies in a parish has a right to be buried in the parish churchyard. Everyone has now the right given by statute to be buried according to the rites of his own denomination. It is impossible to leave these burial-grounds, in which many painful scenes of great intolerance have taken place, to the care of the representative body, and to say that the common law right is not to be maintained. Then, as to the cathedrals, until a time within the memory of many of us, they were scandalously neglected. The Llandaff Cathedral is a case in point, with regard to which, as late as 1854, the Royal Commission reported that it was in a ruinous state, and without any adequate provision for public worship. It
    1594
    is quite true that this state of things has changed, and that this cathedral has been restored and embellished. [An hon. MEMBER: "Who by?"] By subscribers who were by no means all Churchmen. I do not think that any man acquainted with the great national work of the restoration of cathedrals would pretend that it was confined to any particular sect. What do we do with the cathedrals? We place them in the hands of the Commissioners, subject to the obligation to maintain them and keep them in repair, and they are to be held in trust for the continued performance of the same service as hitherto. I believe that to be a liberal and even a generous arrangement. I know very well that it has excited a good deal of hostile criticism, but I do not think that that hostility will be maintained. I have confined myself to what may be deemed the grounds of principle on which the Bill may be attacked. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition, in the Debate on this Bill a year ago, expressed the belief that the democracy of this country would hold with him that, for the welfare of the community, the presence of a standing witness to great spiritual forces in every parish of the land was a vital necessity. I agree so far with the right hon. Gentleman that I believe that the succession of the democracy to supreme authority in this country has not meant, does not mean, and will not mean the enthronement of a merely material ideal of social life, or the banishment or weakening of those great spiritual forces to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which in days gone by moulded and coloured the whole fabric of English society. There are needs, as we all recognise, which are as old and as deep as human nature itself, and which no change in the distribution of political power and no rise in the general level of comfort can either satisfy or suppress. But is it necessary that this standing witness should be an officer of the State as well as a minister of the Church? What, as is too often the case in Wales—what if his message is unheeded, if his church is empty, if his mission is futile? Not, be it observed, because of the apathy of indifference, not because the parishioners are torpid or perverse, but because they find satisfaction and stimulus for their religious

    1595
    wants in unconsecrated buildings and in the services of an unauthorised ministry. The people of Wales have shown in days gone by that they can and will provide for their own spiritual needs; and it is in the sincere belief that this measure will minister as well to the religious as to the social welfare of the Principality that I ask the House to affirm it to be both politic and just.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Whatever our opinions may be on the principle or the details of this Bill, I think we may congratulate ourselves upon three things on the present occasion. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman has, I cheerfully admit, redeemed his promise to provide some argument in defence of the policy of Her Majesty' s Government. In the second place, he has given us in his speech an intellectual treat of no mean order. And in the third place, I gladly recognise an important change in the manner in which he has approached this question; for he has expressed his desire not to offend what he admits to be the natural sentiments of those who entirely disagree with him. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to complain that I did not give him credit for the sincerity of his motives. That was very far from my intention. I cannot question his motives; I do not know what his motives may be. I can only judge of them from his speeches, and what I intended to convey to the House was that the motive which he has recently assumed of a desire to benefit the Church in Wales by this policy does not appear in his earlier speeches, and that his assumption of such a motive, having regard to the notorious origin of this Bill and the views of those who have pressed it on the Government, is felt to add insult to injury by those who attempt to the best of their power to defend the Church. And if I used any language which he thinks too strong, I would say this—let him go to the managing body of any Nonconformist community with which he is acquainted which possesses endowments; let him tell them that he proposes to deprive them of their endowments in his earnest desire for their good; let him see what they will say, and if they do not use language very much stronger than
    1596
    any I have used, I will my tender to him my most humble and sincere apologies. Now, I should like first to inquire what is the ground on which Her Majesty's Government base the proposals in this Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. I know there are many persons who believe that the establishment of a Church is in itself, under all circumstances and in any country, contrary to the principles of religion. That view is not only absolutely opposed to the opinions and the practice of every country in Christendom from the time of Constantine the Great to the beginning of the present century, but is also inconsistent with these arguments about majorities and minorities which formed so large a part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But I am not quite sure what the view of the right hon. Gentleman himself may be. His whole argument, especially his argument with reference to the advantages of autonomy to the Church, was an argument for the Disestablishment of the Church in England as well as in Wales. That may be the opinion of individual Members of Her Majesty's Government; it is not the view which has been accepted by that Government as a whole. They have attempted, and are attempting to attack the Church of England under the disguise of yielding to what they call the national demand of Wales. Wales is to be treated in this matter as a separate nationality, contrary to history, contrary to geographical fact, and I believe, contrary to what would be the legitimate conclusion from those principles which Her Majesty's Government have adopted. If we are told that in such a matter as this Wales is entitled to be treated as a separate nation because 31 out of 34 Welsh Members demand it, I should like, to ask, how far Her Majesty's Government are prepared to go in the way of concession for this reason? If on these Home Rule principles—which are dear to Her Majesty's Government, and which were eloquently expressed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—31 out of 34 Welsh Members were to go to the Government and say, "We insist on a separate Government and separate Parliament for Wales," what would be their answer? Would they grant that demand? I am very confident that just at the present moment they would

    1597
    decline to comply with a demand which, if made by Brittany to France, would be simply laughed out of court. Surely therefore the mere fact that this demand has been made is not sufficient. Surely we must consider the question on its merits, and we must be satisfied, the Government must be satisfied, and the country must be satisfied that the demand is just and right in itself. I understand the view of the right hon. Gentleman to be that the Establishment of the Church in Wales is unjust, because it confers ascendency upon the Church of a small minority, which is contrary to religious equality. Well, if there is any force in that argument, it will carry the right hon. Gentleman a great deal further than this Bill. If it is an injustice to those who are not members of the Church that the the Church should be established, it is equally an injustice whatever may be the numbers of the Church and whether those who dissent from it are in a majority or minority. In fact, you may go further. If you were to disestablish the Churches in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales, you would really be creating a greater injustice than at present exists, from this point of view, with regard to Nonconformists in England. But I demur altogether to this argument. I entirely deny that it is based upon any true conception of what Establishment means. Establishment does not mean that the State has brought a Church into existence. It does not mean that it has selected a particular denomination out of many to be the Established Church of this country. At any rate, that is not the meaning of Establishment in England or in Wales. In England and in Wales, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted to the full, the Church and the State from the earliest ages have grown up together, and, in fact, I think it could truly be said that the State has grown up under the shelter and counsel of the Church. The Church was the State in its spiritual aspect, and the Church was naturally the organ which the State utilised in the war against ignorance, vice, and crime—a war which cannot be so effectually waged by any other agency, and, to descend to a, mean argument, cannot be so cheaply waged by any other agency. I admit
    1598
    that circumstances have changed; the whole people no longer belong to one religious denomination. But the Church still occupies the same position, not of privilege but of duty; on it falls a duty which no other denomination can perform, and if it be relieved from that duty no other denomination will perform. The right hon. Gentleman discussed at some length the advantage which we believe to result from the existence of resident ministers of the Church in all the parishes of Wales, and compared their position with those ministers of other denominations. I think he has been misinformed with regard to Anglesey. I dare say there are some parishes which have been united and churches which exist no longer; but the theory and, as a rule, the practice of the Church is that there shall be a resident minister in every parish. That is, not a matter merely of Sunday services, not even of week-day services, but of general ministration to the spiritual and temporal welfare of the people. I venture to say that is a work which cannot be performed by the ministers of any denomination, at all if you relieve the Church of the duty which is imposed upon it by Establishment. But why are we to make this great change upon what may be and seem to us to be purely ephemeral grounds? It is admitted even by the right hon. Gentleman that for many centuries the Church was not only in theory but in fact the national Church of Wales. He referred to the Norman period. I readily agree with him that in the Norman period the Church in Wales was treated as unfairly by the Norman conquerors as the Saxon Church in England was treated by them. But she revived; and the right hon. Gentleman passed very lightly over her flourishing condition under the Tudors and the Stuarts. The Church was persecuted most of all in Wales under the Commonwealth. There were atrocious Acts passed at that time by the Puritans for Disendowing and putting an end if they could to the very existence of the Church in Wales. But those Acts failed because throughout all that period the Church in Wales was the National Church; and, so far from it being the fact that there were only intervals during which the Church in Wales was a National

    1599
    Church, I contend that there were only intervals when she was anything else. After the Reformation, for 250 years, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted, the Church in Wales was the National Church. She was the Church of the great leaders who gave rise to the Nonconformist movement, and only within the last 60 or 80 years has she ceased to be the National Church in Wales in fact as well as in theory. During the last 10 years her growth and aggressive vitality is admitted by everyone. Having regard to these facts of history, surely it is monstrous that, because just at the present moment she may be the Church only of a minority, we are by the Bill now proposed to declare that she has not only lost all claim at the present time to be considered the National Church of Wales, but can never be in the position, to reassert it. Surely at this moment, when something like a wave of secularism is passing over the world, it is not the time when any man believing in Christianity should wish to deprive the State of that connection with religion which has formed part of her organic life during so many centuries, and to weaken the most capable antidote to that evil gospel of individual selfishness which is doing so much injury to the very foundations of our modern society. The right hon. Gentleman professes—and far be it from me to say that he does not profess it with sincerity—the desire to do good to the Church. He says that in his belief the Church is hindered and fettered in her work by the fact of her connection with the State. I am sure that the members of the Church in Wales are only too anxious to live in peace and good will with their neighbours. I am convinced that if they could see that the provisions of this Bill really would put an end to bitterness and animosity in Wales—that, hurtful as they might believe those provisions to be to their own position, they would cease to oppose them. But they ought to be better judges of the needs of their Church than the right hon. Gentleman; and almost unanimously, I believe, the members of the Church in Wales disagree with his view on this subject. They are referred for consolation to the result of Disestablishment to the Irish Church. I admit, and every one must admit who has considered the
    1600
    question, that it has been of advantage to the Irish Church to secure freedom from interference in her ecclesiastical and spiritual affairs by those who do not belong to her community. I admit that it has been of advantage to the Irish Church to secure the representation of the laity in her legislative assemblies; but there are matters which Churchmen in Wales may consider, and rightly consider, even of greater importance than those things. What about their connection with the Church of England? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was ample provision for maintaining ecclesiastical and spiritual discipline in Wales after the passing of the Bill. If it be so, there is only one way in which it can be secured? I expect the members of the Church in Wales value, perhaps above everything else, their ecclesiastical connection with the rest of the Church of England. I am quite sure that the rest of the Church of England values its ecclesiastical connection with them, and I entirely demur to the view which was expressed by the President of the Board of Trade the other day, that the Church of England in her ecclesiastical and spiritual life remains untouched and unharmed by the Bill. But how about the members of the Church in Wales in this matter? I contend that it is absolutely impossible, under the provisions of this Bill, whatever kind of future organisation they may select and adopt for themselves, for the members of the Church in Wales to remain in the same ecclesiastical and spiritual connection with the rest of their Church as that in which they are at the present moment. They may form a separate Church, no doubt, just as the members of the Church in Ireland did; but as a Disestablished Church it is impossible for them to maintain their present connection with the rest of the Church which will remain established in England. They might well think—and I believe they do think—that this disruption, this wicked and cruel disruption, is a far worse thing to them ecclesiastically than any benefits such as have been gained by the Church in Ireland. There is another point of view from which the members of the Church in Wales may also regard this question. They may view it not only as Churchmen, but as members

    1601
    of the State. They may consider, and ought to consider, what effect this Bill will have on the future of Wales. What affect has the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church had on the condition of the State in Ireland? I think he would be a very rash man who would assert that it had done the faintest good. I hold that it has done a great deal of harm. As an eloquent prelate said, in speaking on the Irish Church Act—the revolution in Ireland began with the Church and has gone on to the land; since the passing of that Act, political differences in Ireland have been deeper and more bitter; and divide, just as completely as over before, Protestants and Roman Catholics into two different corps. Since the passing of that Act the movement for separation, or, at least, for an alteration in the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, has certainly gained increased strength. Churchmen in Wales see these things. They may dread the effect which a similar policy will have on their position as members of the State in Wales, especially if they bear in mind a definition which was given to the House in the Debate on the First Reading of this Bill by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Denbighshire, and the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Church in Wales is called an alien Church. Why is it called an alien Church? The right hon. Baronet told us the other day that it was because the laity and the clergy of that Church were aliens in their attitude towards the great national movement now going on in Wales. That view has been reaffirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman tonight. What does that mean?
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I was speaking of the national education movement in Wales.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman did not say so; and this is not the first time on which his own recollection of what he said has differed from that of other people. But I do not lay stress on anything he says. The same sentiment was expressed by the Home Secretary. What it means is surely this. The members of the Church in Wales are just as much attached to their country as any other persons. They are just as proud of their race and history.
    1602
    But, perhaps they are more, educated and move intelligent, and possess broader views of patriotism; and, therefore, they know that what is called "the national movement" leads directly to Home Rule, and that what Home Rule for Wales means is a separate Government and Parliament for Wales; and they realise that there could be nothing worse for Wales than such a thing as that. I think I may find some confirmation of that view in the speeches of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs and other hon. Members from Wales. Whether there are or are not religious motives for the support which is given to this Bill, in my belief there are certainly strong political motives; and there are political motives of another kind. The Prime Minister, with reference to the Church in Scotland, made a very remarkable statement some little time ago. He said—
    "In Scotland nearly every manse is an agency for the Tory party and the continuance of the Establishment and the Liberal Party side by side in Scotland is coming to be inconsistent."
    Is there no feeling of the same kind on the other side of the House with reference to the Welsh Church? Are we absolutely sure that even the right hon. Gentleman himself has no hidden sympathy with these feelings in his attack on the Church in Wales. If it be so, I can only say that such a motive is utterly inconsistent with his self-congratulation upon the thought that in this matter the Liberal Party are engaged in the pursuit of absolutely disinterested aims. I am afraid that, as in Ireland, so in Wales, the Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Church proposed by this Bill, the manner in which they are to be carried out, and the reasons by which they are justified, will give a distinct impetus to the policy of Home Rule. But I turn from Disestablishment to Disendowment. They are coupled together in this Bill, and they must be coupled together, because I do not believe there is a single. Welsh Member out of the whole 31 who would support Disestablishment without Disendowment. Now, how did the right hon. Gentleman attempt to justify the policy of Disendowment? Any real justification was singularly absent from his speech; but he tried to justify it on the ground of

    1603
    attempts which have been made by Parliament in past generations to legislate on matters connected with the government, discipline, and doctrines of the Church. With the exception of the Irish Church Act, he never quoted a single instance in which—whatever other Legislation in regard to the Established Church may have been attempted—Parliament had sought to deprive the Church of those endowments which maintain her Bishops and Clergy. The right hon. Gentleman calls the endowments of the Church national property. He asserts that they are the special patrimony of the people, which has been enjoyed for a time by the Members of a particular religious community. If that is so, there must have been a time when they belonged to the people. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me, when that time was? I defy him to prove that there was any such time at all. Take tithe, which is, of course, the main part of the endowments. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that tithe over belonged to the people? He does not venture to say so. I will give him two authorities to the contrary, which I think even he will not dispute—Professor Stubbs, Bishop of Oxford, and Professor Freeman, two of the greatest historians of our time. Professor Stubbs says:—
    "Tithe never belonged to the nation, and was not the gift of the nation."
    Professor Freeman says:—
    "The Church preached the payment of tithe as a duty. The State gradually came to enforce that duty by legal enactment."
    But is every source of income, the payment of which is enforced by legal enactment, therefore the property of the State? That will carry the right hon. Gentleman a great deal further than the endowments of the Church. It is a fact that until very modern times the suits for non-payment of tithe were of ecclesiastical cognizance only. I contend, in spite of anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said, that, with some small exceptions, not a penny of the endowments of the Church, whether in England or in Wales, ever belonged to the State, was ever given by the State, or was ever voted by Parliament. With these small exceptions every penny was given by individual
    1604
    donors. We are often told that we ought to maintain our Church by a voluntary system. The Church was the original founder of the voluntary system. The Church has been maintained by the voluntary system for centuries. She is maintained by the voluntary system now. I admit that there might have been a certain process in the dark ages—a kind of spiritual distraint—which aided the voluntary system. But that process is not absolutely unknown in the present time, and the only difference between the mode in which the Church has been maintained and the mode in which Nonconformist communities are now maintained, is that the voluntary system has gone on for centuries with respect to the Church, and only for a few generations with respect to the Nonconformist communities. The right hon. Gentleman told us something of the, injury done to the Welsh Church by the Norman Conquest. I can tell him something more. The See of Llandaff was almost as completely disendowed by the Norman conquerors as propose by this Bill. Out of 24 canonries only two escaped. But it was re-endowed by donors whose gifts may be seen recorded in ancient charters which still exist. The see of Bangor was endowed by-Bishop Amian in the time of Edward I. The very ancient see of St. Davids and the see of St. Asaph were endowed in the reign of Henry VIII. I could go on to parochial benefices; but I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to touch upon this question. Charters may be found which show beyond dispute how these endowments have been brought about. If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman alleges, that all this is national property, why has he taken the date of 1703? Why are not gifts given to the Church after 1703 just as much national property as those given before? The only reason that the right hon. Gentleman has given is, that only from that year (1703) it became possible, through the machinery of Queen Anne's Bounty, for private persons to invest in landed property for ecclesiastical purposes. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that this does not apply to tithe. Lord Selborne says:—
    "For perpetual grants of tithe no licence in mortmain or other temporal confirmation was ever necessary. They were deemed in law to

    1605
    be things mainly spiritual and to be held by no feudal tenure."
    Then, why should tithes granted before 1703 not be respected as much as tithes granted after 1703? And with regard to lands? Lands have been granted before 1703 by private donors to the Church—private donors of all kinds, kings, queens, princes, nobles, bishops find commoners—as can be proved by charters. Why are these things to be taken away if granted before 1703? I have two instances here to which I will refer. I hope I am not wearying the House, but these are matters with which the right hon. Gentleman absolutely neglected to deal, and which must be enforced upon the attention of the country. Here is a case. In a charter of Bishop Bernard, of St. Davids, it is recorded that William Reval endowed the Church of Hay, in Breconshire, with land and tithes, which are specified in the charter. This was between 1115 and 1135. Afterwards, before 1154, this church, with others, was granted to the Priory of St. John of Brecon, and by a subsequent charter it was stipulated that there should be a vicar of the parish, who should receive the whole revenue of the church, paying the monks five silver marks per annum. The charter is now preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. I have no doubt that this endowment is amongst those ancient endowments of the Church of Hay which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to confiscate. By what right does he propose to take them away? I have another instance. The vicarage of Slebech, in Pembrokeshire, was endowed about the year 1640 by George Barlow by a deed preserved among the parish papers. The words of the deed are:—
    "I, George Barlow, of Slebech, finding it an ancient institution of primitive times to make, consecrate, and endow vicarages with tithes, the patrons reserving power to themselves of presentment, and holding it also unjust, and a principle in conscience not to perform the same accordingly, do make, a perpetual vicarage endowed with cure of souls in Slebech, presentative by me and my heirs, and do also freely give and for ever grant unto the said parish church of Slebech and vicars the house lately by me to that purpose built and lands thereto belonging near the churchyard, together with all tithes within the parish of Slebech, township of Priston, and Milhill in the parish of Boulton, except Sheaffe, and all manner of tithes of what, nature and kind soever issuing within the demesne lands of Slebech now in my tenure and occupation."
    1606
    And then we go on to some remarkable words. They may seem strange, but they were written in the simple faith of those days:—
    "If any shall take away from the holy Church of God the premises in part or in all so by me given (which I hope no man ever will) let his account be without mercy at the dreadful Day of Judgment, when he shall come to receive his doom at the hands of the Judge of heaven and earth, to whom I dedicate the same."
    Of course I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman and those who support this Bill do not think they are doing what would bring them within the terms of this curse, but surely this shows that this man, George Barlow, believed he was giving his property to God, and surely it shows also that others who made similar gifts did the same. What I again ask is. What right has Parliament to take away property so given to the Church in Wales in the year 1640 any more than it has to take away property given to any Noncomformist community last week. We are sometimes told that in early days there was only one Church to which persons could make gifts; but can any one argue that, if those who made the gifts had not agreed with that Church, they would have given them at all? It was also said that the property of the Church was transferred at the Reformation from the Church of Rome to the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade agree, with me in holding that that view is absolutely erroneous. I hope they will press their opinion, upon their colleague, the Prime Minister, because at Cardiff in January last the noble Lord said:—
    "We all remember what the State once did with the endowments, how it took them at the time of the Reformation from the old Church."
    He went on to say it was not wise for the defenders of the establishment to rest too much upon the right of property, because the indefeasible right to this ancient property rested not with the Reformed Church but with the Roman Catholic Church. There is, I know, a small part of the endowments of the Church in Wales which was given to the Church by Parliament. In the early part of this century Parliament made a grant of a million and a half towards building churches, and I think of

    1607
    £1,100,000 towards aiding Queen Anne's Bounty in augmenting benefices. Of these sums £9,440 was given towards building churches in Wales, and £168,000 towards augmenting benefices there. But the College of Maynooth received Parliamentary grants for building purposes; Noncomformist communities in England in those days received Parliamentary grants. I am sure no member of the House would be so mean, as to ask the Church of Wales to give back the few thousands received in building grants when they remember that during the last 50 years, in sums of £500 and upwards, Churchmen in Wales have spent no less than £2,216,000 in building and restoring churches. The operations of Queen Anne's Bounty have been referred to, but all Queen Anne did by her bounty was to restore to the Church property that had previously belonged to it but of which it had been despoiled, first by the Popes and then by the Kings. Therefore, I assert that, with the slight exceptions to which I have alluded, all the endowments of the Church in Wales are as absolutely the property of that Church as the endowments of any religious community in the kingdom can be. I care not what was done in Ireland—I never assented to the Irish Church Disestablishment Act, but voted in every division against it—this House has no more moral right to take one single penny of those endowments than it has to take the property of any corporation, any trade union, any society in this country. There is no property which is devoted to higher purposes, there is none that is devoted to objects more in accordance with the wishes of its donors, and with the spirit of our present day, if we may judge from the enormous increase made to those endowments continually by voluntary contributions, and, last of all, there is no property, corporate or private, which does so much good. I hope; I have said something to show that justice, at, any rate, does not demand that the Church in Wales should be despoiled of her endowments. I would now like to say a word upon another argument. It is said, and it, is true, that these endowments are the accident and not the essence of the Church, that if they were taken away the Church would continue to exist.
    1608
    No doubt, she would, as she existed before them. It is said they are very small in amount. That is true. The right hon. Gentleman estimated the total annual value of the ancient endowments of the Church in Wales which he proposes to take away from her, at about £280,000 a year. [Mr. ASQUITH: "Gross."] Gross, quite so. I have calculations, and I believe they are true, looking to the present very depressed value of the tithe and land, which make the net annual value of these endowments no more than £157,000, and of that amount £7,000, at least, would have to be expended in salaries and cost of the Welsh Commissioners. Then, what we are dealing with practically, so far as any benefit to Welshmen who are not members of the Church is concerned, is the sum of £150,000. It is said that the Church in Wales can afford to lose this, that it will be replaced by new endowments. It might be replaced by new endowments, but it is for those who would take those endowments away and at the same time profess their desire that the work of the Church in Wales should be efficiently carried in to show how that work can be efficiently carried on all over Wales without these endowments. Three arguments are used in support of this view. The first is that the growth of the Church in Wales is mainly in the large towns and more populous neighbourhoods, and that there she is practically working on the voluntary system alone. Now, that is not correct. Take the county of Glamorgan, the most populous county in Wales. The gross endowments of the Church in Glamorganshire are £26,327 a year. The net annual value of those endowments, I take it, would not be more than £15,000. But that is not all that the Church receives at the present moment by way of endowment in Glamorganshire. In these populous and mining districts she receives from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in annual grants to incumbents and curates no less than £13,119, almost as much as is derived from the ancient endowments of which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deprive her. Therefore there is in these populous centres a substantial nucleus of endowment round which these volun-

    1609
    tary offerings centre. If you were to take this nucleus away, if you were to deprive Wales, as you must deprive Wales, if this Bill becomes law, of the grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which are provided from Church property in England, you would deprive the Church in Wales in these populous centres of much more than her ancient endowments. Then we have been told that the voluntary system has been, successful in the Colonies. Now, the Church in the Australian Colonies was endowed by grants of Crown lands, some of them situated in the cities and towns, and those lands have now become of considerable value. The Australia Government gave to the Church in these Colonies complete powers of self-government. They never touched her endowments, which were State endowments if ever there, were State endowments in the world. The result has been—I state it on high authority—that the Church in Australia is reasonably well off and successful in the cities and towns; but is half-starved in the country districts. Let us take the Church in Ireland. The Church in Ireland after disestablishment was left with a capital endowment of rather less than a million; which has been very considerably increased by the voluntary contributions of her members and by the able management of her financial advisers. But, in spite of that, churches have been closed, large parishes have been thrown together, and stipends have been reduced. I admit that her general condition is certainly not unsatisfactory from a financial point of view for a Disendowed Church. Why? Because Parliament dealt with her fairly. Parliament was not generous to the Irish Church; it was just. But the Bill is not just to the Church in Wales. It is simply mean. Surely it is mean to deprive Incumbents—who after Disestablishment resign their charge with the consent of the representative body of the Church—of a very large part of their life interests. The result of this must be to hinder the Disestablished and Disendowed Church from sending her ministers to those places where their services may be most required—to impose a heavy fine upon promotion to Bishoprics or other important positions in the Church in Wales, and a temptation to revert to
    1610
    the objectionable practice of looking outside Wales for Welsh Bishops, and, lastly, to prevent any re-endowment of the Church by her own clergy. There is no provision in this Bill, as there was in the Irish Act, for the commutation of life interests by the Commission. By the provision which diminishes life interests on resignation the right hon. Gentleman has made it impossible that any life interests should be commuted in any other way, because the uncertainty of the amount of those interests would be so great that no life insurance company would undertake the transaction. Still meaner is the treatment of curates—men who have gone through a long and expensive education on the faith of the existing law, and whom you refuse to recognise as entitled to any compensation at all when they lose their curacies on the death or the resignation of their existing Incumbents. But what is meanest of all is the treatment of Churchmen in Wales with respect to their cathedrals and churchyards. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to excuse and justify this; but I cannot help thinking that when we come to the discussion of the Bill in Committee he will be induced to change his views on the point. Cathedrals are of no money value, but they are of incalculable value to the members of the Church in Wales. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to them have neither the courage of confiscation nor the grace of liberality. He does not venture to take away the Cathedrals as he would take away the churchyards. He gives Churchmen the right to use them, but they are to belong to the Welsh Church Commissioners. Why? In order that there may be an opening for some future scheme for the use of these Cathedrals— which belong to the Church, if anything ever did belong to the Church—by the members of other religious denominations. The right hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Church have no special claim to the churchyards. Nonconformists are and were buried in them, but mainly before burial grounds were attached to Nonconformist chapels, as is now commonly the case; but Churchmen have always been buried in them. In these churchyards lie their nearest and dearest, and they have been added to by the gifts of Churchmen. Why,

    1611
    then, should you take them away? By doing so you are taking away from the Church something which is infinitely more valuable to her than it can be to anybody else. In 1844 there was a Debate in Parliament on the Dissenters' Chapels Act, when it was proposed, and rightly so, that the possession by certain Unitarian congregations of what were formerly Presbyterian chapels should be confirmed by law. In the House of Commons, on that occasion, Lord Macaulay said, with regard to the proposal that these congregations should not be allowed to retain the Chapels:—
    "You are robbing us of what we consider invaluable, to bestow it in a quarter where it can have no other value than as a trophy of a most inglorious war, and as an evidence of the humiliation of those from whom this property has been wrested."
    Those eloquent words are exactly applicable to the proposals of this Bill with regard to the Cathedrals and the churchyards. The spirit which has dictated them is not the spirit of generosity; it is the spirit of persecution. Persecution springs from fear. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government are afraid of the Church in Wales; but I do know they are afraid of the Church in England, and what they desire to do by these proposals is to establish a precedent in respect to the Church in England. Before I sit down I should like to say a few words upon the purpose to which this revenue of £157,000 a year is to be devoted by the Bill. I have no doubt this has been the most difficult—and will be the most difficult—part of the right hon. Gentleman's task. This revenue mainly consists of tithes, and in speaking of it I shall allude solely to tithes. I observe that last night the right hon. Gentleman, in addressing another audience, said something on this point which, I think, deserves notice. He drew a picture, of the feeling of a small Nonconformist freeholder in Wales, who, having to maintain his own chapel, is compelled to pay tithe issuing out of his land to a Church in which he does not believe, and the right hon. Gentleman impressed this on his audience as a hardship. I admit that I think if I was in the same position I should feel it something of a hardship myself; but what is the conclusion to which this argument leads?
    1612
    The great bulk of the tithe in Wales is paid, not by small Nonconformist freeholders, but by landlords who are members of the Church. They willingly pay this tithe for the maintenance of their Church. The right hon. Gentleman would give them a grievance instead of the small Nonconformist freeholder, because he proposes to compel these Churchmen to maintain their Church and to pay the tithes to something else. If the small Nonconformist freeholder is sufficiently honest—and I have no doubt he is as honest as his richer neighbours—he will feel that he ought not to put this tithe into his own pocket, or to apply it to relieving himself of rates. But he would, doubtless, like to apply it to the maintenance of his own chapel. That, however, is not an argument for this Bill; it is an argument for concurrent endowment. I suppose I am one of the few remaining Members of the House who voted in 1869, when it was clear that the country was determined that the Irish Church should be disestablished and disendowed, that the funds should be applied by way of concurrent endowment. If and when it is clear—thank God it is not clear yet—that the country has made up its mind that the Church in Wales shall be disestablished and disendowed, I should hold the same opinion still. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to carry his argument to its logical conclusion, and instead of devoting the tithe in Wales to hospitals, infirmaries, musuems, and higher education, to allow the small Nonconformist freeholder to devote it in future, after disendowment, to the purpose to which it is alleged he desires to apply it—to the maintenance of his own form of religion. In the present scheme there is an immense difficulty in the proper allocation of this money. I do not refer to the central fund. That is a small matter—in the gross only £46,000 a year, and in the net it will not amount, I believe, to more than £29,000 a year. It will have to bear the £7,000 a year, or thereabouts, which must at the very least be the cost of the Welsh Commissioners, judging from experience in Ireland. It will also have to bear the accumulated interest on the large advances which it will be necessary for the Treasury to make in the

    1613
    earlier years of the working of this scheme. Therefore, there will be little or nothing for a long time available from the central fund for the purposes named by the right hon. Gentleman—for an academy of art, for a museum, and for higher education. What I refer to mainly are those revenues which are derived from tithe and are the property of the incumbents. They are to be handed over to the County Councils; but in framing schemes for their disposal, the County Councils are to have regard to the needs of the parish from which they arise. I maintain that, by the scheme of the Bill it would be impossible for the County Council to have regard to anything else. These parochial tithes will only fall into the possession of the County Council by the gradual cessation of separate life interests in each particular parish, and the County Council cannot deal with them until they do. The fragment, which would be all the County Council could take in any one case from the claims of the parish, would be absolutely insufficient to be utilised by the County Council in a scheme for the general needs of the county. The County Council could not retain these fragments, as they came in, in order to utilise them for county purposes, without settling the definite object to which they should be applied, and it could not settle that object beforehand. Let hon. Members think with what enormous tenacity the inhabitants of the smallest rural parishes of England have, in late years, clung to their charitable endowments, and how they have refused, where they could possibly avoid it, to allow one single penny of those endowments to be expended beyond the parish itself. Let hon. Members consider how these views are growing, and how they are certain to be impressed by parochial influence on the County Councils, and then ask themselves whether it will be possible, under the circumstances I have described, with these endowments only falling in at intervals, for the County Councils to do anything else but to keep the endowments in the parishes from which they spring. What, will be the result? In one parish you will have tithe belonging to a layman, which, therefore, will continue to be paid after the pass-
    1614
    ing of this Bill. In the next parish you will have tithe payable to the central fund, and land also belonging to that central fund. In these two cases the parish will get nothing from these tithes mid these lands. In a third parish you will have the incumbent living perhaps for 50 years, and retaining his life interest for the 50 years, during which the parish will derive not a single penny from these funds. In the fourth parish, perhaps the smallest of all, perhaps the richest of all, and perhaps least in need of such aid, you will have the tithes falling in at once, and the County Council will have to devote them to the demands of that parish. Sir, there never was a, scheme framed to promote, such envy, hatred, malice and uncharitableness between the inhabitants of unlucky parishes and the inhabitants of lucky parishes as the scheme proposed in this Bill. I do not know whether I might venture to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. He told us he was in a dilemma on the First Reading of the Bill. He argued that if he gave these funds according to population, the result would be that populous counties like Glamorganshire would mainly benefit, and the places from which the tithes issued would get next to nothing. I think I have shown that under the scheme of the Bill the tithes will be frittered away for the benefit of these places where they are least required. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take the bold course that was take in regard to the funds of the Disendowed Church in Ireland. Let him say:—
    "My Bill is a good Bill; it does not need to be recommended by local bribery; I am bound to take those funds; I consider them national funds, and I will apply them to the national benefit of the people of Wales."
    I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will take that course. I will give him an alternative. Suppose he drops this scheme altogether. I admit that some of the purposes, perhaps all of the purposes, to which he could apply this money are good in themselves; but they are not so good, or nearly so good, as the purposes to which it is applied at the present moment. Hospitals and nursing institutions can only be of real benefit to the neighbourhood in which they are

    1615
    situated when they are managed by persons who are imbued by that true spirit of self-sacrifice, that charitable desire to relieve the wants of suffering humanity, which flow from, and can only permanently flow from, definite religious belief. The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best, by depriving the Church of those funds, to diminish the teaching in Wales of definite religious belief. Sir, it has been said by a very eminent person abroad that if the policy embodied in this Bill were to pass into law, it would be felt as a blow at Christianity throughout Europe. But it will not pass into law; because it is not seriously intended. If it were seriously intended, Her Majesty's Government, would have pressed it forward last year. If they had been defeated, either in this House or in another place, they would have taken the verdict of the electors upon it, and would have abided by the result. If the verdict had been, unhappily, in favour of the Bill, it would then, as in the case of the Irish Church Bill, have become law. But the Government have not dared to take that course. And why? because they know very well that their cause is losing ground even in Wales, and that England is hostile to their proposal. Sir, this Bill is now merely a feint against the Church. It is a move, and a feeble move, in the half-hearted game of attack upon the House of Lords; but its real use is to enable right hon. Gentlemen opposite to delay the Dissolution of Parliament until what they hope may be a more convenient season. Sir, there is one case in history in which the civil power broke up a Church for political objects; but I have never heard that the result of that proceeding was considered so successful as to challenge imitation. I refer to the story of Jeroboam, son of Nebat. But the Government are not strong enough to imitate that powerful king. A Government with a majority varying from 12 to 15 is incapable of so altering the Constitution of such a country as this as to break up the relations between the Church and the State. Sir, I am convinced that Englishmen will never permit their Church—for she is their Church as well as the Church of Welshmen—to be despoiled of the means by which she does so much good; or their country to re-
    1616
    nounce that recognition of religion which has made her not merely a colonising and a civilising, but a great Christianising agency throughout the world. I beg to move that this Bill be read this day six months.
    MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that, as a Welsh member, he gave the Bill a very hearty support. If he did not do so it was perfectly certain he would not be in the House of Commons. For the last 25 years a thorough advocacy of Disestablishment was the one indispensable condition for entering Parliament, so far as a very large majority of the seats in Wales were concerned. The question of Disestablishment had been during that period the ruling factor in Welsh politics. The history of the question, as it affected the Parliamentary Representation of Wales, during the past 15 years was very important. In 1880, there were returned from Wales 29 members in favour of Disestablishment, and four against; in 1885, 30 for Disestablishment and four against; in 1886, 29 for Disestablishment and five against; and in 1892, no fewer than 31 for Disestablishment and only three against. The Conservative Party was fond of boasting that the last Administration, which carried out a bold coercive Irish policy, was an exceedingly strong one. But the majority of the whole electorate of the United Kingdom which returned that Party to Power in 1886 was only 82,000 Votes—not much more than the majority which returned the present Government to Power in 1892—and if the Conservative Government thought, thought themselves justified in carrying out their Irish policy, how much more were Welsh Members justified in asking the House to sanction the present Bill; with a majority at its back of close upon 60,000 Votes from Wales alone. He expressed his satisaction at the fact that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol had taken a prominent part in opposition to this Bill because, although they could not agree with him, they recognised that they had in him a fair and honourable opponent. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was a feeling that the country recognised to the full the unreality of the proceedings in which they were engaged. He respectfully but

    1617
    strongly joined issue on that statement. So far as Wales was concerned there had never been a more real issue than this. He instanced the attitude and spirit of the Welsh Parliamentary Party; it was this question of Disestablishment which had made the Welsh Party, and during the last Session they as a Party had advocated their claim to the time of the House in regard to this question with great persistence. It might be said that this was not true with regard to England; but he maintained that no distinction could be made in a question of this kind between the view of England and the view of the whole country. The House of Commons had already practically sanctioned the principle of this Bill by a majority of over 50 Votes on a previous occasion. The unreality of the proceedings, if such there was, did not consist in any lack of interest on either side of the House, but in the fact that there was not a single representative of Wales who had either the inclination or the courage to stand up in the House in defence of the Church to which, it was alleged, the country was so attached. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol a few days ago made a very valuable admission when he said that among the Welsh-speaking population the Church was in a minority—possibly a small minority—and that Nonconformity was in a large majority. The right hon. Gentleman might have said that Nonconformity was also in a large majority—perhaps a still larger majority—in the English-speaking districts. It was found, on examination of the poll in 1892, that the average majority in favour of Disestablishment in purely Welsh constituencies was 1,811; in districts where the English and Welsh population were fairly equally divided the majority was 949; but in purely English-speaking districts the majority was no less than an average of 2,250. Welsh Nonconformity had a vitality about it which he thought was very clearly exemplified in the history of the growth of Welsh dissent outside the boundaries of Wales. He was informed that there were in London to-day belonging to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists nine chapels, with 4,000 members, having a property of the approximate value of £97,000; Welsh Congregationalists in London had five chapels, 1,400 members, and valuable
    1618
    property; Wesleyans, three chapels, with 200 members, and property of £4,000; and lastly, Welsh Baptists in London had two chapels, 450 members, and a property of the value of £7,000 or £8,000. The result was that there were in London at the present day 19 Welsh Nonconformist chapels, with 6,000 members, and a property, mostly paid for, of the value of £127,000. There was, however, only one Welsh Church in London, with a membership of 500 or 600. If it were argued that when Welsh Churchmen came up to London they forgot their language and went to English Churches, that, was a valuable argument in favour of the national character of Welsh dissent. Before leaving this argument, he had once more to refer to a statement made upon the First Reading of the Bill by the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division, a statement of which he seemed to be particularly fond, for he referred to the identical point in his speech upon the Bill last year. He said—
    "The Bishoph of St. Asaph had pointed out that the four leading Nonconformist sects in Wales numbered only 47 per cent. of the population, and the late Mr. Dilwyn had estimated the minor sects and Roman Catholics as 3 per cent. of the population. It followed, therefore, that the Nonconformist Christians in Wales amounted to only 50 per cent. of the population. Then the hon. Member for Carnarvon had declared that the adherents of the Church only numbered 10 per cent. of the population. 'It followed, therefore,' reasoned the hon. Member, 'that only 60 per cent. of the Welsh population went to places of worship'"
    —which was a libellous suggestion. Now let them look at this a little more closely. He would, for the sake of argument, accept the hon. Member's figures as correct, but let him point out (1) that 30 per cent. of the population belonged to Glamorgan and Monmouth, and was massed in the large, seaport towns of those counties. The character of these town populations, and its ever-changing condition, could not but swell the percentage of those who did not attend places of worship; (2) that, without making allowance for this consideration, was it the fact that the statement that only 60 per cent. of the population regularly attended religious service in Wales was a libel upon its religious character? How did the country generally compare with this state of things? It was estimated that there were in England and Wales some 38,000 churches and chapels, with a sitting

    1619
    accommodation for 10,000,000. He believed this to be a liberal estimate, but what followed? This: that if every seat in every church and chapel in the country was occupied next Sunday—which, he was sorry to say, would not be by any means the case—there would be less than 30 per cent. of the population of the country within places of worship; and yet the hon. Member for Tunbridge got up in his place and said that to admit that only 60 per cent. of the population of Wales regularly attend places of worship in Wales constituted a libel on the character of the country. It was not a libel, but a high compliment to Wales, to prove that at least twice as many of the people of Wales were as religious as the people of England, and it was a valuable tribute to the strong, uplifting influence of Nonconformity. He wished to say a word about the money argument. The noble Lord, the Member for Edinburgh (Lord WOLMER), in a speech which they on that side warmly appreciated on account of its unmistakable sincerity, and the fair and liberal tone which animated it from beginning to the end, referred at some length to the pecuniary aspect of the question. He said that Welsh Members had boasted of the triumph of the voluntary principle, and went on to show that the Church members in Wales subscribed voluntarily the sum of £250,000 last year to religious objects, whilst the voluntary donations of Nonconformists only reached the sum of £400,000. He (Lord WOLMER) went on to say that it was no extrication from the dilemma to say that the members of the Church of England were so much richer. But was not this consideration very material to the issue? Might he remind the noble Lord of the following facts? Almost all the land of Wales was held by Churchmen. He need not remind the House of the influence this gave to the Establishment. A very large proportion of the quarries and mines and industrial undertakings were also in the hands of Churchmen. The main bulk of the wealth of the country lay in the hands of the supporters of the Church. Was it to be wondered that at a crisis like this the gifts of Churchmen should amount to £250,000? But he would point out that as the supporters of the Church possess at least three-quarters of the
    1620
    wealth of the country, their subscriptions to religious objects should be at least three times the amount given by the Nonconformists. So that, if the Nonconformists subscribe £450,000, their subscription should be not £250,000, but £1,350,000. But he would advance the argument a step further by pointing out that the pecuniary argument was not by any means summed up by quoting the total sums given by Nonconformists on the one hand in 1894 and the Church of England on the other. In order to appreciate its value they must take a far wider survey; they must go back 100 or 150 years, to a time when the Church, as a spiritual force in Wales, was practically dead, but was in possession of the same funds as it was to-day, and with its members as rich in, worldly goods as happily they were to-day; they must note the fact that from that day to this the Nonconformist faith had been the faith of the poor of the country; yet, in spite of this, they had built thousands of chapels and schools, and maintained a ministry which had been and was an honour to the religious character of the country. The real value of these voluntary donations depended on the capacity for giving which lay behind them. Upon this point he recognised that there was a great gulf fixed between himself and hon. Members opposite, which could be bridged. He believed in voluntary contributions, and voluntary contributions only for the furtherance of religion, and he thought that the history of the past, as well as the experience of the present, confirmed that belief. Much had been said as to the Irish Church Act of 1869. He had only to state his strong opinion that that measure was a clear precedent for the measure dealing with the Church in Wales now before the House. And he would go further and say, that if the Irish case for disestablishment was a strong one, the Welsh case was a still stronger. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol said the other night—
    "That the Irish Church Act is a precedent at all. The circumstances of the Irish Church were, unfortunately, in the year 1869, absolutely different from that living and growing condition in which the church in Wales is now. The endowments of the Irish Church were to a large extent Parliamentary endowments, taken from the majority of the population and given to the creed of the small minority, as part of the English settlement in Ireland."

    1621
    Taking Ireland in 1869, how did the religious communions compare as to number with those of Wales? There belonged to the Irish Church in 1869, 693,000 members; to the Roman Catholic Church 4,505,000; to the Presbyterian Church 523,000; and to other bodies 72,054. In other words, the Establishment in Ireland laid claim to 693,000, but the unestablished churches in Ireland claimed 5,100,548 members. That was to say that the Church of Ireland only claimed 13 per cent. of the whole population of the country. What was the case in Wales in 1892? Taking the communicants of the Church of England at 114,000 they had the fact that the Church of England in Wales could claim, not 13 per cent. of the population, but only 6 per cent. He was willing, for the purpose of his argument, to assume that the communicants were double the number he had stated, and even then the percentage was lower than that claimed by the Church of Ireland in 1869 as belonging to her. Again, the Members returned from Ireland to the Parliament of 1868, which passed the Act Disestablishing the Irish Church, were 65 for Disestablishment and 40 against, or a proportion of 8 to 5, whereas the Members sent from Wales in 1892 were 31 to 3, or over 10 to 1. He, therefore, thought he had proved that in these respects the claim of Wales for Disestablishment was quite as strong as the claim in Ireland was in 1869. It might be said that Ireland was a nation and had a right to call itself a separate nationality, and Wales had not this right, and that, therefore, although opinion in Wales upon this question preponderated much more largely in favour of Disestablisment than it did Ireland, they could not take that into consideration, because, whereas Ireland was distinctly a nation, Wales could not be regarded as such. The Home Secretary had already proved that, from many points of view, the Welsh had every right to consider themselves a separate nationality. The people of Wales had clung to their language with much greater tenacity than the people of Ireland did to theirs. There had recently been a language census in Wales, from which it appeared that those who spoke the Welsh language only numbered 508,036; those who spoke English and Welsh, 402,253, and those who spoke
    1622
    English only, 759,416. In other words there were in Wales to-day 910,289 of the population speaking Welsh, as against 759,416 speaking English, or 55 per cent speaking Welsh, as against 45 per cent. who spoke English only. If they were to exclude from the population the large towns of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which, as he had already shown, ought to be treated differently from many points of view in reference to this argument, then three-fourths of the people of Wales spoke the old Welsh language. Granting that Wales had the right to be treated as a separate nationality, the only remaining question therefore was: Did the Church find itself to-day in harmony with the national sentiment of the people? The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight argued the other night that Dissent could not represent the national sentiment, because the Church had, from the time of Elizabeth, patronised the Eisteddfod, and because he had been informed that only 18 out of the 31 Welsh Disestablishment Members could speak Welsh. Such arguments, he asserted, were not worthy of the great ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Did the Church of England in Wales to-day find itself in harmony with the national feeling of the, country? Did it represent the nation? Archdeacon Howell, one of the very foremost Welsh clergymen—["Oh!"]—said in 1890 that it was an. unquestionable fact that the majority of the people of Wales were not found within the pale of the Church, and under the recent alternative Disestablishment Scheme promulgated by a number of clergymen in Wales, emphasis was placed upon the fact that the present conflict going on in Wales was disastrous to national unity, and seriously impaired the spiritual life of the country. One of the objects of this scheme was "to restore to their beloved Church her ancient national character." If they had to restore that, how could it be said that the Church at present was in harmony with the national aspirations of the people. The unwillingness which was found in Wales among Welsh Churchmen to incur much pecuniary sacrifice in the defence of the Church, was to be found in the fact that before Members of the Church of England could be induced to come forward in Wales as candidates in defence of that institution, it was necessary to have recourse to

    1623
    what was known, as the Grosvenor House Fund. That fund had been provided at the instance of the Duke of Westminster for this specific purpose. If the English Church were really a national institution, and the people of Wales were so attached to it, why should it be necessary to go outside for English gold. They had, as Nonconformists, reversed this order of things, and had raised among themselves a large fund for the purpose of carrying the war into the enemy's camp. On the one hand there was the reluctance on the part of Churchmen in Wales to subscribe towards the necessary expenses of defending their own Church, and on the other hand there was the willingness of Nonconformists to do this, and further to provide means to convince England of the strength of their case and the justification for the demands they made. Why was Wales so attached to Nonconformity?—and why had it so strong and deep a hold upon the Welsh people? In the first place, Wales had received its most precious possession through the channels of Nonconformity and the spirit of religion, which had raised the country from the depths of ignorance and superstition, and made it what it was to-day. It was Nonconformity which had quickened and fostered national life, which had taught the country the invaluable lessons of self-respect and self-reliance. In education, in temperance reform, and in the right of the people to exercise local self-government in purely local affairs, in all these things it was Welsh Dissent which had inspired and guided the efforts of the people in the past. He believed there was a bright future for Wales, but they could not make any real progress so long as this bitter controversy remained. He appealed with confidence to the wisdom and justice of the House to give this measure its emphatic sanction. He believed it would result in untold benefits, not only to Dissent, but to the cause of the Church also. It would remove that touch of discord which had been so long flung into even nook and cranny of Welsh life; it would heal this bitter controversy; and, what was more important than all these considerations, he believed firmly it would enable all religious bodies in the future to address themselves unitedly, and with
    1624
    new vigour and whole-heartedness to the high task which had been committed to their charges.
    MR. R. U. PENROSE-FITZGERALDsaid, that nearly all the previous speakers had attended to the former Established Church in Ireland, as being more or less in a straight line with the present Church in Wales. Having himself been, since the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, a member of the representative body there, a similar body to that which the Home Secretary proposed to set up in Wales, perhaps the House would allow him for that reason to give a few experiences of the question of the Church in Ireland. Let them see in the first instance how these two Churches had been attacked? He remembered well when the Bills were brought in for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Ireland, and the three strongest reasons given in this House and the country, in favour of the measure were these:—It was said, rightly or wrongly, that the Church in Ireland was an alien Church, a badge of conquest, and (with absolute truth) that it was the Church of the minority, and in many districts of a very small minority. Were any of these three points the case with regard to the Church of Wales? Unless we could disprove all history, the Church in Wales could not be called an alien Church. It existed before there was any conquest or annexation of Wales, and it was only a play upon words to say that it was in any sense alien to the country or people. Was the Church in Wales a badge of Conquest? It was not imposed on a conquered nation by the conquering nation. It was there before any such conquest took place. Whether it was or not the Church of the minority there were no definite means of finding out, for they had been refused the only possible means of finding out, namely, a Religious Census. Let him call the attention of the House to the way in which it had been proposed to deal with these two Churches. As to the Church in Ireland, there was an official inquiry into the number of persons in Communion with the Church in 1834, in 1841, and again in 1851 there was a census. But in neither of these was there any return of religious profession. In 1861 was the next census, and in this

    1625
    people were required to state the religion they professed, and the result, the number of Roman Catholics were 4,505,265; members of the Established Church, 693,000; Presbyterians, 523,000; other dissenting bodies, 76,000; and Jews, 393. In 1867, three years after this census, Earl Russell in the House of Lords moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the Church in Ireland, with a view to making its property more productive, and "in order to its more equitable application to the benefit of Irish people." This, with the omission of the reference to "a more equitable application," etc., was acceded to by the Government, and later in 1867, Commissioners were appointed to inquire on the whole organisation and property of the Church in Ireland, its bishoprics, emoluments, dignities and benefices, and the number of members of the Church of Ireland inhabiting the parishes attached to the Churches. In 1868 the subject of the Irish Church again came up, and much attention was given to it, and resolutions in the first instance, and then a Bill for the suspension of appointments in the Church of Ireland were submitted to and passed by the Commons, but rejected by the Lords. Then later in 1868 the Commissioners made a long elaborate and searching Report. They made suggestions for the internal management of the Church and its property. In 1868 was a General Election, and in 1869 the Government introduced their Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Ireland, which with some slight alterations, ultimately became law, It was perfectly certain that none of the three reasons which were given for the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland would hold good of the Church in Wales. In the case of Wales there had been no religious census; and there had been no inquiry as to property such as there was in Ireland Therefore they were without the information which the House ought to have before it proceeded to deal with this question. In outside controversy there had been persistent and almost malignant misrepresentation about the Church in Wales. All corporate property was easy of attack, and therefore the House ought to be more than ordinarily careful in dealing with it. There was no corporate pro-
    1626
    perty more easy of attack than ecclesiastical property. The question of dealing with the Church in Wales was one of importance, not only to the dioceses in Wales, but also to the Church in England. On the First Reading of the Bill very little information was given to them by the Home Secretary. The Bill, he said, was brought in to satisfy the desire of the Welsh people, with the smallest amount of hardship and the least detriment to the spiritual interests of which the Church would continue to be the guardian. If the Bill were brought in to strengthen the Church in Wales that would be another reason; but he did not think that was the real or true reason. There could be but one strong reason for a measure of this description—and that was that it was just. Had the Church in Wales been unfaithful to her trust? Had she been teaching false doctrine? If she had these might be fair and just reasons for the revolution proposed! but no such reason had been given. There had been arguments based on numbers and on language! but there had been no argument showing that injustice was done by the maintenance of the dioceses in Wales. In Ireland, unfortunately, since Disestablishment, there had been more crimes and worse crimes, and there had been an increase in the worst of crimes, those against dumb animals. If there had been any improvement in the Church herself, it was not to be put down to Disestablishment, but it was rather in spite of it. He did not think there was any greater amity between separated religious communities than there used to be. This could be tested by referring to the claims now made as against Church people by other Reformed Communions and by Roman Catholics in regard to educational endowments. In illustration of the claims of the former, the Bishop of Derry said:—
    "An eminent professor of Church history in a theological college of the Presbyterian Church, examined before the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission, October 8, 1886, laid down, 'as a matter of simple justice,' that 'all moneys which had been paid in past centuries by any non-voluntary contribution or taxation from bodies or estates which had a Roman Catholic or Presbyterian population, were subject to the religion of those on whom payment was levied.' Consequently, whatever money that came to a school or college from other than Episcopalians, should be taken into account subtracted from the

    1627
    Church's holding, and handed over to Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. In regard to the grammar school in question (maintained in great measure for over two centuries by an ad valorem tax upon the livings of the clergy of the diocese), this meant a claim to an amount in excess of the value of the school buildings and all other property connected with it."
    To show how things stood as between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the Bishop of Derry said:—
    "In the case of a 'Royal School,' a witness of singular ability—a professor in the College of Maynooth—argued very much upon the same lines as the Presbyterian professor. He said that even the transference of the buildings of the school neither would satisfy nor ought to satisfy the Roman Catholics, and that £200 a year over and beyond the fabric must be assured to them as compensation—the net income of the place being £190 a year clear."
    These two cases showed that Disestablishment had not brought about the millenium in Ireland which it was said would be brought about in Wales by the passing of this Bill. Before Disestablishment the priest and the parson used to live on good terms; in many parts of Ireland they were ex-officio dispensary officers and relieved the wants of the people socially as well as religiously. Whatever might have been the effect of Disestablishment, in regard to the growth of the Church of Rome, it had not had the effect which it was said this Bill would have in Wales. The Episcopal Church had grown in spite of our Legislation. In carrying the Irish Church Bill we missed a glorious opportunity—that of levelling up, which we had it in our power to do. We ought not to have devoted Church property to secular purposes, but what we took from one religion we ought to have given to another. We had lost that opportunity for Ireland, but we might do something in that direction in Wales. He hoped that before the Bill got into Committee, if ever it did so, the Home Secretary would earnestly whether he could not avoid the mistake committed in Ireland, and, while providing for the life interests of the clergy in Wales, and leaving their successors livings, though it might be impoverished livings, any money that they might take from the Church should be used for religious purposes of some kind.
    MR. T. PHILLIPS PRICEsaid, although he very seldom addressed the House, yet he felt
    1628
    constrained to do so on the present occasion, because this was a question on which his constituents felt more deeply than perhaps on any other. This, too, although they did not belong to any one of the 12 Welsh counties. There was no doubt very great irritation existed in Wales, and it was not likely to diminish in force until the question was settled. It was a genuine people's question. It had not reached its present position by reason of agitation, but as the result of a spontaneous movement on the part of farmers and artisans, and labourers of Wales. How had the demand for Disestablishment been met? He recollected some years ago the late Mr. Raikes, on being put up to reply to the case for Disestablishment met it by denying the nationality of the Welsh people. He said the Welsh were not a nation, because they were numerically small. That was an absurd reason altogether. For the same reason it might be said that Greece, or Denmark, fir Montenegro was not each of them a nation. It was as absurd as the theory of the Third Napoleon, who said that small nationalities had no right to exist. The Welsh had all the marks which differentiated a nation. Above all they had a distinct language, and unlike the Irish and the Gaelic, the Welsh language was gaining ground year by year. There were more people speaking Welsh now than in the reign of George III. It was more popular. He could recollect the time when the better classes did not like, their children to learn Welsh. Now the better classes were only too glad to get their children taught Welsh. England in the past had treated Wales as she had treated Ireland, and not considered the wishes of the people at all. Her conduct was unsympathetic. What suited England was held to be good enough for Wales. The same spirit is still alive. In a parish in my own constituency, with a large and growing population, many of whom are Welsh speaking, the patron has just presented the living to a young man only six months in priest's orders, who does not understand one word of Welsh. Mr. Lecky had said in some of his writings that State Churches, although they might have many merits were not schools of heroism, and certainly the treatment of Wales by England had not been very heroic. Spiritual governors

    1629
    were sent to govern the people, but they governed without the consent of the people. Why was it that the Scotch people preferred Presbyterianism, the Irish Roman Catholicism, and that the English people were more or less Anglican. The reason was that one nation and one race preferred one religion and another a different one. He did not believe it was for the general good that all these active and distinct spiritual forces should he crushed into one dead level of uniformity. He admitted England's power to deal with this question, but he respectfully asked her to listen to the demands of a nation which, though small and comparatively poor, had national feelings and aspirations.
    MR. GERALD LODERcould assure hon. Members from Wales that there were many Members on the Conservative side of the House who had had strong mandates from their constituents to oppose the Bill. How different was the position of the Government from that of the Government which introduced the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church! The latter were strengthened by Resolutions which had been passed in the previous Parliament and by having been to the country on the specific question, whereas the present Government were returned on one predominant question—namely, to carry Home Rule. Though the Government might be able to carry the Second Reading by more than their small nominal majority, still, when the Bill got into Committee, they would be at the mercy of the Welsh Members. He disliked questioning the motives of men but it had been said that the motive for the introduction of this Bill was jealousy rather than justice At all events, then was one curious fact that had not been noticed in the Debate, and that was that the movement for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales has been almost contemporaneous and simultaneous with the growth and revival of the Church in that country. A hundred and fifty years ago there would have been more reason for the introduction of a Bill of this sort than to-day. As the Church had grown stronger and purer, as she had become more able to minister to the wants o the people, the feeling had grown for robbing her of her endowments and
    1630
    depriving her of that pre-eminent position to which, through her antiquity, and the work she had done in the past, she was so eminently entitled. It was sufficient for their purposes to be able to show that the members of the Church of England were larger in number than the members of any other sect in Wales, and undoubtedly that Church had done more for the people of Wales than any of the other sects now existing. If a Church was to be disestablished, they ought to look to the majority of the people who lived under the rule of that Church. When they spoke on Disestablishment in Ireland or Scotland, they looked to the majority of the Irish or Scotch people, and when they spoke of the Disestablishment of the Church of England, why should they not look to the majority of its supporters? Even granting the arguments of hon. Members opposite, he did not believe that this Bill would meet their expectations or fulfil their wishes. What sort of a feeling would be engendered in Wales if they robbed the Church of endowments which had been enjoyed for centuries, and turn away large numbers of curates who were pool enough already? He believed the Bill, if carried, would be not only a great wrong to that Church, but a great loss to the community. Disestablishment would be a national disaster, and Disendowment nothing less than a crime.
    MR. ALBERT SPICERsaid, that for many years he had given a great deal of spare time in the interest of free churches in this country, and therefore he knew something of their temper and spirit in this connection, and in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he could not help expressing the hope that, knowing the intensity of feeling in regard to this subject which entered on both sides of the House, they would avoid imputing motives. He could readily understand those who had been brought up in the Church of England feeling displeasure with those who take a view favourable to Disestablishment. But let him say that they on his side felt equally intense. They appreciated generally the work the Church of England was doing in many parts of the country. They appreciated the men that it produced, but at the same time they

    1631
    had their opinions as to what constituted a Church. Let him remind them that they could produce evidence showing that so far back as 1652 there were movements in Wales with regard to Disestablishment. The oldest Baptist Church in Monmouthshire is Llanwenarth, near Abergavenny, founded in 1652. Its pastor, William Pritchard, was not allowed to receive payment from the State. His Church passed this resolution in 1655—
    "And also that they do withdraw (i.e. the Baptist Church) from all such ministers that do receive maintenance from the magistrates, and from all such as consent not to wholesome doctrine, or teach otherwise."
    In the same way he could produce evidence to show that in the later part of the 18th century there was an agitation going on among many of the Dissenting Churches in connection with this question of Disestablishment. He admitted that the Church had been trying to do, and had done, a great deal, but after all, the progress that Nonconformity had made in the same time was marvellous. Take the great Rhondda Valley; in 1879 the Church of England had seven churches and the Nonconformists 30. In I884 the Church had 16 and the Nonconformists 115. The average attendance in the 16 churches was 3,200, whilst in the Nonconformist chapels the average attendance was 57,000. So that, looking at it whatever way they pleased, he did not think the Nonconformists in Wales had anything to dread by a full disclosure of the figures He had listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, but he failed to realise not only the intensity of the feeling amongst Nonconformists, but even the state of things in Wales. Reference had been made to endowments. Had they not made some progress as regards public opinion with regard to the dead man's hand? When talking of these endowments he could not help remembering that a few years ago he was invited, though a Nonconformist, to become a Churchwarden, and he had to administer funds originally left for the burning of heretics. If he had lived in those times he should have been burnt himself. He thought it was a mistake on the part of the Opposition not to recognise in this question
    1632
    the principle of nationality, for when they came to deal with the English Church they would be justified in claiming the support of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales against the people of England. Then they had the argument as to the census. He believed that a religious census such as had been suggested would be a sham, and that was why he would not accept it. In regard to the Irish Church religious census he would point out that there wasan immense deal of difference between the lines which separated Protestantism from Roman Catholicism and those which divided the different sections of Protestants. In many branches of Christian service Nonconformists were united with members of the Established Church. As an illustration of his meaning, when he said that a religious census on this question would be a sham, he might mention that when he visited the county gaol in Essex a few years ago, the inmates, with a single exception, described themselves as members of the Church of England. He did not suggest that the Church had all the black sheep, but it showed that those who belonged to no particular Church, and who had no religion, described themselves as members of the Established Church directly it came to a question of religious census. Any genuine census, if taken, for instance, on the basis of the number of communicants or of the attendance at church, would be frankly recognised by the supporters of the Bill. Another argument that their opponents made use of was that it would be an extreme injustice to touch Church endowments and to leave Nonconformist endowments intact. Their opponents seemed, however, to forget the fact that endowments to Nonconformist Churches or denominations were subject to special trusts, not only in connection with doctrine, but also with Church government, and that it was impossible for these endowments to be held unless the trusts were, properly executed. The Bill recognised Church endowments since 1703 as modern, and therefore to remain the property of the Church of England. He could have wished that the date had been carried back a little earlier. He would have preferred the year 1662, when 2,000 clergy were ejected from their livings; after which it was impossible to doubt that anyone who left money to religious bodies knew and

    1633
    appreciated the particular body to which he was leaving his money. He maintained that the Church to which the ancient endowments were given was not the same as the Church of England of to-day. He was aware, of course, that different opinions were held in connection with this matter, but he believed that the Church in England prior to the reign of Henry VIII. was not the same Church as the Church of England of to-day. The Church was then subject to the Church of Rome; the Pope was the supreme head. If the endowments of the Church had been held in a similar way to the endowments of Nonconformist Bodies, they could not, in his view, have been held after the Reformation. There was another question. The motives of himself and his friends had been criticised, but he would remind the House that after all the whole Disestablishment question had been pushed into its present position from the deep religious conviction as to what constituted a Church. He held that a Christian Church could only consist of Christian people, who alone have the right of control. It was a fact that the Church of England in the past had shown an utter neglect of the wants of the people; and this was also, to a certain extent, the reason for the present position of the Disestablishment question; and they also had to consider the want of national sympathy on the part of the State Church. He did not think, moreover, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realised the political injustice that was inflicted when a sort of hall-marked teacher of religion was placed in a large majority of the Welsh parishes. They all knew how this rankled in England, and by it Nonconformist Ministers and teachers were made to feel that they were looked upon as false teachers. If this feeling rankled in Englishmen, how much more so in the Welsh people, who, if they had been left altogether to the Church of England in the past, would have lapsed practically into a state of heathenism. It was said that Nonconformists were unable to do the work of the Church in Wales. He admitted that possibly they were unable to do the whole of the work, and that even if they could undertake it while, in the language of the
    1634
    Education Department it might be sufficient, it might not be suitable. Though he, himself, preferred the more simple ministrations of the Free Churches, he recognised that those who had been brought up hi the Church of England preferred their more elaborate and beautiful service. But he thought the opponents of Disestablishment went too far when they argued in reference to the parishes in Wales that were not provided with residential ministers. After all, if they could have amongst all sections of the Christian Church a greater amount of ministration from laymen, if Christian men would make their influence felt, and if they could get rid of the official element, Christianity would be infinitely more powerful than it was to-day. Some of the best Christian work in England and Wales was now being done by those who were not paid for their services, but who simply gave their spare time in trying to advance the highest interests of their fellow men. Then it was said the Bill, if passed, would spoil the splendid service the Church was doing at the present time. If he believed that Disestablishment would spoil the work of the Church, he would not vote for it. But he did not believe that, because he saw that in countries where Disestablishment had taken place, the interests of religion were in many cases better cared for than in countries where there was an Establishment. The right hon. Member for Bristol said that in the country districts in Australia, religion was half starved. But one of the things that he had noticed more than another in the Australian Colonies was the splendid supply of religious services in the country districts. In some places it was really overdone. He recollected one place in South Australia where there were five churches, three houses, a bank, and an hotel. Of course, the five churches supplied the district around; but hon. Gentlemen would go away with a very false impression if they thought that Disestablishment, at any rate so far as Australia was concerned, had led to any want of provision of church accommodation. In his own constituency, the town of Newport had a very small endowment. Yet there were few towns where the work of the Church of England was being

    1635
    better or more effectually done; and, so far as he had been able to gather, the churches that had no endowment whatever were doing work of the greatest advantage to the town itself. Take again the Metropolitan district of the county of Essex, where there had been an enormous growth of population. The best work there was being done in churches that were practically as voluntary as the bulk of the Free Churches. He, therefore, believed most honestly and sincerely that, instead of being a disadvantage, Disestablishment in Wales would give a new motive power to the Church. It would give a new meaning to the work the Church was doing, and that work would become infinitely more powerful and infinitely grander than it had been in the past.
    LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid, the Home Secretary spoke of the provisions to carry out Disestablishment as the essential provisions of the Bill, and said the other questions were subsidiary. That was not his view. He held that the portion of the Bill dealing with Disendowment was equally important. He did not intend to follow the Home Secretary as to the meaning of Establishment in the past. He had no doubt that those who went before us several centuries ago had very excellent reasons for what they did, and little would be gained by discussing the motives which urged them in the course they pursued. With regard to the meaning of the Establishment at present, the chief points brought out in the Home Secretary's speech were that Bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the State held patronage and the right of presentation to livings, and that the arm of the law could enforce the payment of tithes. The question of patronage and the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, were, he considered, open to argument, and he did not hold any very decided opinion upon them. But when he came to the question of the enforcement of the payment of tithes, he asked whether the Bill would deprive the State of any of its powers in that respect. From all he could see in the Bill, everybody subject to the payment of tithe at present would have to pay them just the same after the Bill passed. He himself might some day have to be a large payer of tithe in
    1636
    Wales, and he should be extremely pleased to hear that if he refused to pay tithe he should not be forced to do so by the constituted authorities. With regard to the question of the State dealing with the endowments, the only valid reason advanced by the Home Secretary was the precedent of the Irish Church. If they allowed the right of the State to take away the Endowments of the Church in Wales, when the time came for dealing with the Church in England, the Welsh precedent would be quoted in the same way that the Irish precedent was quoted now. He considered that the endowments both in England and in Wales belonged to the Church, and that there was not right of confiscation in the State. It had been said by the Prime Minister that the State endowed the Church, and that which the State had given the State could take away. He believed that bubble had already been pricked, and that that doctrine could not be supported by any historical argument. Even if it was admitted that the endowments were given to the Church at the Reformation, he held that as they had remained the property of the Church for so long there was not title to take them away from the Church. There was one question to which he should like to call attention—namely, the question of how this Bill was going to be carried through the House of Commons, as he had on doubt it would be. There was no doubt that this Bill was supported by the representatives of Wales; and he considered this to be a very strong reason indeed in favour of it. But he should like also to draw attention to this other question. There was another Church, the Church of Scotland, and as long as the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales was supported by the argument of the enormous preponderance of Wales in favour of Disestablishment, the House could not lose sight of the fact that in the case of Scotland the Prime Minister had given as a reason for the application of a similar policy to the Church of Scotland, that every manse was an agency of the Tory Party. If they carried this argument to its logical conclusion, those who wished to defend the Church were placed in a difficult position. If they combined together, and the ministers of the Church tried to call

    1637
    their adherents together to defend the Church, then they were to be Disestablished because they prostituted the cause of religion by introducing politics; but if, on the other hand, they did not take a part in politics, then they were to be Disestablished because they did not send representatives to Parliament to support the policy of Establishment and Endowment. The representation of Wales was largely due to the fact of the great agitation on the question of the payment of tithes. He believed that several persons had stated that there was a very strong belief in Wales among Nonconformists that they would receive some share of the Endowments of the Church. He now believed that by this Hill no one would get off without paying tithe, and that no religious body would receive the Endowments of the Church. He did not believe that hon. Members who supported Disestablishment and Disendowment would receive such strong support in the future as they had in the past. He maintained that if this Bill were passed into law and the tithes were taken, say, for higher education, the establishment of museums, and art galleries, a good many persons would object to pay tithe even for these objects. There was another Party who, no doubt, would assist in the passage of this Bill through Parliament—the Members from Ireland. He could understand hon. Members from Ireland supporting the Bill. If Disestablishment were carried out in Wales and England, it would have the effect of driving a large number of persons who belonged to the Church of England into the Church of Rome. That was not his own view alone, it was the view of an eminent authority on the subject—the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith)—who, in December, declared that this would be the effect. There was another body of persons, anxious to support this Bill—those who held no religion at all, but were simply Atheists and Agnostics. He asked the keepers of the Nonconformist conscience whether they believed that when they allied themselves with Atheists and Agnostics those men held the view that they were going to benefit religion? What, in short, would be the effect of the Bill? There, could be no doubt that in many towns and in richer districts of the country the voluntary subscriptions would be kept
    1638
    up for the benefit of the Church and the maintenance of ministers; but there were also many villages and districts in which, when the tithe was taken away, the subscriptions would not come in, and when there would be no minister resident in the neighbourhood. The first result of this policy would, therefore, be that, when the tithe was taken away the Members of Parliament would be appealed to in order to provide a chapel or a church for their constituents; and the next person to be applied to would be the landlord. He did not believe that in these days of agriculture distress, when the people of the country by their votes said that they no longer cared to have a minister of religion, the landlords would be very ready to provide ministers when the people said that they no longer wanted them. So far from doing any good to the Church, he believed that this Bill struck a most severe blow at the Establishment; and he looked upon the measure as a robbery for the benefit of no one, and without justification or excuse.
    MR. J. LAWSON WALTONsaid, that the hon. Member had followed the example which had been set him by some of his predecessors in the Debate, by dealing with this question as one which was not confined to the Principality, but as involving equally the Establishment in England. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach), on the First Reading of the Bill, defined some of the principles which he said this Debate would settle, and which would involve certain results to the clergymen of the Church in England. Although they accepted the view of the President of the Board of Trade that the Welsh question was capable of separate treatment, they were not afraid to encounter discussion in the wider field which the right hon. Gentleman had opened up. What were the principles which the right hon. Gentleman had enunciated? According to the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and those who agreed with him, the recognition by the State of some form of religious belief was essential to its political completeness. On the other hand, they held the view that in a democratic community, with full religious equality among the members of it, such a recognition was inconsistent

    1639
    with the principles of democratic Government. If they turned to the United States they saw no Church Establishment, and yet there was ample political completeness on the part of the State. If they looked at the Colonies of the, British Empire there was no indication of either civic or political incompleteness on the part of those communities; and yet there was an absence of that political recognition which the right hon. Gentleman said was essential to the civil completeness of the State. If they took Ireland, the last of the enfranchised communities connected with the British Crown, he did not, know of any evils of Government in that country which had been attributed to the Disestablishment of the Church, yet civil troubles had often been attributed to the Establishment which had been removed. The right hon. Gentleman further averred that the diversion for religious uses of funds which had been so consecrated was a moral wrong. On the contrary, he should say that where the primary object of the Endowment was the advantage of the people as a whole, and where, in its modern application, that main object could not be fulfilled, the diversion of that Endowment was not a moral wrong but a moral duty. The whole point of the case in favour of Disendowment had been neatly avoided by every supporter of the Establishment who had addressed the House from the other side. They had lost sight of the fact that those were not Endowments of the Church as such; they were an appropriation of funds to religious uses. In the days of these appropriations, religious uses and Church uses were identical. But, in our day, what was intended as a national advantage connected with religion had become the advantage of a sect alone. Consequently the moral justification—in fact the moral duty—had arisen for the State to interfere.
    VISCOUNT WOLMER: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the date when the dividing line is drawn?
    MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid, that he would take it any period at which it could be shown that the identity between religious and ecclesiastical uses was destroyed. Once let it be established that in appropriating a fund to a religious use it was appropriated to a sectarian
    1640
    use, and the occasion for drawing the line had arisen. Until a certain period of our history, a religious use meant something administered by the Church; but in the present day it might mean something administered by one of a score of sects. The distinction had grown up co-equally with the recognition of Nonconformist civic equality. By the growth of time, the Church had ceased to be a national body. That was the answer to the argument of the hon. Baronet. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet address the same argument to the House, and in the same language and spirit as had been used in the Debates of 60 years ago. Those who had read the speeches of Lord Derby in 1834 might have thought that "the Rupert of Debate" had come back, when the hon. Baronet told the House that for the State to lay its finger on religious endowments was to violate the moral law. But when the right hon. Baronet travelled into the, sphere of morals, it was hard to challenge his propositions, because it was hard to find any common standard by which the validity of those propositions could be tested. What test did the right hon. Baronet take in order to determine the moral character of this Legislation? Did he take the approval of the Church itself? The Church had disapproved of every attempt to curtail its privileges, to limit its powers, or to enfranchise the people outside its own pale. And in the light of the lessons of history the supporters of the Bill looked on the disapproval of the Church as an augury of success, and as an assurance that their views were right. Did the right hon. Baronet take as a test of morality the conscientious convictions of the majority of the people of this country? If so, the right hon. Baronet's opponents would look to the result of the Division with confidence; and it would probably be found that more than the normal majority of the Government, thus challenged on matters of conscience, would give their support to the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman might appeal to a third test—the verdict of history; and, as he would not be accepted as a true prophet of the opinion of the future, he would take that test on this footing. He would assume that posterity would look upon the present proposals in

    1641
    the same why as that in which the present generation looked upon former struggles for religious equality against Church privilege and supremacy. Tried by none of these standards did he fear the censure which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon the Bill. It was rather strange to hear proceeding from the right hon. Gentleman's mouth the objection that this Bill was piecemeal Disestablishment. Those who objected to Disestablishment at all would presumably prefer it piecemeal to wholesale. It might well be that those who wanted Disestablishment altogether should complain of what was, after all, only a small instalment of the concession of a great right. But there was some advantage in taking, by instalments, a concession which was open to great doubt and controversy. The experiment would prove the benefits arising from the application of the principle; and experiments had hitherto made many Converts to the cause of Disestablishment. The vigour and energy of the Disestablished Church in Ireland; the activity of the non-Established Anglican Church in the United States; and the extraordinary strides of the non-Established Episcopalian Church of Scotland had made many converts to Disestablishment. He would not object to see the principle applied still further by instalments, and having won the cause of Disestablishment for the four Dioceses of Wales, one would next be quite reconciled to tin proposal to apply the same principle to the Dioceses of the Northern Province of England. If the principle be a sound one, and if the principle be capable of graduated application, one failed to see any difficulty in the application he had indicated. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the pretence that Disestablishment would confer an advantage upon the Church was the merest cant. If that were true it was cant of which the right hon. Gentleman's political oppenents were not alone guilty; if it be mere cant, it was cant of which many of the most sincere and devoted adherents of the Church of England were guilty. He respectfully resented the accusation that an argument of that kind was an insincere argument arising from political exigencies, and was not attributable to a conscientious view of a great religious question. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a social grievance: and a social grievance
    1642
    which did not depend upon the, official position of the Church, but upon the fact that she in wealth and culture excelled the Churches of Nonconformity. What was the answer to that contention? Did the right hon. Gentleman admit that the social schism caused by the presence of the Establishment could be bridged by equal culture or by equal wealth? Let him ask some of the cultured ministers of Nonconformity whether they had full and recognised equality with their fellow-clergymen of the Establishment? Did the right hon. Gentleman say that equal wealth would entirely efface this social schism? Let him ask the wealthy members of Nonconformist communities if they were not conscious of the estrangement, although social conditions, measured by wealth, were precisely equal. Let the right hon. Gentleman try another test. In places like Bath. Cheltenham, Leamington, and Brighton—places largely peopled by the retired well-to-do, and largely dominated by clerical influence; where, in all respects of wealth and culture, conditions were equal, would the right hon. Gentleman not find that this social schism existed? He challenged with confidence such an investigation. [Mr. CARSON: "What effect had it in Ireland?"] His hon. and learned Friend had more experience of Ireland than he could have.[Mr. CARSON: "There was not the slightest difference;" and Mr. MACNEILL: "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member (Mr. MacNeill), who represented an Irish constituency, and who had a large knowledge of that country, differed diametrically from the hon. and learned Gentleman. At all events, he (Mr. Lawson Walton) knew enough of the social life of this country to accept for good or ill the test he had indicated. The. right hon. Gentleman said that this was a trivial grievance. ["No"] Well, at all events, a grievance of sentiment. It might be a grievance they could not measure by any financial scale or in any material sense, but if it be a, grievance of sentiment it was none the less a grievance which statesmanship, was bound to recognise and respect. It might be naturally said that such a line if observation involved a degree of blame being cast by the speaker upon, the members of the Church of England. He would be sorry to cast the slightest reproach upon the Members of the Church

    1643
    of England of the generation in which they were living. The Acts of Uniformity had gone, and the Bills of Pains and Penalties had gone, but the social stigma they created in the relations between Church and Dissent still lingered, and although Parliament was not now giving effect to the views of the Church in this matter, the spirit which inspired that legislation was still living, and many of the members of the Church of England had their own mode of giving effectual expression to that spirit. If this social schism existed they were bound to do away with it. On what did it depend? It depended, and must depend mainly upon the connection existing between the Established Church and the State. The whole fabric of ecclesiastical exclusiveness and social supremacy was founded upon the State recognition of the Church. Until that foundation was removed there could never be that equality of social conditions between the various Churches of the country which he submitted was essential to a perfectly harmonious intercourse between every portion of the community of the country. He had one other observation to make before he left this matter. It had been suggested on the Opposite Benches that the only motive for this measure was the cupidity of the Welsh people; it was said to rest upon a wish to plunder the National Church in Wales, and to share the pelf which would follow Disestablishment. That argument was, curiously enough, destroyed by the very speakers who urged it. For instance, one hon. Member said that the individual advantage to the Welsh people consequent upon Disestablishment would be 1s. 8d. per head of the population. Then it was said that if they did not get the advantage in money they would have it in national institutions which appealed to the avaricious instincts of the people. What were the institutions that were to appeal to the greed of the Welsh people? They had been lured on by the prospects of museums, of hospitals, of nursing homes, and it was by such institutions conferring such great and alluring advantages to the advocates of this measure that Disestablishment was to be brought about. Such an argument had only to be stated in order to be covered with ridicule. But there was another motive—the only motive which
    1644
    could support a movement of this sort. The exceptional character of the movement had been pointed out by many speakers, and it was acknowledged by all. He doubted whether such a preponderance of the representation of any section of the country was ever found united in any common cause in an equal degree. A well-known thinker on political questions once formulated the proposition that you could never unite a great mass of a community, consisting of all classes, in favour of any one movement, except from a common sense of justice; and if they destroyed, as they must destroy, the suggested cupidity of the Welsh people to explain their action, they could only fall back upon this common bond of union throughout all classes of the population. They had, therefore, a common sense of justice in this case. What was the position then? Was it defensible in relation to the spiritual basis on which it rested? Had the administration of the spiritualities of the Welsh Church in regard to the Welsh people given her a ground from which she might appeal with confidence to the forbearance and consideration of the Welsh people. He could quite understand that, even if the position of the Church was indefensible on political grounds, they might still have a Church living for centuries depending upon the good-natured forbearance and indulgence of the people, who recognised the great services rendered to them through long periods of history. But that position was abandoned by the advocates of Establishment in Wales. It was stated that for long periods in the history of the Welsh Church her records were indefensible—that her services were neglected, that her ministers were either absentees, or pluralists, or profligates. Her altars were cold, and under that condition of things the Welsh Church lost to a great extent her hold upon the affections of the Welsh people. The bulk of the people grew up outside the pale of the Church, and created for themselves churches for the ministration of those spiritual wants which the Established Welsh Church neglected and ignored. In these circumstances how could hon. Members opposite appeal to the consideration and the forbearance of the Welsh people? It was admitted that the past history of the Church would not

    1645
    bear examination, but hon. Members opposite pointed to the future. [Several hon. MEMBEBS: "To the present."] Well, to the present, as an earnest of future vitality, and he acknowledged that there were now signs in the Church in Wales of a revival of activity such as must, no doubt, give great encouragement to its adherents. Bnt was this the hour for repentance and retrieval? Hon. Members on his side of the House thought that another hour had struck—the hour of retribution. It might be said that the history of the Church to which he had been alluding, was ancient history; but the ecclesiastical doctrine of retribution was that it handed on its legacy to the third and fourth generations. While a promise of future retrieval on the part of the Welsh Church might be given, still that Church must stand or fall on the judgment of its work in the past, and if the Welsh people asked that House to give them the remedy which the Bill accorded for generations of injustice and neglect he did not think the Liberal Party would fail to respond to the appeal.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the Government knew quite well that this Bill would not pass into law—that there were other Members of the Constitution who would take good care that this great and signal injustice was not inflicted upon the Church in Wales. He sincerely hoped that would be the case. But he spoke there as a Member of the House of Commons, and he earnestly and sincerely appealed to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to consider well before they did, on this occasion, what he thought they had done before on some other great occasions, abandon the exercise of their own independent judgment upon the ground that the Bill would be thrown out in the House of Lords. No doubt the Bill would be thrown out by the House of Lords, but they had nothing to do with what might happen in another place. They had to consider the Bill on its merits, but hon. Members opposite were entirely in error if they thought the friends of the Church came there as suppliants to defend her. In the exercise of her spiritual work in Wales the Church deserved well of the country; she was essential to the higher interests of the people of Wales and of England; and they were very far from admitting that
    1646
    she had failed in her duty. At one time no doubt, with other religious communities, and certainly with the Church in England, she was in a condition of less activity. But those times were passed in England as in Wales, and in Wales as in England. They, therefore, defended the Church, not as suppliants, but because they believed that, without the Church, Wales would fail to obtain that spiritual perfection which they hoped was in store for her. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken argued that it could not be said that the religious Endowments of the past could be maintained for the Church in Wales, because when the Endowments were made the Church was the only religious community, and, therefore, as other religious communities had since grown up the money ought no longer be left to the Church in Wales. That appeared to him to be a very amazing argument. If a rich man, who had no direct heir, left by will a largo sum of money to his niece, and if after his death, the niece had a sister born, could it be argued that because the man had only one niece when he was alive, the money he left her ought to be divided between her and the niece who was born after his death? But the argument of the hon. and learned Member had no application to the Bill, because it was not proposed to divert the money of Wales to any religious uses at all. The Home Secretary had advanced the amazing argument that an academy of arts was a form of religion. He believed that argument was advanced at the spur of the moment, and that the right hon. Gentleman would not adhere to it in his calmer moments. Therefore, the whole of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman broke down. It was perfectly certain that the pious founder did not leave his money to establish academies of art in Wales, but that he left it for the more solemn purposes of the service of religion and the service of God; and to divert it to museums, allotments, and academies of art, on the ground that they were religious was a misuse of terms, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself must now be a little ashamed. The Home Secretary had adduced a large number of statistics in support of the proposals of the Bill. He was amazed that the Government could appeal to statistics at all after having resisted the proposal

    1647
    of a religious census. Of course, the real reason for the opposition to the, religious census was that the Government were afraid of the result. The Home Secretary had said that the census would not be a fair test, because a great many people would put themselves down as Churchmen who were not Churchmen. But there was no real reason for believing that the people of Wales were intimidated. Indeed, he had heard that a certain amount of strong influence was exercised by the Nonconformist ministers. He did not complain of that, but he referred to it to show that the influence ascribed to the ministers of the Church of England, could be exercised in an equal degree, to say the least, by Nonconformists Ministers if a census were ordered. The Home Secretary quoted some statistics which he had derived from private sources.
    MR. ASQUITH: No; from the Bishop of St. Asaph.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's statistics were not derived entirely from that source; and what he had quoted from the Bishop of St. Asaph was not always correct. The right hon. Gentleman estimated the numbers of the Church of England in Wales by the communicants of the Church. That was a delicate subject to deal with; but hon. Members who had any knowledge of the actual facts of the Church of England, knew that an enormous number of persons made use of the services of the Church; attended the worship of the Church, and conformed in every way to the Church, and yet, partly from good motives, and partly from bad motives, were not Communicants. Were those people to be shut out from consideration when the question of the retention of the Church in Wales had to be decided? He said no, why should they? The Communicant test was altogether fallacious. He was told that there was not the same amount of solemnity or the same amount of awe attached to the Sacrament in the Nonconformists' Chapels as was in the Church of England, and, therefore, there was in Nonconformity a much less number of people than in the Church of England who thought themselves unworthy and unfit to partake of it. The. Bishop of St. Asaph said that 47 per cent. of the electors voted for Disestablishment candidates and 27 per cent. against,
    1648
    and the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman drew was that there was a majority in favour of Disestablishment.
    MR. ASQUITH: I said that was the Conclusion which he apparently intended his readers to draw.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that was not so, and he thought, in justice to the Bishop of St. Asaph, he ought to point that out. The Bishop of St. Asaph, after saying that 47 per cent. voted for Disestablishment candidates, added that that could not be described as practical unanimity. That was very different from what the right hon. Gentleman said—[Cries of "Read on."] He did not mind reading on. The Bishop continued by saying that on the other hand the number of those who recorded their votes for Establishment candidates, together with those who did not go to the poll, numbered 53 per cent. of the electorate. The fact remained that only 47 per cent. of the registered voters in Wales had recorded their votes for Disestablishment candidates, and that was the only conclusion which could be drawn. It was as plain as a pikestaff. Turning to the question of resident ministers, it was rather a curious thing that when he asked a question about resident Nonconformist ministers last Session, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think it was of very small importance; but now, it seemed, he had changed his opinion. When he asked the question last Session the right hon. Gentleman said he had no means of ascertaining the facts. He had now found some means of ascertaining them.
    MR. ASQUITH: I got my figures again from the Bishop of St. Asaph.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman evidently entirely trusted the Bishop. He thought it would have been far more satisfactory, though personally he had every confidence; in the Bishops figures, if the right hon. Gentleman had found out these facts officially. He had, on the former occasion he had referred to, put the following supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman: "Would it be an exaggeration to say that in half the parishes in Wales there is no resident Nonconformist minister?" the right hon. Gentleman said he believed it would be a great advantage if there were. It turned out that the figures that were quoted, so far from being an

    1649
    exaggeration, were under the mark. There were 1,081 parishes in Wales, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, there were 500 of them in which there were no resident ministers.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, the figures he had quoted were from the Bishop of St. Asaph, who only obtained his returns from 1,016 out of 1,081 parishes. He had assumed the figures to be accurate.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that at any rate there were, as nearly as possible, half of the parishes in Wales which had no resident Nonconformist ministers, and that appeared to him to be of capital importance. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought itinerant ministers were as good. Of course there were very small parishes in Wales within a short distance of each other which were served by one, clergyman. The Bishop of St. Asaph said that at the present time the Church provided for every parish in Wales a resident minister; and that even in the case of small benefices held in plurality the law pro vided that the distance between the churches should not exceed three miles, and that there were in his own diocese only one or two instances of benefices held in plurality. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not in future try to induce the House of Commons to believe that the Church in Wales was in any material degree unprovided with sufficient resident ministers to do the pastoral work. He did not know if the right hon. Gentleman had ever really considered of what enormous importance the resident pastoral work was, but did he suppose that an itinerant minister could be the almsgiver of the parish, the visitor of the sick, and the comforter of the dying? In every one of these 500 parishes throughout Wales, but for the services of the Church which they were attacking and the existence of these resident ministers, the unfortunate people would be entirely without pastoral care. [Cries of "Oh!"] If there were any moderate Liberationists sitting opposite who thought that by Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in Wales after the manner proposed in this Bill they would arrive at some kind of tranquility in this religious question they were very much mistaken. There were many particulars in which the right hon. Gentleman had shown more moderation than many of his
    1650
    extreme followers would have had him show. He did not himself say that the movement for Disestablishment was largely due to the cupidity of the Welsh people, but he thought the motives of a great number of persons interested in it, if not dictated by cupidity, were dictated by envy and a certain jealousy of the position of the parish clergyman of the Establishment. Anybody who listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been convinced that that was the motive which was present to his mind throughout the whole of his speech, and that he felt there was an injustice in the superior position which clergymen occupied in the parishes of Wales. Were they going to destroy the position of the clergyman by this Bill? He doubted it. They would not destroy his position immediately. There were the life interests of the clergymen; there were the edifices they had built and the parish Church in Wales would still be the Church belonging to this one denomination. The Disestablishment of the Church in Wales was quite evidently only the first step towards the Disestablishment of the Church in England. That was not concealed by hon. Gentlemen on the back Benches opposite; it was hardly concealed by right hon. Gentlemen themselves. Now that the right hon. Member for Midlothian was no longer leading the Party opposite, it was clear they looked to nothing but the ultimate Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England. By this Bill, therefore, they were not approaching the end of this question, but were opening up long years of struggle upon religious and ecclesiastical issues which would end in the complete maintenance of the Church and the defeat of those who were opposed to it. But such a struggle must occupy the time of Parliament and the mind of the country to the exclusion of almost everything else. He desired to say one word about the reasons which had been put forward by the supporters of this Bill in favour of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman said a great deal more about Disestablishment than he did about Disendowment He was not surprised at that. He believed that Establishment was an advantageous system both to the State and people, but Disendowment involved

    1651
    far more even than Disestablishment, and it would be a crying injustice if the property of the Church which those who preferred her services held inviolably to be her property was to be taken from her. The Church in Wales was attacked for two separate and inconsistent reasons, one that it was national and the other that it was not national. He would deal with the latter reason first. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was an alien Church. He could not make out how hon. Gentlemen opposite put up with Christianity at all. Why, it was not even European. Was it not obvious even to the mind of the most extreme Liberationist that all Churches were in that sense alien? The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, seemed to think that the Church ought to be national, and there was quite a poetical passage in his speech the other night in which he spoke of the Welsh people, their separate language and customs. He thought the right hon. Gentleman said the Welsh had mountains, and this fact seemed in the right hon. Gentleman's mind to constitute a special privilege to their having a National Church. But were the Welsh the only people who had a special language and mountains? Take the Highlands of Scotland. Did the Highlands of Scotland put forward any claim to have a special National Church separate from the National Church of the rest of Scotland? And yet the Highlanders had certainly a separate language, special customs, and most delightful mountains. He confessed he thought this claim to have a National Church because of the mountains was rather an exaggeration. Again, the inhabitants of Wales did not all speak the Welsh language but English. Not only was this so but a large number of the inhabitants were Anglo-Saxon by descent. One hon. Member had, that evening, made a most extraordinary use of statistics. He said that the Welsh speaking people were in a large majority, and the way the hon. Member made this out was this: He took the people speaking Welsh only, and those who spoke both English and Welsh, and adding the two together he said there were more people in Wales who spoke Welsh than there were who spoke English. As a matter of fact, there was a very large number of monoglot English
    1652
    in Wales, and in their case the whole argument of the President of the Board of Trade broke down because they would have no title on the grounds of separate customs or separate language to a National Church. Then there was the other argument used by the supporters of this Bill, who said that the Church in Wales ought to be Disestablished because it was national. They said that what was national belonged to the nation, that therefore the nation had a right to do what it liked with it, and that, a Liberal Government being in power, the Church ought to be Disestablished. That, he thought, was a most extraordinary misuse of terms. It was perfectly true that the Church was national, but that did not constitute a reason for its Disestablishment and Disendowment. What was precisely the position of a National Church? It served a great national purpose. It was a corporation or number of corporations, with special laws and some—very few—privileges. It was in a special way under the control of Parliament, and the whole public had rights in it. It all these senses it stood in a special position, and people seemed to think that for this very reason it ought to be Disestablished and Disendowed. Was it the only great corporation in England standing in that position? To compare small things with great, let them take a railway company. That served a great national purpose; it had special laws, special privileges: it was under the control of Parliament, and Parliament often interfered with its methods, and altered the law by which it was governed, and the whole public had a right to use the line. Was this a reasonable ground for confiscating the property of the shareholders? A railway company might be said to be private property. But on what principles was private property more sacred than Church property? In a great crisis of a man's life—when he was dying—which was most sacred to him, his private property or the consolations of his religion? What did the Home Secretary mean by saying that public rights in connection with the Church in Wales were to be maintained? Was the right of every subject of the, Queen to enter the parish church and of parishioners to appeal to a certain ecclesiastical court with regard to misfeasance in matters of ritual to be main-

    1653
    tained? Would all the parishioners have the right to elect church wardens after the passing of the Act as before? Clause 15 said the representative body might be elected by the Bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church. What were the laity of the Church in Wales?
    MR. ASQUITH: The Clause follows exactly the precedent of the Irish Church Art.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Irish Church Act was preceded by a religious census, a preliminary which seemed to have been omitted in the present case. It would be extremely difficult for the Home Secretary to arrive at what the laity of the Church were. In the Debate on the religious census the objection made to the census in England was that every member, even of the Nonconformist bodies, would put himself down as a member of the Church of England, because every subject of the Queen was a member of the Church of England. That was the view expressed by Mr. Picton, then a prominent representative of Nonconformity in this House. Who were to be the laity who would have the control of the representative. Body? The, Bill provided a way out of the difficulty. "Her Majesty" in this case would mean the Home Secretary. He would be the Minister who would advise the granting of the charter under which this representative body would be constituted. What he proposed was, first, to Disestablish the Church and then himself do decide who should constitute the laity. This was of the points on which something would have to be said if ever they got into Committee. A good deal was said about the trammels, chains and fetters which were supposed to hang around the Church. Was it true that there were chains and fetters? It was said "Oh, you cannot change your doctrine or your ritual without the leave of Parliament." But did they want to change doctrine or ritual? The doctrines of the Church were constant and did not change; and, as far as they could, they desired that the ritual should be constant too. Moreover, if the right hon. Gentleman would study "The Case for Disestablishment," published by the, Liberation Society, he would find that in the course of the last century many fetters and chains had been struck off. Personally he admitted that he was astonished to find how many useful
    1654
    measures had been passed by Parliament during half a century on ecclesiastical subjects and to promote the better government of the Church. He was sorry for the author of the "Case," because, after eloquently denouncing one evil after another, he had to append footnotes stating that what had been wrong had been set right. Between 1832 and 1882 there were as many as 229 Acts of Parliament relating to Church affairs. That was at the rate of four a year. They included such subjects and measures as pluralities, on which there were several Acts of a useful kind; the creation of new bishoprics; the resignation of Bishops when they were past work; cathedrals, as to which many evils had been remedied; Sir R. Peel's Act to provide for the spiritual provision of large parishes; and the Clergy Discipline Act of the last Parliament, which was loyally supported by the right hon. Member for Midlothian. Other measures might, yet be required; and there was one as to which in the present Session he hoped he should not appeal in vain to the public spirit and real religious feeling of the House. He would not enter into all the measures that were necessary to be, passed, but there were many for the better government of the Church which would be with little trouble assented to by the justice of this Parliament, even by those who did not agree with Churchmen in religious matters. The fact was, a great revival had taken place, in the Church, not in Wales alone, but just as much in England. This revival was started about half a century ago in the great Oxford movement, which gradually extended itself to all parts of the country. That great revival had called into being a most fervent and earnest Church sentiment, and in face of that he did not think the Home Secretary and his colleagues had any conception of the work they had undertaken. They had passed from purely political matters, and had come down to this question upon which the people really cared deeply. The sentiment was not confined to any class or Party; it had got such a hold in every parish throughout the country that the, right hon. Gentleman would find his task exceedingly hard. There was not a parish, there was not a cottage where the clergyman visited, there was not a family which had had occasion to value the ministry

    1655
    of the church, that would not resent the attack that was being made upon it. God forbid that the Church should ever become a political engine, or belong to a political Party; but if it were, attacked it would, of course, defend itself; and the result could be but one—it could end in nothing but defeat of the attack and the ejection from power of the Government that leant upon it.
    MR. HERBERT PAULsaid, he was sure the Church of England, in Wales and out of it, had every reason to be grateful for the championship of the noble Lord. He knew very well the intensity of the feelings of those whom, in this matter, the noble Lord represented, and in everything he said he should endeavour to show for those sentiments the respect he sincerely felt. He was glad the noble Lord did not follow the example of another noble Lord who had addressed the House In the Debate, and anticipate his removal to another place, which they all trusted might be long delayed, by telling them authoritatively what, would happen to the Bill when it got there. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester addressed himself to the House of Commons, and he should address himself to that audience, and no other. The noble Lord would excuse him for saying that he appeared to be a little in doubt as to the identity of the Church of England, for at one time he compared it to a railway company, and at another time confused it with Christianity. He reminded him of the Rev. Mr. Thwackem, who said:—
    "When I say religion, I mean the Christian religion, and when I say the Christian religion. I mean the Protestant religion, and when I say the Protestant religion, I mean the religion of the Church of England."
    Might he turn to a speech which—and he hoped the noble Lord would not think him discourteous for saying so—was more important, the speech of the right hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill. The right hon. Baronet, referring to the statement of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that he believed the result of this Bill would be beneficial to the Church herself, described it as political cant of the most nauseous kind. He thought it was as well that the right hon. Baronet should know that there were men who were as much members of the Church of England as he was, who seriously believed that
    1656
    the result of severing the connection between Church and State would be found more beneficial to the Church than to the State. He was rather interested in the description the right hon. Baronet gave of the sentiments of his right hon. Friend, because he remembered that those sentiments were uttered by another right hon. Gentleman with whom the right hon. Baronet was in closer political agreement than he was with the Home Secretary. It was not very long since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham wrote a letter in which he expressed the opinion that the result of Disestablishment in Wales would be to make the Church stronger, healthier, and more vigorous. The right hon. Baronet had aimed at one object and hit another. The right hon. Gentleman would doubtless remember the old Greek story of the man who threw a stone at a dog and killed his mother-in-law, and remarked that it was a fortunate act. The right hon. Baronet asked, what was Disestablishment? He did not reply that the State Church was the creature of adulterous, nay, of incestuous birth, though that was the language of one of the greatest men who ever sat in that House—Mr. Bright; but he thought it was important that they should remember that what they were discussing was not the Church, but the partnership of the State and the Church, and in that partnership there must be a predominant partner. The right hon. Baronet thought that it was possible at this time of day to make the State subordinate to the Church. The only alternative was that the Church should be made subordinate to the State. With regard to the Church in Wales, the right hon. Baronet had enunciated three propositions, first, that Wales was not a nation; second, that that region had a national Church; and third, that that National Church, belonging to a place that was not a nation, were part and parcel of the Church of England. He was not a metaphysician or a theologian, and he was unable to reconcile those three propositions. He held quite contrary views which were, at any rate, consistent. He held that Wales was a nation, that the Church of England in Wales was not a National Church, and that although it was now ecclesiastically part of the Church of England, and would remain

    1657
    in spiritual communion with the Church of England after the passing of this Bill, it was expedient that the legal part of its connection with the Church of England should cease. The admission made by the right hon. Baronet that certain advantages had resulted from the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland was remarkable, coming from such a quarter, for there was no stauncher opponent of the proposal to Disestablish the Irish Church than the right hon. Gentleman himself. If he mistook not, after the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church had become law, and when the Conservative Party returned to power, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be desirable to restore the Church of England in Ireland.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid that the hon. Member was in error.
    MR. HERBERT PAUL, of course, accepted the right hon. Gentleman's correction. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman admitted now that advantages had accrued to Ireland from the severence of the connection between Church and State in that country. The right hon. Baronet, had referred to the political motives which he alleged actuated the supporters of this Bill. But what would be the result of passing the Bill into law? Would it be to strengthen the Liberal Party in Wales? For his part, he did not believe that the enormous majority of ten to one that supported Disestablishment in Wales presented the normal strength of the Liberal Party in Wales, and he was of opinion that from a purely Party point of view the passing of this Bill would be a disadvantage and not a benefit to the Government that had brought the measure forward. The right hon. Baronet's speech showed that he had formed a curious misconception as to the real reason of the unpopularity of tithes. He assumed that the grievance was that the tithes were not paid for the maintenance of Nonconformist churches. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: "Excuse me, I was quoting the Home Secretary."] At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman put an interpretation on the words of the Home Secretary which he understood that his right hon. Friend repudiated. [Mr. ASQUITH: "Hear, hear."] He understood that the feelings of Nonconformists were, as a matter of fact, entirely repugnant to the acceptance of public money for the pur-
    1658
    poses of their own religion. The grievance was not that tithes were not paid to Nonconformists, but that Nonconformists had to pay tithes for a Church to which they did not belong. The right hon. Baronet had quoted from an old will a very curious curse, which the testator thought, and ho was afraid hoped, would rest upon anybody who should divert, what this testator called "The property of God." It was very much to be regretted that language of that kind should be referred to, not by the right hon. Gentleman who quoted it, but by inferior disputants in this controversy. Such language, he ventured to describe, as language of blasphemous imbecility. This talk about the property of the Deity, and about robbing the Deity was language for which he could not find sufficiently strong epithets. Whilst the right hon. Baronet was quoting those words there sat beside him the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who was instrumental in the passing of a Bill to which such words as "robbery from God" ought to apply, if language of that kind could ever be really applied to any act of theirs. The Duke of Devonshire had also a part in passing that measure. Did he deserve to have such language applied to him? Then the Marquis of Salisbury voted, he believed, for the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. Did the right hon. Baronet think that this language ought to be used with reference to Lord Salisbury? He, supported the Bill now before the House on the broad principle of religious equality, the principle that the State ought to be absolutely impartial and neutral between all religious bodies in the land. They were taunted with not consenting to a religious census in Wales, and he would give the House three reasons why he thought such a census would not be useful or desirable. The first was that it would be irrelevant, because what they wanted to ascertain was how many people desired the Church to be Disestablished. There were, he believed, many Churchmen in Wales in favour of Disestablishment, and he dared say some Nonconformists opposed to it. The second reason was that it would be misleading, for as long as there was an Endowed Church with special rights and privileges people who were indifferent to all religions and who

    1659
    had no particular religious opinions of their own, would readily subscribe themselves members of the Church of England. His third reason, was that it was inquisitorial. It was a question which the State had no right to ask, and which every good citizen had the right to refuse to answer. It had boon said that you had as much right to maintain an Established Church as a standing Army. That was a proposition from which he respectfully dissented. A standing Army was kept up for the benefit of all classes; an Established Church was kept up for the benefit of members of a particular denomination. As a clinching argument, it was said that the Church in Wales was part of the Church of England. Precisely the same argument was used when the right, hon. Member for Midlothian proposed to Disestablish the Irish Church. On that occasion the Duke of Rutland, then Lord John Manners, said there was no such thing as the Church of Ireland, and that great Constitutional authority was right. For what were the words of the 5th Article of the Act of Union?
    "The Churches of England and Ireland as now by law established shall be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland."
    Therefore, the Disestablishment of the Irish Church was a precedent for the Disestablishment of what was by Law and the Constitution part and parcel of the Church of England. In reading Lord Selborne's book on "The Defence of the Church of England," the conclusion at winch he arrived was, that in the judgment of that great authority, there was no national Church at all, that there were a number of small corporations dotted up and down the country, "corporations sole" they were called by lawyers, "parsons" they were termed by laymen, who held property that was as much their own as the hat he were was his. And he observed this peculiarity in these controversies—that when one proposed to Disestablish the Church, it it was always a national institution, but when one proposed to Disendow the Church it was always a private corporation. Tithes, it was said by the late Mr. W. H. Smith, were national property.
    MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONsaid, that as the hon. Member appealed to him, he must say that Mr. W. H. Smith afterwards explained that
    1660
    he did not use the expression in the sense attributed to him.
    MR. PAULsaid, he quoted Mr. Smith as authority for a plain proposition. Tithes, no doubt, were intended for the religious purposes of the whole nation: but, unfortunately, there were no longer any religious purposes which were common to the whole nation. The noble Lord, the Member for Rochester, was extremely sarcastic about the idea of art galleries having anything to do with religion. He was not going to inflict on the House a lecture on the works of Mr. Ruskin, but he, would like to ask whether lunatic asylums were more a part of religion than art galleries, because Lord Salisbury undoubtedly voted for the Bill which took away the property of the Irish Church and applied it, among other purposes, to the maintenance of lunatic asylums. They had been told in the Debate, and in stronger language outside, that in favour of the Bill were rallied the forces of Atheism and Infidelity. That was an easy thing to say, but history did not show that Freethinkers, or even Atheists, were hostile to ecclesiastical establishments. Very much the reverse. Gibbon was a great defender of the Established Church of England, and he showed his reverence for it by calling it his dear mamma. It was a very favourite opinion among men hostile to religion that religious establishments kept religion in its proper place—in the words of a former Archbishop of Canterbury they kept down the enthusiasm. There were two I principles, one of which, conseiously or not, every man must hold on this subject. The one was the voluntary principle, of which they on that side of the House were for the most part the exponents; the other was the Erastian principle, of which he made a present to the High Churchmen on the other side. Either religion was wholly and absolutely independent of the State and of mundane authorities, or it was subject to and controlled by these authorities. In the words of a very great philosopher, who gave a very terse definition and a very striking contrast:
    "Superstitution is tales and fables disallowed by the authorities religion allowed."
    They were told that Bills of this kind—attacks on the property of the Church, were a scandal to religion. Were there no scandals under the present arrange-

    1661
    ments? Was the sale of the right to present to the cure of souls not a scandal? When he heard objections to the small amount of compensation allowed under the Bill, he remembered that the measure introduced last Session by the hon. Member for North Islington took away the right of selling the next presentation, which was usually the only part a private individual could sell at all, without a penny of compensation. Was there no scandal to the Church in the judgments of Lord Westbury? Was there no scandal to the Church in the bringing before a secular tribunal questions of the most sacred kind? They had seen in recent years even the very elements of the Sacrament submitted to a Court of Law and handled by counsel and witnesses. Was there no scandal in the Dean and Chapter meeting after a solemn religious service and going through the form and the farce of electing a Bishop—a father in God—who was the nominee of the Minister of the day—a man who might be of any or no religion, provided only he was not a Roman Catholic? He was very much struck with an expression in the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans, who said, "We now have a Disestablishment by the grace of Lord Rosebery." Was that the principle which was set up in opposition to this attempt to free religion for the control of the State. Lord Salisbury said the other day that if the Bill passed the consequence would be that many districts in Wales would be left without pastoral supervision and spiritual assistance. As a member of the Church he repudiated that as a scandal. He did not believe that the richest religious body in the world would fall so far short of its duty as that. Where is the Church strongest now? In the towns, where to all intents and purposes, it is a voluntary body dependent on the contributions of its members. The Duke of Westminster was busily engaged in getting up a fund to fight the next Election in Wales. If, instead of sending round the hat, the Duke of Westminster would put his hand into his pocket he could relieve the necessities of all the poor clergy in Wales without feeling it. Welsh Churchmen were deterred now from doing their duty by the fact that the interests of the Church are provided for at the public expense. So far from
    1662
    the passing of the Bill resulting in a triumph for Nonconformity, it would, in his opinion, result in the death of Nonconformity, for the vicious would then be the only enemies of the Church, and the result would be a triumph for the Church itself. Churches were not strongest where they were endowed. Was the Roman Catholic Church stronger in France, where she was endowed, or in Ireland, where she was not? In conclusion he ventured to state to the House these two propositions as confirmed by the judgment of history and supported by reason—first, that religion never leant with immunity upon the secular arm; and that a State Church had never without injury attempted to curtail the religious liberties or to violate the religious equality of any nation in the world.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that the Home Secretary in his I speech dwelt on the points which were strongly in his favour and passed over very lightly the more sordid and grosser parts of his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman was angry because of the use of the word "cant." According to Webster's Dictionary that word meant "empty, solemn speech implying what is not felt." That definition did apply I very much to what the Home Secretary stated. The point of the word "cant," as applied to him, was that, while despoiling the Church in Wales of her property, he spoke as if he was benefiting her. That was properly termed "cant." He would illustrate it by the reverse mode of argument. Suppose that the Conservative party were preposing some plan whereby a great Nonconformist community was to be deprived of its endowments, and in support of the proposal were to put forward the argument that that community would be benefited, by being relieved of the burden of its property, the Home Secretary and his Friends would describe that as Tory cant. Why, then, should the word not also apply in the present case? He went with the Home Secretary in his historical argument right down to the 19th century, when it was true that the Church played her cards badly; but in the middle of the 19th century he was obliged to part company with the right hon. Gentleman. There could be no doubt if left to herself the Church in a generation or two would win over the vast majority of the Welsh

    1663
    people to her fold. How came it, then, that this was the time chosen for her Disestablishment? How came it that at the time she was gaining ground in every direction she was to be deprived of her advantages? And she was to be disestablished not for any faults committed now or in this generation, but for something that went wrong during the last century, and for this she was to be deprived of her ancient property at a time when she was regaining her old position. What was the nature of the measures to be undertaken? She was not only to be disestablished, she was to be robbed of all her property. There was one point with which the Home Secretary had not attempted to grapple. The Church was a Corporation. A Corporation could own property. The tithe and the endowments were the property of the Church. To take the property from her by force of law was to commit a legislative wrong. There was no greater instance of public plunder by Act of Parliament. Then, further, it this was the property of the Church it was the property of a sacred body. To rob sacred property was sacrilege. Thus, they got by steps which could not be refuted to this conclusion, that the present measure was nothing short of public plunder and sacrilege. The Home Secretary made merry over the statistical arguments of the Bishop of St. Asaph's. The Bishop was quite as intellectual a man as the Home Secretary, and it might be that his contentions was not so weak as the Home Secretary seemed to suppose. Those who voted for Disestablishment were only 47 per cent, of the whole, and it might be assumed that they were the most aggressive, whereas of the 53 per cent. there would be many quiet people who would not take the trouble to vote, but who if roused would vote against Disestablishment. He thought that was a fair assumption, and he, firmly believed it to be the case. Knowing this to be the case they could understand why there was an unwillingness on the part of the promoters of the Bill to go to the plain statistical test of a religious census.
    It being Twelve o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    Bill read 2o.

    RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
    On the Order for the Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on this subject,
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESobjected.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,)said it had been brought to his knowledge that the hon. Member had two Amendments down, and he thought it might be worth while asking the hon. Member to withdraw one, and to accept a proposition in regard to the other.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had already exhausted his right of speech on this Motion.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, he would move the Adjournment to give the right hon. Gentleman the right to speak.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that one of the hon Member's Amendments referred to the screening of sidelights, as to which a Departmental Committee was sitting; and the other brought in the sound signals prescribed by Article 15 and Article 28 of the Revised Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. Would the hon. Member accept an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, providing for the inclusion in the reference of any objection which might be taken to Rule 15 in respect of fog signals as prescribed by Article 28? That would achieve the hon. Member's object, and he hoped the hon. Member would accept the proposal, withdrawing his amendment in respect of sidelights.
    MR. T. G. BOWLESsaid that he recognised the conciliatory spirit of the right, hon. Gentleman, and was very much inclined to agree to his proposal, because he did not want this question to be hung up. But the proposal did not entirely meet his views, and he must ask the, right hon. Gentleman to put it down again for Monday, in order that he might consider whether he could accept it.
    Order deferred till Monday next.
    House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

THE EDUCATION CODE.
LORD NORTONgave notice that on Thursday next, the 28th of March, he would call attention to the new edition of the Educational Code, which would become law at the end of that week.

THE EXPEDITION TO CHITRAL.
VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, that seeing the Under Secretary of State for India in his place, he wished to ask him whether he could give the House any further information about the movements in Chitral.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord REAY): Chitral is a State under British protection, being tributary to Kashmir, and is the residence of a British agent. In consequence of recent troubles in Chitral, and in response to a request for recognition from the de facto ruler, Dr. Robertson, the political officer at Gilgit, was sent in January to Chitral to inquire and report. Since then Umra Khan, the ruler of some neighbouring Pathan States, has invaded Chitral with a large force, and is believed to be now investing Dr. Robertson and his escort in the Chitral fort. Considering the urgent necessity for relieving Dr. Robertson without delay, the Government of India have summoned Umra Khan to evacuate Chitral by the 1st of April, and in view of the possibility of his refusual are preparing a force to march from Peshawur on that date. The Government of India state that they consider no other method of relief to be possible; they have duly notified to the Secretary of State the measures which they propose to take, and they have been informed by him that the steps which they deem necessary for the relief of Dr. Robertson and his party have his full approval.

STRANORLAR AND GLENTIES RAILWAY.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that with regard to the question that stood on the paper in his name, he wished to ask the
1522
Government when the railway between Stranorlar and Glenties, County Donegal, would be finished and opened for traffic. The railway was 25 miles long, and it had already occupied four years in construction. An extension of time had been granted on three occasions. The contractors stated that the line was completed in every part, and therefore he wished to ask why it had not been opened for traffic. One of the reasons why the line had been delayed was, that the contractors were nearly the only owners of the Lough Swilly line, and it was to their interest not to open, or not to proceed as quickly as possible with a line which would divert traffic from the Lough Swilly line. He had also heard it stated that the contractors proposed bringing an action against the, Board of Works for £20,000 for extra work that had been done which was not in the, contract. The whole of the satisfactory postal arrangements for the north-west of Donegal were in abeyance in consequence of the line not being opened. He asked the question last Session, but the Prime Minister, who answered the question, said—
"it was hoped the railway would be completed by the end of August or beginning of September."
He hoped the Government would use every possible means in their power to get this line opened, as it would be of the greatest benefit to that part of Ireland.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, the railway between Stranorlar and Glenties, County Donegal, appears to be now finished. The usual notice for the inspection of the line has been, received by the Board of Trade. The inspection will take place next week, and the inspecting officer will then report whether the line can be forthwith opened for passenger traffic. Even assuming that it would be necessary, as the result of the inspection, to postpone the opening for passenger traffic, goods traffic might be conveyed, if the junction at Stranorlar is passed by the inspecting officer. I have no information about the Lough Swilly Railway, or about the action for £20,000 which has been brought.
THE EARL OF MAYO: It was a report.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As to the delay I quite admit it, but there has been extenuating circumstances. The history of the railway is one of extensions, which have all been duly authorised in the proper way on account of circumstances which seemed to warrant the extensions. It is quite true that the line is a short one, and has taken the best part of four years to complete. State assistance was required and a free grant of £116,000 was assigned to the undertaking, which was then assigned to the Finn Valley Railway, who were to get the line completed before November 1892; then we came to an amalgamation between the Finn Valley and West Donegal Railways. Then there were more delays due to bad weather and to the very high prices for labour, and then the period was further extended to January 1894. The delays have also been due largely to inclement winters, wet summers, and workmen's strikes, and to the provisions of the Board of Trade which obliged this line to be begun at the wrong end, at Glenties, which meant that all the plant had to be carried over 24 miles of mountain road. Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to see the railway opened, and quite recognised its advantages.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Are the West Donegal Company ready to take the line over?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I do not know.

SUNDAY BILL.
LORD HOBHOUSE, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was an attempt to obtain relief for a class of Her Majesty's subjects who believed they were doing a good work in a quiet way, and were harassed by the law in doing it. They were those who attempted to provide for themselves and their neighbours some sober, reasonable recreation or refreshment on Sundays apart from the religious observance of the day. Their principal opponents, he thought, were the members of the Lord's Day Observance Society, who held that there were Divine precepts which forbade them to do on the Sunday that which it was not only lawful, but useful and advantageous, to do on other days of the week. Those who were in favour of the Bill held that, on the
1524
whole, it was wiser—apart from the positive law necessary for the government of the whole community—that grown men and women should be left to form their own judgments as to the best modes of spending the day. He did not propose even to touch upon the truth or error of the two doctrines. He himself belonged to the second and freer of the two schools of thought, but in his opponents he recognised a powerful faith which had laid hold of powerful minds who had influenced the whole community in this part of the world; he believed mainly for good. Nor did he blame his opponents for having put in motion a law which he thought to be harsh, but which they thought to be right and just. He gave them every credit for good motives, as he expected them to do to their opponents. The leading statutes relating to the employment of Sunday dated back to the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II., and prohibited certain games and trades upon the Sunday. The leading statute with respect to public amusements was passed in the reign of George II. and required licences to be obtained from the proper authority for the performance of public dancing or music, or public entertainment of that kind. These statutes, he believed, would be left totally untouched by this Bill. He said that because there was alarm in some quarters lest there should be an entire absence of legal restriction as to the use of the Sunday if the Bill passed into law. The Act to which the Bill applied was the Act of George III., which was passed in 1781. There was a memorandum attached to this Bill which gave a bird's-eye view of the Act, of the law, and of its recent development, and they would see that three conditions must concur to attract the penalties of that Act—the existence of entertainment or amusement or debate, publicity, and payment. The place where those three conditions concurred became a disorderly house, and all the penalties, whether by statute or common, law, attaching to disorderly houses could be enforced, and also certain pecuniary forfeits for which any common informer might sue. That enactment went far beyond what its promoters intended, and far beyond what had been considered to be its effect for many years. The author of the Bill

1525
was the well-known Bishop Porteus; and in the Memorandum attached to the Bill would be found an extract from some notes left by that prelate among his papers. It would rather seem as if he had been taken to task for putting a harsh Act on the Statute Book; and in justifying himself he gives his view of the effect of the Act. He says—
"It restrains no one from speaking, conversing, or writing on religions subjects."
That depended upon where the speaking was.
"It imposes no other restraint than this (which is surely not a great hardship), that no one shall either pay or be paid for talking blasphemy or profaneness in a public room on the Lord's Day. It takes away, in short, no other liberty than the liberty of burlesquing Scripture and making religion a public amusement and a public trade which I was inclined to think their Lordships would not consider essential marks of religious freedom."
If the Act had done nothing but this the House would not have been troubled with the Bill. But unfortunately the Act did a great deal more. They had only to compare the Preamble of the Act with the enacting part to see that. The Preamble was much to the effect of Bishop Porteus's note. The thing complained of was the pretended discussion by ignorant and incompetent persons for the purpose of bringing Scripture and religion into contempt, and promoting irreligion and profaneness. This was the Preamble. But the enacting part prohibited the debate of any subject whatever—nothing about religion, nothing about incompetent persons or the promotion of irreligion and profaneness, and so on; but public debate on any subject whatever—given the other condition of payment—was struck at, by the Act. This was a very severe law, and he trembled to think how often he must have been nearly within, if not quite within, the clutches of the Act. Twenty-five years ago he combined with a number of other persons—ladies and gentlemen—much more eminent than himself, to form the Sunday Lecture Society in London, believing as they did that they were meeting a social want, for a different occupation from what was then available on a Sunday afternoon; and since that time he had taken the chair at some other places, and had himself delivered
1526
lectures before his own society. Now, according to the law recently expounded, he could not help thinking that if he had not brought himself within the provisions of the Act it was only due to the most melancholy of all causes—that nobody could be found bold enough to enter the witness box and aver that his lecture was either entertaining or amusing. If he were only dull enough he escaped the provisions of the Act, but if, in a moment's forgetfulness, he had been entertaining or amusing, he would have been part of a disorderly meeting in a disorderly house. Supposing a person with a little more wit; and that ho bubbled over into a vein of fun, and made his audience laugh, the mischief was done. Then if questions and a discussion followed, and the lecture were entertaining, the same result would ensue. The painstaking lecturer and his earnest audience—grave, silent, and attentive though they might be—and the students who desired instruction, constituted a disorderly assembly, and incurred penalties for which any common informer might sue. He had heard it said this might be the literal construction of the Act, but it was impossible it could be applied in that way. But it had been so applied, and but for that fact their Lordships would not have been troubled with this Bill. Certain lectures were delivered at Leeds under the auspices of the Leeds Sunday Lecture Society, which was formed on the model of the London Sunday Lecture Society, by Mr. Villiers on "Chicago," and by Mr. Max O'Rell on "John Bull, Sandy, and Pat.'' The lecturers said something comic, and made their audience laugh, whereupon the Lord's Day Observance Society pounced upon them and contended that the lecture hall was a place of entertainment and amusement, and of course there were the other conditions, publicity and payment, and so it was a disorderly house. There was nothing improper in the lectures, no ribaldry. The lectures merely appealed successfully to the risible faculties of the audience; as eminent preachers, in the pulpit had done. The penalties were sued for, and the jury who tried the case found that the place was a place of public entertainment and amusement because the audience were entertained and amused. It was true that the actions failed because the wrong men

1527
were sued, but that was only a bit of bad luck for the assailants; another time, no doubt, they would sue the right men, and strike at these very innocent and useful societies a blow from which they would hardly recover. Now he contended it was not right that the law should be in this state. The tribunals had uttered opinions on this matter. He did not wish to give judicial utterances more weight than they were entitled to. A learned and able lawyer was not always a great authority on matters of general policy. But judges had the working of the law before them in concrete cases, and they saw how the law worked in a crucial way which would not happen to other persons; and when they came forward to say they thought the law was a bad law they were entitled to some weight in the controversy. In the Brighton Aquarium case some 20 years ago, no doubt there was a considerable commercial element, and the case was clearly within the Act. But even in that case the judges—Lord Blackburn and Lord Field—regretted that the law should have been as they found it. The judge who presided at the trial, and, secondly, the Lords Justices of Appeal, expressed the opinion that the law was exceedingly harsh, or was, at all events, harshly applied. The jury also, twelve men drawn from the middle class, who might be taken as representing the average feeling current among their class, expressed the opinion that the Act under which they had given their verdict should be repealed. He did not wish to exaggerate the amount of injury done by this law, or the number of people whom it affected. He did not suppose he was representing a very a substantial section. It consisted of numerous section of society, but it was orderly, quiet, well-educated people, belonging mainly to the middle and lower middle classes, and to the more solid and steady class of artisans. They were people who desired to have some wholesome recreation on Sunday afternoons, whether by the exercise of their reasoning faculties, or the æsthetic side of their mind, or simply by that pleasant feeling of repose which came over us when we could sit still for an hour or two and simply be amused. They found this refreshing, and they wished to have it on
1528
Sundays, some because they were too busy on other days to find time for such things; others because they were too tired to profit by them even if they could find time; others again because quite apart from the use of other days, they found there were 24 hours in the Sunday, and that their day was best spent when they employed an hour or two in the kind of mental occupation he had described. The promoters of these lectures had no wish to encroach on the Sunday rest; they valued it, he believed, as much as any class in England valued it; but they thought they got the most out of it by employing a portion of it in the way he had described. What they did was esteemed by a considerable number of their neighbours, and they thought that they were playing a useful part in society. They did not go out into the highways and byeways and compel their opponents to come in; they did not blow trumpets, beat drums and wave flags in the face of their opponents, or do anything to insult them; but they kept themselves to themselves in rooms obtained by themselves, and they sat there for their own recreation and refreshment without any thought of injuring or offending their neighbours. These people were worthy of the attention of the Legislature and of the relief which was asked for them by the Bill. It would not be denied that since 1781 there had been a great change in public opinion upon the proper mode of employing Sunday. At that time the stricter school of thought was very much in the ascendant, and it might still be in the ascendant; but the freer school of thought had obtained a great many more adherents. You might see it by walking about out-of-doors; and the out-door amusements that people thought right showed that a great change of feeling had come over society at large during the last 50 years. Even supposing the opponents of the change he was advocating were in a majority, they certainly were not in such a majority as to be entitled to call themselves the nation, or to be entitled to coerce the minority on the plea that the feelings of the nation ought not to be scandalised. He was pleading for a cause which had usually found favour in the English Parliament, the cause of individual liberty, which surely ought not to be interfered with so long as

1529
it did no injury to the interests of the community at large, and so long as it was not exercised to the injury of people's neighbours. The principal change to be made by the Bill would be effected by the second clause. The first and principal object was to enable Sunday lectures to be given. Then it was desired that music might be set more free than it is at present. It might be given now in the open air with prices charged for chairs; and they wanted to give it in a room. They wanted to have it provided that music should not be a disorderly proceeding because it was an entertainment, and that it should not be a disorderly proceeding if a lecture deviated into fun or if a debate ensued upon it. They desired to make charges for admission in order to secure a certain and steady support for these efforts, and in order that they might not be dependent upon the more or less precarious help of the wealthy or the open-handed among their supporters. They did not desire the proceedings should be conducted in a commercial spirit or with any idea of making profit. Sometimes at the end of a course of lectures there was a little deficit, which was made up by well-wishers. Sometimes there was a little surplus, which was used to improve the next course of lectures. Whether the wording of the clause was all that could be desired was a question that could be discussed in Committee. On this question of profit-making a somewhat intemperate paper had been issued by the Lord's Day Observance Society, who said that under the Bill any place of entertainment could be opened on Sunday for the pecuniary advantage of the same persons as benefited on the week-day, and this without the slightest risk of their being judicially called to account. Their only evidence of profit-making was the accounts of the Leeds Sunday Lecture Society. The year's income had been £379, and the expenditure £361. The expenses included the rent of the Coliseum, printing, lecturers, and
1530
the general machinery of the Society. So far from the element of personal profit entering into these proceedings, the evidence was that it had been uniformly absent. Where were the profits of the ladies and gentlemen who laboured to arrange these matters? They were not to be found. Of course they must pay for their machinery; but the work of these Societies was sustained entirely by gratuitous labour, and the moment the voluntary Committees ceased to act, the whole Sunday lecture system would come to nought. If a lecturer could not be obtained gratuitously one must be paid for; but was it to be pretended that the movement was carried on for the benefit of the lecturers, or of the owners of the halls, or of the firms who did the printing? It was suggested that when the Bill was passed the Sunday lecture societies would become frauds and shams, bogus societies, and that the real persons getting up lectures with music would be lessees of theatres, and persons of that kind. He envied the imagination of those who could conceive of such a thing. But if it were to happen—if lessees of theatres should become, promoters of Sunday lectures with the object of profit they would not be protected by this Bill, and he would not so underrate the vigilance and ability of the Lord's Day Observance Society as to suppose that they would not immediately unmask the fraud and bring the perpetrators to justice. There was another clause, but, as it would not affect the judgment of their Lordships upon this principle of the Bill, he would not discuss it, but conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think people who are very much interested in this Bill have a certain right to complain on account of the very short time they have had to consider it. The Bill was only circulated on Tuesday, and many people who would be extremely interested in it could not receive it till Wednesday, and it is not possible for them to be here at a day's

1531
notice. Your Lordships must know that the Bishops would feel it a reproach not to be present on the occasion of Second Reading of a Bill like this, yet it is totally impossible for them to be here. They cannot alter their arrangements at a moment's notice, for the present season is the season of Lent, when they are holding confirmations every day. At the last moment almost all the Bishops did receive a reminder from me, but not one of them is able to be here except the Bishop of London. As regards the arguments which have been brought before your Lordships, I must confess that I think the noble Lord has stated his case with regard to the Act which is now on the Statute Book very moderately. He has not made the most of it. I believe one of the sets of lectures objected to was delivered by Sir Robert Ball on astronomy, and persons who wish to prevent Sir Robert Ball from delivering lectures on astronomy on Sunday can do so by pleading that he entered a disorderly house, according to Bishop Porteus's explanation of the purpose of the Act, as "a talker of profaneness and blasphemy." The Act in question does certainly want amending. It was never intended to touch such cases. It is not right to use such weapons, and I would not act with persons who use them. But clearly we come to another part of the subject altogether when we ask whether the provisions of this Bill afford the right remedy. That is another affair, and I think your Lordships will admit that this Bill does want safeguarding in very important points. According to this Bill the Statute which is to remain on the Statute Book is not to apply—
"to any house, room, or place opened or used for any lecture or address on science, ethics, social duties, literature, art, or any other kindred subject."
I would ask whether your Lordships can name or think of any subject in the world which could not be called a kindred subject to literature or art. There is no limitation in these words, and they might include a lecture or address on any subject whatever. In the next place the Bill excludes from the operation of the Act any house, room, or place opened or used "for the performance of music." Is "music" to stand in that
1532
unqualified way. If so, there is no music-hall programme which might not become the programme of some philanthropic, scientific, and excellent Sunday society. Of course I do not for a moment believe that the noble and learned Lord thought of introducing music-hall programmes, but I want to know how they are to be excluded under this Bill. Then the section goes on—
"if the proceeding's are undertaken by their promoters with a view to the public good, and not by way of trade or for the pecuniary profit of the promoters,"
I would ask whether "promoters" would include the proprietors of music-halls, and, if not, why not? What could be easier than the formation of a bogus society as a society to promote entertainments by the performance of music? They need not take any profits, and they would be entirely beyond the reach of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord says that the opponents would be acute enough to discover a way of dealing with such societies. I wish very much the noble and learned Lord would point out to us a way of dealing with so-called political clubs. At this moment there is a large number of them which are nothing but public-houses, and are really open the whole of Sunday against the law, only under the name of a bogus club. If we do not know how to deal with a club we should not be able to deal with a bogus society for the promotion of the kind of entertainment I have referred to. There is one other point I should like to call your Lordships' attention to. We are told that the number of people that would be employed would not be large; but, as I have said, this Bill opens the way to any kind of entertainment, and would bring about what I am perfectly certain the working people of England strongly object to—an enormous increase of Sunday labour. Half-a-million of people are said to be employed on amusements. A large proportion of these would have a seventh day added to their work. I believe the Bill will be very far from pleasing the people for whose benefit it is devised, and that its promoters will find it a very unpopular measure, because it would produce a great reduction of Sunday rest, to which the people are rightly so much attached. I do not know whether your Lordships will

1533
say that the Bill shall not be read a Second time; but, if it should be, I should desire that it should be dealt with by a Select Committee, who could consider every word of it.
VISCOUNT CROSS: This matter was brought under my notice some years ago in connection with the Brighton Aquarium. I think that what has fallen from the most reverend Prelate is perfectly true, that people in the country have no notion of what is contained in this Bill. It was only printed a day or two ago, and only placed in our hands yesterday. I think the Bill is very crude in its present form, and would require a great deal of amendment. I would venture, therefore to suggest that it would be better to adjourn the Second Reading since die, because I am sure we could not come to a proper conclusion today. I would then move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider, irrespective of this Bill, what Amendments it is wise to make in the Act of George III. This Bill would then be hung up until after the Committee has reported. If that suggestion meets with your Lordships' approval, I will give notice that on a future day I will move for a Committee.
LORD HOBHOUSEthought he could not do better than fall in with the suggestion of the noble Viscount. He quite agreed that it was inconvenient to take the Second Reading so soon. No doubt those who wished to oppose the Bill had some reason to complain. He fully expected that the Second Reading would have been postponed, and all those who were supporting him were quite prepared for a postponement. He was quite content to accept the particular form of Motion suggested by the noble Viscount.
Debate adjourned.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
On the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill,
LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the observations made by the noble Marquess opposite on a former occasion, with reference to the conduct of Lord Jersey at the Conference at Ottawa. That was
1534
a most important Conference, hardly less important than the Colonial Conference of 1887. The Debates were extremely well conducted, and the part Lord Jersey played was most important. His advice when asked for was readily given and very carefully conceived, and he was quite satisfied that his exertions did a great deal to promote the success of the Conference.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The MARQUESS of RIPON)said, he had expressed the other day his sense of the services of Lord Jersey in connection with the Conference, but he would like to say that he entirely agreed with every word that had fallen from his noble Friend.
The House went into Committee, LORD KENSINGTON taking the chair in the absence of the Earl of Morley.
Bill passed through Committee without Amendment.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DISTRESS BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
House adjourned at half-past Five of the clock.