Sitting of 21 April 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Waterford Harbour Bill.
Order (29th March) that the Waterford Harbour Bill be committed read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

Ordered Copy of Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1908, with Appendices.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Canton-Hankow Railway.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Minister at Pekin has addressed a protest to the Chinese Government against the acceptance of a German loan for the building of the Canton-Hankow Railway; if so, on what grounds; and whether British financiers were offered the loan on the terms accepted by the Germans and refused it?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The terms offered by the German group were declined by the British and Chinese Corporation and His Majesty's Minister at Peking, acting under instructions from the Foreign Office, has addressed a protest to the Chinese Government on the ground that the conclusion of a loan on such terms was a breach of the spirit of the undertaking given to us by the Chinese in 1905, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 7th instant.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked what was the form of the alleged agreement, signed 9th September, 1905, with reference to the building of the Canton-Hankow Railway; by whom was it signed on behalf of His Majesty's Government; and whether the alleged agreement in question was merely a letter written by a Chinese official to a
  1506
  person or persons entirely unconnected in any official capacity with His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The agreement referred to in the question was in the form of an official letter addressed by Chang Chi Tung, the then Viceroy of Wuchang, to Mr. Fraser, His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, and was by way of return for the loan made to China from British sources for the redemption of the concession for this line granted to an American syndicate.

  Ex-President Castro.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether ex-President Castro has been refused permission to land at, or remain in, certain parts of His Majesty's dominions; if so, what part, for what reason, and on whose instigation; and whether there is any precedent for refusing such permission?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: His Majesty's Government were informed by the Venezuelan Government that General Castro was returning to Venezuela with a view to re-establishing his power, that he would probably attempt to land at Port-of-Spain instead of going direct to La Guaira, and that his presence in Trinidad would thus constitute a standing menace to the peace of Venezuela. They therefore expressed the hope that His Majesty's Government would, as an act of friendship to Venezuela, be willing to forbid his landing in Trinidad. His Majesty's Government acceded to this request in the interests of peace, and the necessary instructions were sent to the Governor of Trinidad. His Majesty's Consul at Martinique was instructed to inform Senor Castro that he would not be allowed to land at Trinidad. The action of His Majesty's Government was not based on any particular precedent, in fact the circumstances of this particular case do not lend themselves to precedent. The action of His Majesty's Government corresponds, however, with the action taken or the views expressed by the Governments of the United States, France, and the Netherlands.
  Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask if Trinidad is the only part of the British Dominions President Castro has been excluded from?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes. He actually was not prevented from landing. He was prevented from landing on French territory.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina (Annexation by Austria).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on the 9th instant, His Majesty's Government recognised the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria; if so, whether this involved its assent to the violation of Article 25 of the Berlin Treaty; and whether he will state the reasons why this course was taken and why the demand for an international conference on the subject was abandoned?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: On 17th April His Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna addressed a note to the Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, informing His Excellency of the assent of His Majesty's Government to the abrogation of Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. This action does not involve His Majesty's Government's assent to the violation of the Article in question. It was taken because the two Treaty Powers most directly interested had come to an agreement on the subject, all the Powers Signatory of the Treaty of Berlin were unanimous in making the alteration desired in the Treaty, and the conditions which seemed to us—as one of the Treaty Powers—to be essential had been secured.

  Philippine Islands (United States Trade).
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information regarding the carrying trade between the United States and the Philippine Islands; and if such trade is to be treated in the future as coasting trade, and no vessels are to be allowed to participate in it unless they are on the United States register?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: By section 3 of an Act approved 20th April, 1908, it was enacted that the provisions of law restricting to vessels of the United States the transportation of passengers and merchandise directly or indirectly from one port of the United States to another port of the United States shall not be applicable to foreign vessels engaging in trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States.
  Mr. FELL: May I inquire whether there has been any change made in that?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of any change.
  Mr. FELL: You have not received any notice of change?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, I have not.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to the effect that the Government of the United States of America have established or propose to establish free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States; and if the duties at present levied on British goods in the Philippine Islands would be reduced or removed?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A proposal to the effect stated in the first part of the question is at present before the United States Legislature. I have no information of any proposal to reduce or remove the duties on goods of other than American origin imported into the Philippine Islands.

  Disturbances in Asia Minor.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could furnish any information regarding the recent disturbances in Asia Minor; whether the British Vice-Consul has been seriously injured at Adana; and what steps were being taken to protect British life and property?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: According to information received through His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople serious disturbances broke out at Adana. There was fighting in the town, which was partly pillaged and burned, and there was much loss of life in the district. The British Vice-Consul at Mersina is not aware of any casualties having occurred among British subjects. The disorder subsequently spread to the town and district of Tarsus, and disturbances are reported as possible at Alexandretta. The British Vice-Consul at Mersina has had his arm broken. Ships of war have been despatched to Beyrout. Mersina and Alexandretta.

  Consumptives from Canada.
  Mr. WEIRasked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that under Canadian law emigrants from this country who develop consumption within two years after arrival in Canada are required to return, is he now in a position to state what precautions have been taken by steamship companies, in vessels sailing from Canadian ports to the United Kingdom, to isolate consumptive

  1509
  passengers in such a way as to prevent other passengers running the risk of infection?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): The steamship companies inform me that persons returning from Canada on account of consumption are carefully isolated during the voyage, and kept apart from the other passengers.

  "Strathyre" and Chinese Seamen.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at the New York coroner's court with regard to the circumstances under which 10 Chinese seamen jumped overboard from the "Strathyre," by which two men lost their lives; whether His Majesty's consul was represented at that inquiry; whether he sent a report of the proceedings to the Board; what action had been taken in the matter; whether he is aware that prior to the trouble at New York a Chinese trimmer had disappeared under strange circumstances at Suez, when the vessel was lying more than a mile from the shore, such trimmer being reported by the master as a deserter; whether he is aware that the remaining crew of Chinamen state that the trimmer in question committed suicide; and what steps the Board of Trade have taken to ascertain the actual facts with regard to the disappearance of this man?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the proceedings at the New York coroner's court in connection with the deaths of two members of the Chinese crew of the "Strathyre." I am not aware whether His Majesty's Consul-General was represented at that inquiry, but full reports with regard to the whole matter have been received from him. The Consul-General caused inquiry to be made into the alleged grievances of the Chinese crew, but obtained no substantiation of their complaints, and, in view of the fact that a number of actions brought against the master of the "Strathyre" at South Shields by the Chinese seamen have been dismissed, it does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the matter further. A Chinese fireman is reported in the official log book of the vessel to have deserted on the 14th October, 1907, at Suez, taking his effects with him. I have no reason to believe that the man -committed suicide, although
  1510
  I am aware that a vague suggestion to this effect was made by two Chinese seamen at the New York coroner's inquiry.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the evidence that was stated in the coroner's court in New York was shut out in the case at the South Shields police court, and that the magistrates who tried the case were members of the Shipping Federation, whose organisation is paying for the defence of the masters, and further, with regard to the answer relating to the man who committed suicide, has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries as to whether it was possible for a man to desert from the ship when over a mile from the shore?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to express an opinion on the very serious question which he has raised as to the impartiality of the magistrates. If the matter is to be raised at all, I think it ought to be brought forward in the most formal manner, and that the hon. Member should put a question on the Paper on the subject. So far as the evidence given before the New York coroner is concerned we have had a full report of that at the Board of Trade, and we have informed ourselves on it and studied it. As to the distance of the ship from shore when the man disappeared we have no information.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Did His Majesty's Consul at New York send over a copy of the evidence tendered in the coroner's court there, and a report of the coroner's remarks, in which he described the conduct of the captain as most inhuman?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Consul-General has sent a full report in regard to this matter.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Have you had a copy of the evidence stated at the coroner's inquiry, and, if not, will yon obtain the evidence?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have informed the hon. Gentleman that we have received a full report. As to whether that report contains the evidence I will inquire.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of the evidence will he take further steps—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is exceeding the usual bounds.

  Engagement of Seamen (South Shields).
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the reason why the crew of the "Kenilworth" was engaged on board that vessel on 26th March, 1909, at South Shields instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy-superintendent took to ascertain that the four men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen, and whether the deputy-superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot produce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
  The Hon. MEMBERfurther asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he can state the reason why the crew of the "Thoraby" was engaged on board that vessel on the 24th March, 1909, at North shields instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy-superintendent took to ascertain that the three men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen; whether the deputy-superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot produce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
  (2) If he can state the reason why the crew of the "Mohawk" was engaged on board that vessel on 27th March, 1909, at South Shields, instead of at the mercantile marine office; what steps the deputy - superintendent took to ascertain that the three men engaged as sailors were efficient seamen; whether the deputy - superintendent has any nautical knowledge to enable him to satisfy himself that men who cannot pro-
  1512
  duce satisfactory evidence as to being A.B.'s are efficient seamen; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade recently sent a letter to the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade stating that their usual practice in such cases was to direct the detaining officer to examine such deck hands, who had failed to produce evidence of their efficiency, with a view to determine whether they were qualified or not; and why such action was not taken in this case?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will answer these three questions together: The crews of the "Mohawk," "Kenilworth," and "Thoraby" were engaged on board ship at the Master's request, and the engagement was allowed by the superintendent in the exercise of his discretion, and subject to the usual conditions. As I have already informed my hon. Friend in answer to previous questions, the deputy-superintendent who witnessed the engagements was satisfied, after inspecting the sailors' certificates of discharge, that they were efficient deck hands as required by the recent instructions, and accordingly he did not refer the matter to the detaining officer. The practice of the Board in these cases is not correctly described in the questions. The letter of the 13th October, 1908, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, stated that if there is any doubt the men are examined on board by one of the nautical surveyors. In the present cases no doubt arose.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the superintendent arrived at the conclusion that the men, who failed to produce any evidence that they were qualified seamen, were qualified seamen?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already said it was in the exercise of his discretion.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: I would like to know whether this deputy-superintendent had any knowledge whatever as to whether these men were qualified or not, and whether he had any previous experience of the sea himself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: All the deputy-superintendents, so far as possible, are men capable of forming a judgment upon the question of the fitness of sailors to serve. As to the particular qualifications of this superintendent, I have no reason to believe that there is any difference.

  Philippine Islands (British Trade).
  Mr. FELLasked what has been the value of the British trade with the Philippine Islands during each of the past three years?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will have the information desired by the hon. Member printed in the Votes. [See written answers this date.]

  Jarrow Town Council (Electric Traction).
  Mr. CURRANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British Electric Traction Company has violated an agreement entered into with the Jarrow Town Council in 1901 regarding the construction of light railways by neglecting to complete the contract in the specified time; and whether he will take steps to enforce the fulfilment of the agreement as far as possible by having the contract completed without further delay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of an agreement between the Company and the Council such as that referred to by the hon. Member, and if such an agreement exists its enforcement would not seem to rest with the Board of Trade. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case the Board have recently granted an extension for two years of the period for completion of the Company's lines, but I am advised that they have no power to compel the Company to complete the unconstructed portion of their undertaking.
  Mr. CURRAN: Is that the second extension that the Company has got?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that without notice.

  Minister's Stipends (Ross-shire).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he has received a memorial from small holders at Knockrash, in the parish of Kiltearn, Boss-shire, protesting at the new burdens imposed on them under a recent valuation for the purpose of augmenting the minister's stipend; and will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will exempt from minister's stipend and other church burdens all lands that have or may be acquired in Scotland under The Small Holdings Act, 1892, or under any subsequent Act?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The memorial has been received at the Scottish Office. The augmentation has been granted in ordinary process of law; and the question of exempting any class
  1514
  of proprietors from a common burden of ownership, subject to which they acquire the land, is one that would require more consideration than the Government are prepared to give to it at the present time.
  Mr. WEIRasked whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the rates for the parishes of Uig, Lochs, and Barvas, Island of Lewis, have increased since last year from 16s. 3d. in the pound, 15s. 11d. in the pound, and 17s. 9d. in the pound respectively, to 19s. 2d. in the pound, 25s. 2d. in the pound, and 28s. 10d. in the pound respectively; and, in view of the breakdown of local government in the island, in consequence of owners and occupiers being unable to meet their share in these assessments, will he now state what action the Government propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. URE: As a matter of fact the increase in the rate per £ has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the actual amount of rates requiring to be raised, and I cannot assent to the suggestion that local government in the Lews has broken down, or that there is a general inability to pay the rates. I do not, however, wish the inference to be drawn that the Government is not alive to the serious danger to the recognised system of local administration which the necessity of levying such high rates involves. The question is receiving the consideration of the Government, but I am not able to make any further statement.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be in a position to make a statement as to how the finances of these islands is to be kept up?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say at this moment, but it will not be long.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to carry on local government under the conditions described in this House, and if the rates are to be levied at that rate whether the Treasury cannot grant some relief in this case?
  Mr. URE: My hon. Friend knows that the valuation is low, and that though the poundage is high it does not follow that the amount levied is very great because the poundage is high; but undoubtedly the question is a very serious one.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: Will the Government not consider the- advisability of adopting in this case the same course that

  1515
  was followed when under similar circumstances educational matters broke down in some of these places, and whether they could not manage to make some alteration so as to relieve the ratepayers of their intolerable burden?
  Mr. URE: We shall consider that course very seriously.

  Sale of Disinfectants.
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the promise made by him in June, 1907, and the statement of Professor Hewlett in the recent Milroy lectures, delivered before the Royal College of Physicians, to the effect that during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, 28,000 gallons, 37,000 gallons, and 66,000 gallons of liquid were sold as disinfectant under the Privy Council Order of 31st July, 1900, whereby grocers and oil and colourmen were prohibited from selling disinfectants containing more than 3 per cent. of carbolic acid, the result of which, as the leading authorities all agreed, was to place a premium on adulteration and inefficiency, he would now state what steps he contemplated taking to remedy this evil?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Masterman): As he has stated in reply to a previous question, my right hon. Friend is not empowered to fix standards of disinfectants, and it does not appear to him that he could usefully take action in the matter. I may add that there is little public advantage in the domestic use of disinfectants as deodorants. Where they are used to remove infection they are commonly employed under the advice of a medical officer of health or other medical man, who would be trusted to order disinfectants which are efficient.
  Mr. REESwas understood to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was aware, as a matter of fact, that in every Government Department a standard was fixed by custom?

  Small Holdings (Middlesex).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that the Middlesex County Council were proposing to pay £60 per acre for land at Ickenham, which 12 months ago they could have bought for £50 an acre; and whether the Board would make inquiries into the matter?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edward Strachey): The land to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers is glebe, and an offer to purchase it at £57 8s. 11d. per acre has been made by a private individual. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are prepared to approve the sale at this price unless a higher one is offered by the county council, and the matter is now under their consideration. The county council are not aware that the land could have been purchased for £50 an acre.
  Mr. BYLES: Is it the experience of the Department that the Small Holdings Act is sending up the price of land?
  Sir FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the valuation has been altered by the Middlesex County Council, and that unless they can prove—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information, and not seeking it.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any complaints had been received by the Board respecting the delay in obtaining land for small holdings at Ickenham, Hayes, and elsewhere, in the county of Middlesex; and what steps the Board were taking?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of land at Ickenham, Hayes, and elsewhere in Middle-Sex, and, so far as we are aware, there has not been any avoidable delay in the matter nor have we received any complaints from the parishes to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Board of Agriculture (Annual Report).
  Mr. MORRELLasked when the annual report of the Board of Agriculture for the year 1908 would be ready?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Annual Report of Proceedings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, to which my hon. Friend is perhaps referring, involves, amongst other things, the collection and tabulation of Returns from more than 10,000 different local authorities. It is not possible as yet to say when it will be issued, but every effort will be made to expedite its publication.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it not the fact that most of the information is contained in the Return published yesterday? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the

  1517
  Report will be laid before the debate on the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is impossible at the present moment to do so.

  New Developments in Naval Construction.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to the official announcement of the Prime Minister that we were on the eve of new developments in forms of naval construction which might vitally affect many of the governing conditions of naval policy; and whether the four battleships which the Government had definitely decided to commence this year were to embody those developments, or were to be more or less belated or obsolete specimens of the class of which H.M.S. "Neptune" and "Indefatigable" were the latest examples?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that no battleships which are to be begun during the present financial year will be of a belated or obsolete type.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Have the Government any reason to believe that the four ships which they have definitely decided to lay down, of which the plans must already have been settled, are inferior in fighting respects to the latest German designs, and, if not, what justification have the Government for not proceeding at the earliest possible moment with the number of ships necessary to secure a sufficient superiority in that class of ship?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that question arises out of the question on the paper, and it would take far too long to answer in reply to a supplementary question.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: I will put down a further question.

  Pre-"Dreadnoughts" in German Navy, 1920.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what battleships of the pre-"Dreadnought" type would, according to the age-limit now in force, remain on the German list of efficient ships in 1920; whether any of the vessels so remaining would have the main belts of less than nine inches thickness amidships and four inches at bow and stern; and whether they would carry any guns of six inches calibre, or above, which are less than 40 calibres in length.
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is:—

  Five of the "Deutschland" class,

  Five of the "Braunschweig" class,

  Five of the "Wittclsbach" class,

  Three of the "Kaiser" class.

  The three vessels of the "Kaiser" class only have the armour and guns mentioned in the remaining parts of the question.

  British Pre-"Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the 40 British pre-"Dreadnought" battleships referred to in recent official utterances had a main armour-belt less than nine inches thick amidships, and what were the thicknesses of the belts of the vessels concerned; how many of these have less than four inches of armour at either bow or stern, and what was the precise extent of the protection afforded in those parts to the vessels in question; 'how many had guns in their main or secondary batteries of less length than 40 calibres; and how many were equipped with boilers of the obsolete cylindrical type, to the exclusion of other types, and water-tube boilers of the Belleville type, which had long been discarded by the Admiralty as unsuitable for warships?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is 13; to the second part 20, to the third part 38, to the fourth part 15, to the fifth part nine, entirely cylindrical; to the sixth part 18, entirely Belleville. It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give officially the exact thickness of armour.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Are we to apply to the German Admiralty for the information?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have given the hon. Gentleman the complete information for which he has asked, except the precise thickness of the armour.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: That is the vital point.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Are we to understand that there is the slightest doubt in the minds of foreign naval officers as to the exact thickness of the armour of every ship in the British Navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, there is considerable doubt.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Not the slightest.

  Admiralty Orders (Distribution).
  Mr. CURRANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the placing of future orders for battleships, he would favourably consider the tenders of competent firms which had not recently secured Government contracts with a view to securing a wider distribution of Admiralty orders?
  Mr. McKENNA: The principle of distribution of orders will be borne in mind.

  Battleship Construction.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention had been called to the announcement in Berlin that the Schichan yard received a building order from the office of the Imperial Marine for a large modern battleship, and the construction of the large armoured cruiser H had been entrusted to the Hamburg yard of BlÕhm and Voss; and whether he had any information that would enable him to state that those vessels were in addition to those belonging to the accelerated 1909 programme, or whether they were the two ships referred to by Admiral von Tirpitz, in the Reichstag, on the 29th March, when he said that contracts for two other ships would not be placed until some months after the conditions for tendering had been drawn up late in the summer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The vessels mentioned as having been ordered at Schichau and BlÕhm and Voss respectively are two of the four large ships of the 1909–1910 programme. According to the German Press, Admiral von Tirpitz stated in the Reichstag that the remaining two ships of the 1909-1910 programme would not be tendered for till the late summer.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long the preparations for these vessels have been going on previous to the orders being definitely given?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think it would be undesirable to do so.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his official information showed that Germany cannot build a single battleship as quickly as we can?
  Mr. McKENNA: The time required for building a single battleship, whether in Germany or in this country, would necessarily vary according to the number of men employed and the amount of over-
  1520
  time worked—both of which factors would depend upon the amount of money expended. I have no information to enable me to make the exact comparison suggested in the question.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is there any justification for the statement made by a Member of the Government that Germany cannot build as quickly as we can?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that that question ought to be asked of me.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Have not the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister already stated in this House that Germany can build as fast as this country?
  Mr. McKENNA: As far as I remember my own words were that they can build almost, if not quite, as fast as we can. I do not call to mind the exact words used by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German Government have means of obtaining funds otherwise than through Parliamentary grants?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  Responsibility for Naval Estimates.
  Sir FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLANDasked whether the Board of Admiralty were individually responsible for the Naval Estimates or not; and, if so, what was the object of the Order in Council of 14th January, 1869?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Navy Estimates are signed by the members of the Board, who thereby accept such individual and collective responsibility as the fact of appending their signatures would convey. No record of the object with which the Order in Council was framed beyond what appears on the face of it exists in official papers. As, however, it was rescinded in 1872 it has no force at this date.
  Sir F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Am I to understand that the whole of the Board sign the accounts? Are they all responsible?
  Mr. McKENNA: The recent practice—I think for upwards of 30 years—has been for all the Board to sign the Estimates.
  Sir F. DIXON-HARTLAND: And they do so?
  Mr. McKENNA: That has been the recent practice for upwards of 30 years.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: What amount of responsibility exactly is conveyed by the appending of signatures by the various members of the Board of Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: Just the ordinary responsibility which is conveyed by appending a signature to any document.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: In view of the fact that that varies according to the document—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  Auditors' Reports (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether Local Government auditors report, or take any action to prevent, the continued reappointment, year after year, on visiting and inspection committees of local bodies of the same members of those bodies, being servants or debtors or contractors to those bodies; if so, to what is the persistence of this practice due; and whether he will have a rule introduced disqualifying unfree members for service on those committees and requiring a rotation, or at least some change of personnel, in such committees each year?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Local Government Board have not received any reports from their auditors commenting on any such practice as is referred to in the question, nor does there appear to be any ground for supposing that such a practice exists. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he will take steps to have the rule that Local Government auditors inquire and report only upon such irregular and illegal practices as come officially under their notice so amended as to empower and require every auditor to inquire into and report upon all irregular and illegal practices that add to the rates, by whatsoever means those practices have come to the auditor's knowledge?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no rule that auditors shall confine their inquiries when auditing the accounts of local authorities to what is officially brought under their notice. They audit the receipts and expenditure of the year or half-year, as the case may be, and investigate all matters necessary to enable them to decide as to the legality of the expenditure.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether' the
  1522
  Local Government Board take any action regarding an accounting body until complaints take the shape of a formal charge and the time for preventing an abuse has passed; whether they send the same or a fresh auditor to examine the accounts, and give any special instructions; if there is any efficient examination of auditors' reports, how do the Local Government Board explain the survival of irregular practices, especially in connection with contracts, and the immunity of the auditors under whom the irregularities flourish; and whether he can see his way to requiring a higher standard of efficiency in auditors and a systematic examination and comparison of their reports?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board cannot take action until a complaint reaches them. It is open to any ratepayer to make a complaint to the Board with a view to the prevention of abuse, and when there is a primâ facie case an inspector is sent to hold an investigation unless the matter is one which will come before the auditor in the ordinary course. The Board inform me that there is an efficient examination of auditors' reports in their Audit Department, and that in their opinion irregular practices are rare. They require and maintain a high standard of efficiency on the part of their auditors.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when an auditor states in his report that accounts have been carefully prepared and vouched in a most satisfactory manner, and the accounts so described contain entries of alleged payments in fact never made, and the same thing occurs year after year, as in the case of the accounts of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, will the Government allow the accounting body to take shelter behind an old statute and resist investigation, or will the accounts and vouchers be submitted to a fresh auditor or to any independent examination?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already in formed the hon. Member in reply to a question asked by him on 8th December last, the Commissioners and the auditor tell me that there is no foundation for the allegation that the accounts contain statements of payments not actually made. The accounts have been audited as required by law, and I have no power to direct a further audit. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of the case to which he refers, I will have inquiries made.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the declaration of the Local Government Board for Ireland in November, 1908, that it was not in possession of any information regarding local bodies paying fixed sums yearly to their solicitors and making additional payments to the same solicitors, and its production in December, 1908, of accounts of a district council illustrating the objectionable practice; if he will now say what scale an auditor applies before passing the fixed yearly payment in such a case, and on what principle he requires no deduction when the work done falls below, but allows an additional payment when the work is alleged to be above, the measure of the fixed payment; whether it is the. duty of an auditor to report on such practices and of the Board to examine and decide which is the safer method of payment and enforce that uniformly; and whether he will have this done?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member asked in November last for the number of local bodies who adopted certain methods of remunerating their solicitors, and I informed. him in reply that the Local Government Board has no information on that point. There is no inconsistency between that reply and the fact that cases occur from time to time in which solicitors receive both annual salaries and also occasional additional payments for extra services. Where a yearly payment by way of salary is made to a solicitor the auditor acts on the resolution of the local authority fixing the salary. If additional payment be made on the ground that extra duties have been discharged he requires a further resolution of the local authority. The auditors report cases of apparently irregular payments, but the Board have no power to compel all local authorities to remunerate Their solicitors on the same scale or method. Local authorities must be allowed a discretion in these matters.
  Mr. GINNELL: Would the auditor consider himself precluded from practically taxing the amount of the account on account of the resolution of the Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the resolution of the Board fixed the amount of remuneration of the solicitor, then, no doubt, the auditor would leave it alone.

  Volunteer Officers (Long-Service Medals).
  Mr. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State for War what length of service is

  1524
  necessary to enable a volunteer officer to claim the long-service medal; and whether non-commissioned officers and men may claim the said medal after 16 years' service?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial force who at the time of transfer from the Volunteers on 31st March, 1908, had completed 16 years' service and were otherwise entitled to the Volunteer Long-Service Medal have been considered eligible for recommendation to receive this medal. It has now been decided to extend this concession to officers similarly situated.

  Old Age Pensions (Census Searches).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the instructions lately given that census searches into the ages of persons already awarded pensions, due measures have been taken to have the applications for searches from pension officers made separately for each of the two classes in question and the class to which any particular application refers plainly indicated; whether it has been made clear that all searches for ages of new claimants, whether already or hereafter sent up, are to have precedence over the extensive searches into cases already decided, sent in, and in arrear, before the recent in-instructions in question were given; whether, in dealing with extracts from the census referring to pensioners and claimants, allowance is made for the probability that a person stated to be a particular number of years with no odd months was in reality that age last birthday, and might be practically a year older at the date of the census; and whether he is aware that the probability in question was in no wise altered by the exact age, month, and years being stated in the case of other members of the family, especially aged three and under.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (for the Chancellor of the Exchequer): The very large number of claims which have been received since the beginning of the current calendar month from persons whose title to pension in respect of age is more than doubtful have made the procedure in respect of new claims peculiarly difficult, but precedence has been given to searches in respect of new claimants, as far as it has been possible to do so. Further steps are now being taken to expedite the dealing with such claims. The determination of the

  1525
  age of a claimant is a matter for the Pension Committee, or, on appeal, for the Central Pension Authority.

  Old Age Pensions (Irish Counties).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked what is approximately the weekly amount distributed in old age pensions in each of the following counties respectively, viz., Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry, and in the portion of Cork intended to be scheduled as congested under the Irish Land Bill?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (for the Chancellor of the Exchequer): I regret that, as the available statistics do not show the amounts distributed for Old Age Pensions in individual counties, I am unable to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Maylaskwhat is the smallest area for which he can give the statistics for which I ask. Can he give them say for the Province of Mun-ster?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think so, only for Ireland.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
James Gibson, Esquire, for Edinburgh (East).
Edward George Hemmerde, Esquire, Recorder of Liverpool, for Denbighshire (Eastern Division).

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. PICKERSGILL Mr. PICKERSGILL, this day four weeks, to call attention to the recommendations contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws so far as it affected unemployment, and move a Resolution.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES Mr. WILLIAM JONES, this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of land in Wales, and move a Resolution.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES).
The PRIME MINISTERasked leave to introduce a Bill "to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
It is almost exactly fourteen years since I asked the Members of the House of Commons of that day to read a second
1526
time a Bill designed for the same purpose, and framed substantially on the same lines as the Bill which I desire to ask leave to introduce this afternoon. The case for Welsh disestablishment rests in all its essential particulars on the same foundations now as it did then. New facts have, indeed, emerged, which, though they may not have added to the general argument, an argument which in my opinion needed no reinforcement, do at the same time indicate and account for the growing urgency of the Welsh demand, and show that, in our opinion, the speedy compliance on the part of Parliament with that demand is a matter at once of justice and of policy. But the case, as I said, is not a new one. Its origin lies far back in the annals of Wales. I am not going to-day to rehearse at length the detailed historical narrative with which on that occasion I troubled the then House of Commons. But it is impossible for anybody who has not familiarised himself with the outline at any rate of that history to understand either the actual position of the Church in Wales or the feeling and sentiment of the Welsh people in regard to it.
The Church in Wales, I may state as an indisputable historical fact, existed not perhaps as a highly organised institution, though there are, I believe, traditions of a Welsh Archbishopric of St. David's, but it existed undoubtedly as a living and a working Christian agency some considerable time before the mission of St. Augustine to the Saxons. It is in no sense an offshoot or a missionary development of the Church of England. It had an independent origin, and for a long time—probably for some centuries—it had an independent existence. When by a series of historical incidents, which I need not dilate upon, the Principality of Wales was, for political purposes, incorporated into or annexed to—I am not sure which expression will most suit the sensibilities of my Welsh friends—but when at any rate it became part and parcel, for political purposes, of the Kingdom of England, contemporaneously or consequentially the ancient Church of Wales was incorporated into or annexed to the Church of England. The English Government succeeded in doing with the Welsh Church what it could never do, and never has succeeded in doing, with the Welsh people—it denationalised it. It is no exaggeration to say it is one of the commonplaces of history that for centuries the English Establishment in Wales—that is to say, the old Welsh

1527
Church as transformed by the English rulers of the Principality—was used for political purposes as the organ and instrument of the English Government.
From the time, I suppose, of Henry II., to a time which is almost within the memory of people now living, the great places of that Church, and the small places, too, the bishoprics, deaneries, and, also, the ordinary parochial benefices, were occupied by persons out of touch with Welsh feeling, with little knowledge of the Welsh people, and often ignorant of the Welsh language, and those prizes, be they great or small, in the ecclesiastical organisation of Wales at that time were regarded as the appanage of English clergymen and the favourites of English Ministers, and were filled up with almost systematic disregard of the real spiritual requirements of Wales. That is, as I believe, the absolutely unexaggerated and uncoloured history of the Welsh Establishment for many centuries after the incorporation of Wales with the kingdom of England. But there is another historical fact, which is by no means irrelevant to these discussions, that should be borne in mind and fully appreciated, and that is the origin of Welsh Nonconformity. Welsh Nonconformity was not the product of puritanism. Puritanism never obtained any very great hold of the Principality of Wales. Welsh Nonconformity was the result of a revolt within the boundaries of the Church itself, by the best and finest spirits of the Church at. that time, the eighteenth century—a revolt not based upon dogmatic differences, or even upon disputes on questions of ceremonial, but a revolt against the condition of things by which this great State organisation, the accredited organ, from the political point of view of the spiritual side of the community, proved itself to be hopelessly out of touch with the mass of those for whom its mission was intended, and to whom its message ought to have been delivered. The great founders of Welsh Nonconformity were the men who would have gladly remained within the Church, who wished to try, so far as their opportunities allowed to make the Church in practice, as it was already in theory, the actual oigan of the conscience and religious sense of the nation, but who, when they heard that for that purpose it was necessary that they should conduct the services
1528
in the Welsh tongue, that they should go out into the streets and highways and on to the mountain sides to carry on their ministrations in unconsecrated buildings, were told by the short-sighted rulers of the Church of that day that they were guilty of a breach of the great ecclesiastical traditions of the body to which they belonged, and were, as we know, refused ordination and expelled or excluded from official admission to the Church itself. The result was that not only were they driven out from the Established Church, but also that which was the most vivid and fertile factor of its strength; and as a consequence of that policy we have had growing up in Wales the ever-increasing power of these great Nonconformist organisations, which, finding themselves in actual touch and sympathy with the wishes and ideas of the great bulk of the population, gradually absorbed and accumulated within their own boundaries practically the whole spiritual vitality of the Principality. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ancient history!"] Yes, certainly, ancient history. I am very glad that it is so. Everybody knows that during the last 70 years, at any rate, in the Church of England and Wales there has been opened a new chapter, a new, beneficent and fruitful chapter, in their history. She has learnt, alas too late! the lessons of the past. She now, by every means which an enlightened ecclesiastical statesmanship, and a strong spiritual devotion to the best needs of the Welsh people could dictate, is overtaking, or endeavouring to overtake, the arrears of the past. Yes, but you cannot rewrite the history of an institution in its old age. The past is the past. It has left indelible traces on the minds, consciences, traditions, and convictions of the Welsh people. Nobody can understand, or properly appreciate, the attitude of those people to the establishment in their midst who does not recognise, or realise the force of the historical facts with which I have been endeavouring to occupy the attention of the House. To start then with this matter—with the historical facts. Start in the first place with a record extended over long centuries of the church, an original, an indigenous, and a native institution, alienated and denationalised by foreign influence. In the second place, in consequence of that fact, we have to take into account those great Nonconformist bodies going out independently and starting for themselves, upon voluntary principles a new form of spiritual teaching and organisation, and capturing—as nobody doubts they have captured—every-

1529
thing that was best and most progressive in the religious life of the people.
These things must be taken into account if you are to truly realise the proportions of the problem with which we have to deal. No one, of course, no responsible statesman, would rest his case for the removal of an ancient institution, like the Anglican Church in Wales, as a political institution—as one of the religious institutions of the country nobody proposes to remove it—merely upon ancient history, or even upon recent history.
I come now to the second chapter in my narrative. That deals entirely and exclusively with contemporary facts. I ask the question: Supposing these four Welsh dioceses were not technically in league, as legally they are part of the Province of Canterbury, is there any fair-minded listener, who, in view of the actual facts, with regard to the religious and ecclesiastical life of Wales, who would maintain that they should be, or were entitled to be, the Established Church of the Principality? You may carry that argument—an argument which used to be much used—I do not know whether it is used now—as to the integrity and inviolability of the Church of England as a whole—you may carry it when dealing with a country like Wales to very dangerous lengths. If that argument is logical it would be so if there was not a single adherent or communion of the Church of England in Wales. If you admit that you cannot carry it to those extreme lengths, that to do so would be absurd and extreme pedantry, then you have got to consider the facts which I am dealing with as to the degree and extent to which in these dioceses the Established Church does re-pjesent the consciences and religious feelings of the community. Let us consider what these facts are. More recently made, I think they are more conclusive in their effect than those which were available when I last dealt with this question 14 years ago.
The population of the Principality of Wales, according to the census of 1901, is 2,000,000. I believe we may take it now, in 1909—we are on the eve of a new census—as 2,250,000. That is the population with which you are to deal. These are the actual inhabitants of these four Welsh dioceses. Now let us see how, from a religious and ecclesiastical point of view, they are distributed. I take first of all the communicants of the two sets of Churches. The figures' which I am giving are the
1530
figures which have been given in evidence before the Royal Commission. They are accessible to everybody. They have been published in the newspapers. There is nothing confidential about them. They are the figures for the year 1905. In 1905-the Nonconformist communicants numbered 554,000; the communicants of the-Established Church numbered 193,000. This is a proportion of very nearly—as the House will see—three to one. Take another test, in some ways perhaps a better one: The criterion of that which constitutes a man a communicant may vary very much in laxity or rigidity between one church and another. Therefore, although I think it is safe to assume that each church will state its communicants at the highest figure they can conscientiously do—although that may be fairly assumed—yet as a criterion the figures may be accounted variable and flexible, not uniform and rigid, and they may be said not to be altogether a satisfactory test. Let us therefore go to another, which I think, on the whole, is a more trustworthy indication of the actual distribution of the population—that is the accommodation provided in places of worship. Taken as a whole, the accommodation provided in Nonconformist places of worship is 1,500,000; in the Established Church 458,000, a proportion of three to one—in this case rather more. Take for the purpose of illustrating and developing that argument, the case of one or two particular counties. Take the great industrial population of Glamorganshire. The Nonconformist provision in the shape of accommodation is 565,000, against the Church accommodation of 120,000—more than three to one—more than four to one. Take again another great industrial county, which, although it is not technically and legally part of Wales, has, for this purpose, always been included in it, I mean Monmouthshire.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Mr. Samuel Evans): It is in the diocese of Llandaff.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is in one of the four Welsh dioceses. Take Monmouthshire. With a population of 320,000, it has 175,000 Nonconformists as against the Established Church accommodation for 56,000. If you take the great city of Cardiff, which I suppose is the biggest urban community in Wales, the Church of England accommodation is one in 12 of the population, or take the accommodation provided in the city for the

1531
Welsh and English speaking congregations, you will find, in round numbers, 52,000 Nonconformists, against 16,000 Church of England. I might multiply illustrations by referring to the more rural counties, but the result is always the same, and I am certain I am not exaggerating when I say the Nonconformist communities in Wales provide in the proportion of at least three to one, and more than three to one, accommodation for those who resort to their chapels as compared with the accommodation provided by the Established Church. Now I pass to the third criterion, by which I mean the criterion of voluntary contributions, in regard to which, it is obvious to anybody acquainted with the facts, that the Established Church, containing, as it does, in all countries, and in Wales no less than others, a larger proportion in regard to its total adherents of wealthy and well-to-do people than Nonconformist congregations, it might well be expected to realise a better result. What are the facts as regard voluntary contribution? I take the year 1905–6. Voluntary contributions for Church purposes—religious purposes—in this year appear as follows:—In the case of the Nonconformists £818,700, and in the case of the Church £296,400, again three to one or thereabout—a very remarkable correspondence in the figures. And lastly,—I will not weary the House with more figures than I can help—take that institution which, from the religious or ecclesiastical point of view, is perhaps the most characteristic of Welsh institutions—the Sunday school. We do not know in this country—we do not realise what the Welsh Sunday school is. People go to Sunday school in Wales from the time they are three years old until they are 70, not necessarily graduating from the position of scholar to teacher, but even continuing as scholars up to late in middle age, and of all the great organisations and religious developments which the Nonconformists of Wales, when they left the Church, discovered and evolved, I do not believe there is any one that has given them greater hold on the population than these institutions of Sunday schools. Well, now, take the Sunday school. In the case of the Church—and I think the figures are both for scholars and- teachers in both cases—in the case, of the Church—I am taking the very latest figures, and they are from the highest authority, namely, the Bishop of St. David's, and from a speech made by him in the Church House, not far from
1532
here, as late as 21st March this year, in which he stated that Bible classes added to Sunday schools—and I am not, at any rate, understating, so far as the Church of England is concerned—Nonconformist numbers in regard to Sunday schools amount to 592,000—that is for 1905, for all I know they may be higher to-day—whereas the Church schools, adding the Bible classes, taking these great figures of the Bishop of St. David's, amount to 178,688; so there again you have more than 3 to 1 in favour of the Nonconformists.
These are facts undisputed and indisputable under all these heads as regards actual distribution of Welsh feeling and Welsh religious attachments and Welsh religious generosity between the different ecclesiastical communities. One cannot ignore, in a matter of this kind, the repeated reiterated demonstrations of Welsh electoral opinion in favour of the disestablishment of the Church. There are 34 members returned to this House from Wales and Monmouthshire, and out of these 34 members for the last 20 years—I go back 20 years to 1886 or 1887—never more than five have voted against disestablishment. In the Parliament of 1902 to 1905, when I introduced the previous Bill dealing with this matter, never more than three voted against it, and in the present Parliament the whole 34 Welsh Members are absolutely united on this subject. Suppose it were any other community or any other part of the United Kingdom. I will not speak of England, I will not even speak of Scotland, I will take Ireland. If the Irish Members of all colours and complexion sitting upon those benches opposite, suppose the whole of the Irish Members—hon. Gentlemen whom I see above the Gangway on the other side, together with those sitting below the Gangway, were to come to this House united as one body in their demand in regard to a matter of purely Irish concern, can anyone conceive this House or any Parliament in this country refusing their demand. But that is the case of Wales. Wales, through her accredited representatives here to-day, says without one dissenting voice; "We, the representatives of the Welsh people, demand the disestablishment of the Church. Are you going to refuse? How can you refuse on any ground consistent with democratic spirit?" And, further, these 34 Welsh Members are not all Nonconformist. Some of them are Churchmen; some, I believe, are Roman Catholics. They belong to every possible

1533
creed. They do not prosecute this demand in the name of a sect or as enemies of the Church of England. They come here as representatives of the Welsh people, and tell us, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it is the opinion of Wales, the unanimous opinion of Wales, as expressed by the enormously preponderating number of its electors, and it is the unanimous opinion of the Welsh Members, the time has come for the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I do not believe that a case so strong and so irresistible has ever been presented to any Legislature in the world. The case of the Irish Church was not comparable. I am not saying—Heaven forbid I should—I am not saying that the case of the Irish Church was not overwhelmingly strong. It was. It had the enormous advantage of being presented to England and the people of this country by the greatest statesman of our time, but you never had anything like that unity of the Irish representatives, nor in considerable parts of Ireland, at any rate, had you ever that enormous preponderance in numerical strength. Now, Sir, that is the case. I have stated it as shortly as I can—first, historically, and then in regard to contemporary facts, with regard to religious opinion, which makes it seem to the Government that the time has come when we ought to ask the House of Commons to deal with this matter, and deal with it in a practical sense. I come now, for a few moments, to explain the provisions of the Bill which I am about to ask leave to introduce. I shall not occupy—or should I say waste?—the time of the House by making abstract arguments as to the justice—the political justice—of dealing with the national Establishment and its endowment in the manner which we propose to do. We have the classical case of the Irish Church before us. There it stands upon the Statute Book. Every argument that can be used with regard to sacrilege, spoliation, and all the other topics of prejudice with which a matter of this kind is naturally encumbered, those arguments were used to the full, and they were pressed to the last extremity in the case of the Irish Church, and yet the Irish Church Act, with the assent of Lord Salisbury, passed its second reading in the House of Lords and obtained the Royal Assent. I will add that I do not believe there is an Irish Protestant, an Irish Episcopalian Protestant, now who desires to go back to the state of things that existed before the passing of that Act. I do not
1534
believe there is a single intelligent and convinced member of the Irish Protestant Church who does not feel that the prosecution of its spiritual mission has been enormously assisted by divesting itself of those prejudices and antipathies which so long as it was in a position of privilege and State preference it invariably had to suffer from.
The proposals we make, which may be briefly described, fall naturally under two heads. I will take first disestablishment, which deals with the legal status of the Church; and next disendowment, which deals with the allocation and disposal of its revenues. As regards disestablishment, the area covered by the Bill is that of Wales and Monmouthshire, or, in other words, the four dioceses which are now called the Welsh dioceses. Within that area there are 1,083 parishes, 24 of which are in three English dioceses outside the Welsh ecclesiastical boundary. Eleven of those 24 are in Wales, and the remaining 13 are partly in Wales and partly in England. There are special subsidiary provisions for dealing with these cases. The date on which we propose disestablishment should take effect is the 1st of January, 1911. On that date, if the provisions of the Bill are carried into law, all ecclesiastical corporations, whether sole or aggregate, will be dissolved, and all the legal incidents of establishment will come to an end. From that date no bishop of any of those Welsh dioceses will sit in the House of Lords, and the total number of spiritual peers will be reduced from 26 to 22. Of course, from that date, also, the ecclesiastical law in Wales will cease to exist as law, but the law, articles, rules, ordinances, and so forth, of the Church of England will operate in Wales by agreement, subject to any future authorised alterations by the representative body of the English Established Church. Full power is given by the Bill to hold synods and conventions and to form a church representative body, about which I will say a word or two in a moment, for the purposes of dealing with the government, doctrines, and property of the Church when disestablished. There are minor provisions on which I need not dwell for filling vacancies between the passing of the Act and the date of disestablishment, but no new vested interests can be created after the passing of the Act. So much for that which may be said to be the more formal and legal side of the matter.
Now I come to disendowment. Three bodies will be created assuming, as we do

1535
assume, that the Church will constitute a representative body of her own for the purposes of administration. In the first place there will be a temporary body, whose function we propose should only continue to December, 1915, or, if necessary, some short extended period after that called the Welsh Commissioners. They are constituted by the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill, and I will say something about their functions in a moment. Next there is the Council of Wales, and in this respect the Bill itself differs from the Bill of 1895. We propose to constitute a body called the Council of Wales, a central authority consisting of members appointed by the councils of counties and county boroughs, and of any boroughs and urban districts having the required minimum population. So the House will see that the Council of Wales is in the strictest sense a representative body.
Thirdly, there is the Church representative body, which under clause 13 of the Bill the disestablished Church will have the power of creating, and which under the same clause the King may, by charter, incorporate, with power to hold land without licence and mortmain. Those are the three bodies I would ask the House to keep in view when I proceed to describe the manner in which we propose that ecclesiastical property shall be dealt with. First of all—the preliminary step—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty are to ascertain and declare what portion of the property vested in them is or has been derived from property situate Li Wales, and what property, though not vested in them, is situate in Wales, but attached to English benefices. This property is described in the Bill as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The whole of that and all other property which can be described as Welsh Church property is to be vested, in the first place, for the purposes (HE administration, allocation and division in this temporary body, which I have described as the Welsh Commission, subject, of course, to all existing charges and interests.
Now, suppose the vesting in the Welsh Commissioners has taken place. The next step is that the disestablished Church appoints its representative body, and that body is incorporated under the provision which I have just read to the House. Immediately after its incorporation all Church plate, furniture, and movable chattels belonging to the churches will vest in them as the representative body. Then
1536
the Welsh Commissioners are to transfer to the Church representative body the following categories of property, to which I will venture to ask rather close attention. In the first place, the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body four cathedrals, the chapter houses, cloisters, and so forth. In the next place, they will transfer in the same way all churches, chapels-of-ease, and church buildings. The House may, perhaps, know, or would like to be reminded, that there are over 1,500 churches which fall under this category, in the building and erection of which very considerable sums of money voted by Parliament have been spent. Thirdly, the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body all ecclesiastical residences, bishop's palaces, deaneries, and the parsonages. There are no less than 800 parsonage houses in Wales to which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty have contributed for the purpose of erection and so forth considerably over £300,000. Fourthly, there will be included in the transfer all closed burial grounds.
And, lastly—which is, of course, a matter of the highest importance to those interested in the fortunes of the Church—all benefactions which date since 1662. In our previous Bill of 1895 the date was 1703. [An HON MEMBER: "But it was amended."] Yes, that is how it was originally drafted, but I rather think I agreed, in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, to put back the date. At any rate, we have now put it back to 1662. That, Sir, exhausts the categories of property which the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body. In the next place, they will transfer to every existing incumbent during his incumbency, first of all the glebe. There are 38,000 acres of glebe, with an annual rental of £43,500; and next the burial grounds—that is to say, the open burial grounds. They transfer those to the incumbent during the term of his incumbency and no longer, and after the expiration of his incumbency these two categories will be vested in the council of the appropriate boroughs, districts, or parishes, according to their local situation.
Thirdly, the Commissioners will transfer to the county council in the county where the land is situated first the Welsh tithe-rent charge—and when I say land I mean the land out of which the tithe-rent charge arises—subject to the payment of the stipend of the existing incumbent; and next the tithe-rent charge of the Welsh

1537
Church issuing out of land elsewhere than in Wales will be transferred to such county council as the Welsh Commissioners decide. And, lastly, all or any other property vested in the Commissioners will be transferred to the Council of Wales, and all property transferred is to be held subject to all existing public and private rights. Now I come to the application—a very important point—of the property which has passed—I am assuming the process of transfer is complete—out of the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, and which has not passed into the hands of the representative Church body. In the first place the parochial property will be applied according to schemes made by the county council for the purposes specified in the first schedule of the Bill, which I had better read to the House. It is somewhat modified since the Bill of 1895, because some of the purposes which were then provided for have since received other provision at the hands of Parliament. The enumerations is as follows:—"The erection or support of Cottage or other hospitals or dispensaries or convalescent homes, the provision of trained nurses for the sick poor, the provision and maintenance of public, parish, or district halls or institutes and libraries, technical and higher education, and charitable or eleemosynary purposes of public, local, or general utility for which provision is not made by statute out of public funds." But we hate added to that the very useful and novel addition that each scheme is to provide that one-tenth—this is a new form of tithe—is to be paid to the Council of Wales. This one-tenth and all other property in their hands will be expended first in defraying the cost of the Act, and next upon higher education in Wales in accordance with schemes of the Council of Wales to be approved by His Majesty in Council, and laid before both Houses of Parliament. I need not go into the minor provisions of the Bill with regard to compensation beyond saying that full provision is made for compensation being paid to lay patrons and the holders of freehold offices. There is also a provision for exchanging life compensation annuities according to the scale in the schedule. I purposely have not gone into minute details. The Bill will be in the hands of Members very soon, but I think that I have sufficiently indicated the general lines of the scheme.
Assuming what I endeavoured to prove in the earlier part of my remarks—assum-
1538
ing that in point of principle a case is made out for disestablishment and disendowment in Wales—we believe that the procedure which I have now outlined does justice to all existing interests, is generous in the extent of its transference to the new representative body, and provides for the best application of the property that remains in the interests, general and local, of the people of Wales. I am afraid that I shall hardly be believed—I am sure that I shall not be universally believed—when I say that this measure is not, either in its principle or in any of its provisions, inspired by any animosity to the Church of England as a whole or to that part of the Church of England which is organised in the four Welsh dioceses. I said a few moments ago we have witnessed in our lifetime a marvellous transformation in the methods and the attitude of the Church in Wales. Yes, Sir, but where, and in what degree, in this, her latest and best phase, has the Church of England in Wales been most successful? The answer is obvious and undeniable. She has been most successful just where and just in so far as by developing institutions like the Sunday Schools, and by throwing herself upon the voluntary effort and enthusiasm of the people, and when she has descended into the arena without either the advantages or the drawbacks of privilege and endowment, and when she has taken her place side by side with her Nonconformist sisters in a splendid and even rivalry upon a common field.
In our opinion—certainly it is my honest and deliberate opinion—freed from her burden of past traditions and of present encumbrances, she will find that she has gained more than she has lost, and she can appeal as she has never done before to the hearts and the sympathies of the mass of the people of Wales.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
Mr. BRIDGEMAN Mr. BRIDGEMAN moved, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, recognising the embarrassment to which the Government are admittedly exposed in the framing and conduct of the measure owing to the absence of official information on the

1539
questions which have been submitted to the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales, declines to give leave for the introduction of a Bill to disestablish and disendow the Church in Wales until the Report of the Royal Commission has been published and circulated."
In moving the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper I am fully aware that I am taking a somewhat unusual course on the first reading of a measure, but I venture very respectfully to submit to the House that this is a point of enormous importance as affecting the relations between legislation and the findings of a Royal Commission. This is the only stage in the whole course of the Bill at which this point can be raised, and if it is unusual it is not more so than the course which the Government have adopted in bringing forth this Bill before they have had an opportunity of studying the proposals of the Royal Commission. Last year a very similar complaint was made against this Government with regard to the Poor Law Commission, and without waiting for the report of that Commission with regard to old age pensions there was hasty legislation which has resulted in a most colossal miscalculation, and has made it necessary to introduce an amending Bill. The present case against the Government is very much stronger than that. That Commission was not appointed by the present Government, but this Commission is their own Commission, appointed to ascertain facts which they and the House wanted before this matter should be brought up for discussion. They bring in this measure without allowing the House to know the lines on which the Report of the Commission goes, or the evidence collected. That is either a gross waste of the time of the House or a waste of time and expenses of a Royal Commission. This is the reference to the Royal Commission:—
"To inquire into the origin, nature, and amount and application of the temporalities and endowments and other properties of the Church of England in Wales, to examine into the provisions made and the work done in churches of all denominations in Wales and Monmouthshire for the spiritual welfare of the people, and the extent of the provision that has been made."
What the Government has done is to ask the House to allow legislation for the purpose of taking away endowments without giving the House an opportunity of knowing their origin, or as to how they have been applied. On their own confession the Government are taking up on this question a position of the greatest em-
1540
barrassment. I should like to refer the House to a statement made by the late Prime Minister on this subject in answer to a question addressed to him by the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil, whom we are sorry not to see in his place. On 11th July, 1906, the hon. Member put this question to the late Prime Minister:—
"I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any State inquiry, by commission or otherwise, was made into the condition and temporalities of the Established Church in Wales, or into the position of the free churches, prior to the introduction of the Welsh Disestablishment Bills of 1894 and 1895; whether the recent appointment of a Royal Commission bears any relation to the proposed early introduction of a measure to terminate the Established Church in Wales; and, if so, what is the change of circumstance that has necessitated an inquiry? "
Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman made the following reply:—
"No inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise was made into the condition and temporalities of the Established Church in Wales before the introduction of the Bills to which my hon. Friend refers. That omission was, in my opinion, a somewhat unfortunate one, because, owing to the absence of official information on the questions which have now been submitted to a Royal Commission the Government of the day were exposed to a good deal of embarrassment in the framing and conduct of the measure. As I have already more than once intimated we hope to legislate on this subject, and we are anxious to obtain the report of this Commission at an early date as it would be of material assistance."
The present Government have entirely abandoned the position laid down by the late Prime Minister on this question. They have admitted the position of embarrassment in the framing of this Bill and also in the conduct of it, and whilst I can well understand that certain Members, who have made rash promises on political platforms and made rash statements about the Church of England, feel that where ignorance is bliss it is folly to wait for the Report of a Royal Commission, I thought that the Government would be above that sort of thing, and would have followed the course laid down by the late Prime Minister. This is not the time to go into the details of the Bill, but there is one thing which is perfectly clear, and that is that a certain number of people were attracted at the General Election by the prospect of disestablishment in Wales, and a much larger number of people were attracted by the prospect of disendowment of the Church in Wales. With regard to disestablishment, I need not speak at any great length. That was not the subject that came within the purview of the Royal Commission. I thought that the Prime Minister treated the question of disendowment with brevity all through his speech, and that he did not justify the proposals which the

1541
Bill contained. I think we ought to ask now whether the agitation for the disendowment of the Church in Wales has been kept up all this time for political purposes, or has been kept up solely for the advancement of Christianity. Is this Bill supported here in the interests of the party, or is it advocated as a proposal for improving the religious conditions of the people of Wales? If it is merely a question of party policy some of the words used by the Prime Minister in the beginning of his speech prove that party policy is a most important factor in the present situation. He said: "We cannot resist the demand on the ground of policy."
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say "party policy." I said "public policy."
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: But I say "party policy." What I desire to point out is that if this Bill is advanced in the interest of party policy we can understand the reason why the Government should not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman contends, it is introduced in the interest of public policy, surely some better arguments might be used to show how it is going to benefit the cause of religion in Wales. With regard to party policy, I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Rev. R. J. Campbell, in a speech, said that the Free Church Council was nothing more than a party caucus. But if that is not the case (and I believe that some of the hon. Members who are advancing this Bill seriously believe that it will be for the benefit of religion in Wales), then I say that we ought to have some better proof as to how it is to benefit Wales in this way. Although they have disclaimed any animosity against the Church, you have only got to look at the local papers to see that the arguments advanced in favour of disestablishment in Wales have frequently been accompanied by the very greatest animosity against the Church, and very often by the very greatest misstatements on the subject. One of the arguments used, and used by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that the Church of Wales is an "Alien Church," and I think the Prime Minister also said to-day—and here, I think, his history was a little at fault—the Church in Wales has been denationalised. He said "Parliament had not been able to denationalise the people of Wales, but it had denationalised the Church." As a matter of fact, the union between the Church in Wales and that in England took place before the
1542
political union of the two countries, and, therefore, I do not see how he can sustain that argument. As it is the oldest part of the Church in Great Britain, how can it be said, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that it is an "Alien Church" it. In 1870 a similar Bill was introduced by Judge Watkin Williams, and he said "the Church established in Wales is an ancient and venerable Church, and it is not like the Church in Ireland, an alien Church forced upon the people by a conqueror and an oppressor." Though I contend the Church in Wales is very far from being an alien Church, I should like to ask are the Nonconformist bodies so far from being alien bodies? What is the Welsh name for Methodist, Baptist, and Wesleyan from which these words have been translated into the English language? Have they originated in Wales? If so, what are the Welsh names? Perhaps hon. Members will supply me with the Welsh names for the Wesleyans, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, and other Nonconformists. It has been said that the Church is anti-national. Well, I suppose that three of the things which are of the greatest importance to any nation to preserve its nationality are language, history, and literature. I go so far as to say that the thing which has done more than any other to preserve the Welsh language in the Principality has been the action of the Church by the translation of the Bible and the Prayer Book into Welsh—the Prayer Book by Bishop Davies, and the Bible by Bishop Morgan.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: Does the hon. Member not know that Queen Elizabeth had to pass an Act to compel the Bishops to do it?
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite see what difference that makes. What is of importance is that it was of great advantage to Wales. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says he cannot deny that Bishop Morgan did translate the Bible into Welsh and that Bishop Davies did translate the Prayer-Book into Welsh, and they have done more than anything else to preserve the language of the country. Now I turn to the question of history and literature. I suppose Members from Wales will admit that the Eisteddfod has been of the greatest importance to literature, music, and poetry in Wales. I am quite sure the hon. Member sitting opposite (Mr. William Jones) will admit that. Well, Bishop Burgess, another Welsh bishop, was the principal person

1543
who started again and gave a fresh impetus to the Eisteddfod, which up to then had been declining. He put new life and vigour into the national Eisteddfod. Of course, if by an anti-national Church is meant a Church which by its union with the Church of this country stands in the way of Home Rule for Wales, or separation in another form, then I submit that it would be equally just to pass a Bill for separating the Nonconformist communities in Wales from those in England, and preventing them from acting together in (he same way as the Church in England and the Church in Wales act together. But supposing that argument is held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I say that it is another argument which leaves the religious question entirely on on side. Then we are told that this Bill is to promote religious equality. How is this equality shown when a title of 25 years is enough to establish the right of dissenters in a chapel to the endowments of their chapel and anything used for 250 years—anything over 250 years—is to be disallowed as property of the Church. Where is religious equality in that? Chapels are established by Parliament in that right to enjoy property which they have used 25 years and, although the qualification of 25 years is enough for them, you here say that 250 years is not enough qualification to pro-protect the property of the various Churches in Wales. I know there are some people who say that this disendowment is going to revive and to stimulate the work and energy of the Church—is going to prove a great stimulus to further voluntary contributions, and a great inducement to people to find still more money for Church purposes. Very well, if that is so, the argument is equally good for dissenting bodies. How are you to explain the extraordinary self-denial by which they have denied themselves this stimulus in the Bill? Where is religious equality in that? Surely if it is necessary to take away endowments in the Church of England in order to stimulate energy, in is necessary to take away endowments in other religious bodies? We have had a few words about the analogy of the Irish Church. Mr. Gladstone, speaking of these two cases in 1873 in this House, said the cases of Wales and Ireland were distinguished widely on every point without exception on which they could be brought into comparison. What has occurred since then to make the comparison any closer? Mr. Gladstone, in a famous speech, spoke
1544
of the Church in Ireland as one of the branches of the great Upas tree which poisoned Ireland, and he said if it was lopped off—that and the other two branches, the question of education and land tenure—then Ireland would be restored to a state of contentment. Has that been the case? Is it the fact that the animosity which previously existed between the early Protestants and Catholics in Ireland has modified or disappeared, or has it in any way added to the contentment of the people in Ireland? I think that is a very questionable point. One of the arguments used—not by the right hon. Gentleman, because he has had the advantage of reading a carefully-prepared summary of the report of the Royal Commission, which we have not been able to pick up except by occasionally reading accounts in the newspapers—is that the work of the Church in Wales is declining. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the great evidence shown by the Welsh Members being unanimous in favour of this proposal and by the Welsh people being unanimous—which was quite untrue. The Welsh people cannot be unanimous—
The PRIME MINISTER: Who said they were unanimous? I said that they were in favour of it in enormous and preponderating numbers.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I certainly took down the words I have used. But I say that if the people are strongly and preponderatingly in favour of it, it is because arguments have been used before them, which the right hon. Gentleman does not use, about a dwindling Church. I have here a quotation from a speech by the Rev. Evans Jones, President of the Swansea Free Church Council, in which he said:—
"The State upheld and tolerated the privileges and the emoluments of the Church a dwindling minority—while Free Churchmen, the bone and sinew of the-country, were tolerated as undesirables."
I was not going to deny that the Free Churches possess bone and sinew; but the Rev. Evans Jones said the Free Churchmen were tolerated as undesirables, while the State upheld and tolerated the privileges and the emoluments of the Church, a dwindling minority.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: Has the hon. Member read the other portions of the speech?
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. I am sure the House will be ready to hear the hon. Member when he speaks in reply.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, I have read the other part of the speech, and I cannot reconcile the two. He gave figures in which he said that the total number of churchmen in Wales only amounted to 155,000, while the Prime Minister has quoted partly from some figures which he possessed and partly from the Bishop of St. David's, and partly from the evidence he had got from the Commission—
The PRIME MINISTER: The information is open to the public.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He did not give the authority for most of his quotations, but at any rate his facts entirely contradict what the Rev. Evans Jones said at Swansea, and he must bear in mind that, although he has these right figures, there are people in Wales going about giving wrong figures and wrong impressions all the time, and creating this feeling, which he thinks he is bound to listen to, on this question. Why is it that the people of Wales have steadily refused a religious census, which we have always asked for? Why is it that we are not allowed now to have the Report of the Commission, from which we can draw our own conclusions, not only with regard to the numbers and attendances, and so on, in the Church of England, but in the chapels and elsewhere? It is really asking us to swallow a great deal to tell us that the evidence of the Commission is open to us or that it is easily accessible. We may have picked up a little from the newspapers, but it has never been put before us in a form in which we could possibly follow it, or follow the arguments now advanced with regard to those figures. I do not think that they were sufficiently made clear by the Prime Minister, or that the extraordinary progress which the Church of England in Wales has made during the last few years, was made clear. Confirmations have increased in Wales in 30 years by 56 per cent., and communicants in the diocese of St. David's, of which I happen to possess the figures, have more than doubled in the 25 years from 1880 to 1905, having increased from 30,129 to 63,731. The Sunday school scholars also have increased by 19,000. At the same time, it is said that the progress has only been made in the towns, and that in the country districts the Church is falling further and further behind. Here are some figures which I think will show that in the rural parts that is not so. In the diocese of St. David's the population decreased by 31,540 between 1881 and
1546
1901, while in those very parishes where the population had decreased by this 31,000 the number of communicants increased by 10,781. That does not show that the Church is falling behind in the rural districts. Now with regard to the clergy. In 1831 there were 726 resident clergy, with 369 parsonages, holding 1,346 Sunday services in 1,090 churches. To-day there are 1,543 clergy, more than double, 820 parsonages, more than double, holding regular Sunday services in 1,869 churches and mission rooms. Moreover, in St. Asaph diocese alone, 12,193 people were confirmed from 1860 to 1869, while from 1899 to 1906, a period of only seven years, 39,775 people were confirmed, more than three times the number in a decade 40 years ago. That, of course, shows very plainly that the Church in Wales is making enormous progress at the present moment.
Mr. Gladstone said in 1891:—
"Undoubtedly the Established Church in Wales is an advancing Church, an active Church, a living Church, and I hope very distinctly a rising Church from elevation to elevation."
and nothing has occurred since which has not emphasised and increased the truth of Mr. Gladstone's remarks. I also hope that it will be remembered, that on the occasion 14 years ago, when this Bill was under the consideration of this House, Mr. Gladstone withdrew his pair in favour of the Bill, and, therefore, we may conclude, entertained the same opinions then that he had for so many years entertained of the undesirability of disestablishing the Church in Wales. But the Prime Minister said in his speech, after referring to the bad state of the Church in Wales centuries ago, that it was too late now. Those were his words. Too late now for them to make this progress He said that they made progress now, but that it was too late. Why is it too late? Can the Prime Minister say what is the reason why it is too late, for the Church having made this progress now, to save itself from the act of spoliation proposed by this Bill? Why is it too late? It is only too late, because the Church is showing such activity, that those who are hostile to her, are determined to seize the first opportunity they can, for fear that they should never have another opportunity, of crippling the Church in the work in which she is engaged. There can be no religious reason why it is too late. There can only be a political reason, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to give anything but a political and a party reason for saying.

1547
that it is too late. I know that a great many more arguments have been used in favour of this proposal, but none of them more important than those to which I have referred, and I cannot see in any one of them any justification for the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If the Report of the Royal Commission is going to produce some further facts which we do not know of in favour of the disestablishment and disendowment especially of the Church in Wales, then, of course, we should always be prepared, whatever those new facts and new arguments might be, to examine them; but unless the Royal Commission does produce in its Report or in the evidence before it some better arguments than those which have been advanced, and certainly better and truer arguments than those which have been used to the people of Wales, then, I say, it is monstrous to introduce such a measure as this into this House without waiting for the Report and evidence of the Royal Commission.
I know it will be said that I am not a Welshman. That is a matter which, no doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite will congratulate themselves upon and condole with me, but my Constituency is very seriously affected by this Bill. The Prime Minister did not tell me what would happen to Oswestry, the principal town of my Constituency, which is in a Welsh diocese, as well as to ten or twelve other parishes, which are of considerable importance there. We are, I suppose, to be made to join some other diocese, which has already got more than it can do in the way of work. I live near enough to the borders of Wales, I think, to have a very fair perspective of what is going on there, and to hear a good deal from various sides of Welsh politics, both with regard to this and other matters, and therefore I think I have some right to speak on this matter and to claim some knowledge of the way in which this political agitation, as I consider it, has been fostered and brought forward. I say to begin with that the seed has been sown in ignorance among people who did not know the real facts, and has been watered by mis-statements with regard to the Church and its work. It has been ripened by the very unnatural heat and violence of language used on the platform, and if the harvest is ever reaped it will be a disastrous harvest for religious life in Wales, and will do so much to impoverish the soil of religion in Wales as to make it unable to be
1548
productive for many years to come, and I do venture to ask Members of this House to consider this Bill from the point of view of religion and not from the point of view of party politics. I say that this question of religion in Wales, or in any other great and important part of these islands, is one of far more importance than the existence of any political party, and one which ought to be considered as a national question and considered on national lines. I know that hon. Members opposite have persuaded themselves, many of them, that they are doing some benefit to religion in Wales, but have they contemplated what the loss of these endowments will mean to the Church in Wales, have they taken into consideration the fact that the bad state of the Church in Wales, to which the Prime Minister referred, in previous years, was largely due to the poverty of the Church? It is perfectly simple, and possible to prove that, if the House wishes to be detained by the attempt to do so. But it is well known that the livings were miserable in those days. Six pounds a year was a common value for a living in Wales, and, of course, that meant that several livings had to be held together, and that one person had to do a great deal more work than he could do properly.
That difficulty has to a large extent been overcome, and now you want to plunge the Church back into the state of poverty in which it existed and to plunge it back into all those evils which come with poverty. It will be impossible, if these endowments are taken away to maintain the number of clergy which are maintained now and the people of Wales will not have the right to claim the ministrations of a resident clergyman in times of sorrow, trouble, or distress. In many parishes, hundreds of sick people will have to go without the services of a clergyman. The dissenting bodies are unable to fill the gaps of resident clergyman. We all know that. [Ironical cheers.] They have not got them. It is no use interrupting in that kind of way, it is absurd to say that they have. Everyone knows who is in this House that there are not enough resident dissenting Ministers in every parish in Wales. That is an elementary truth, and they cannot fill the vacancies which will be created by this Bill, and I say that hundreds of sick people will have to die without the services and the ministrations of the resident clergyman—hundreds of people will die without being able to get the comfort of religious ministrations. I do, therefore, beg Members of this House

1549
to look at the religious side of this question, and to remember that the cause of religion can best be built up by working together in the purity of love, and by promoting a constructive and not a destructive policy. I ask them to pause for one moment before they inflict upon the country of Wales the curse of sacrilege, for I consider it nothing else, and a stain which, in my opinion, it will take years and years to blot out in the history of the Welsh people. I said just now I could not speak as a Welshman, but I speak with some knowledge of the subject, and I say emphatically that I represent scores of thousands of the Church people in Wales, and I represent thousands of the most religious and most conscientious Nonconformists in Wales, who view with alarm this increasing association of their leaders with political caucuses, and who realise that the best course they can pursue, and the course they wish to pursue, is one of united action with the Church. Many Nonconformists loathe this attack upon the Church endowments, and for those I speak, who, with the Church people, wish to go forward in Wales side by side in the cause of a common Christianity.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: The time at our disposal for this discussion is short, some of us think unduly short, and I propose to follow the admirable example of the Prime Minister and to bring my observations within sufficiently reasonable compass to enable other Members to take part in the Debate afterwards. In order to do that it is not necessary that I should attempt a general examination of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed, but confine myself to a few points which particularly struck my attention in the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman presented. First of all I regret very much what I cannot but think was the wholly inadequate treatment that he gave to the complaint that the Bill had been introduced without waiting for the Report of the Commission. I feel myself some special grievance about that, because a month or six weeks ago I put down a question to the Prime Minister as to whether the Report of the Commission would be in the hands of Members before the Bill was introduced. The answer was perfectly explicit, and was given by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Report was expected very shortly, and would be available before the Bill was discussed. A moment's reflection must show that the Government is face to face with a very difficult dilemma.
1550
Either the consumption of valuable time, including the time of the Solicitor-General, and the expenditure of money has been necessary or unnecessary. If it was unnecessary many persons have been encouraged to spend time over a futile purpose. If it was necessary in order to guide the Government to a decision and to assist the House usefully to criticise that decision when arrived at, it ought to have been in the hands of Members when the Bill was introduced. Could there be a more unsatisfactory performance than that the Prime Minister should quote one set of figures, which are no doubt given him in perfect good faith, but which may or may not be reliable, and that my hon. Friend here should quote other figures inconsistent with them, and we are unable to point to any authority which will be recognised by all sections of the House, and say these are the real figures established after we have spent more than two years in having these very facts determined by an impartial tribunal. Nothing could be more futile than to make the answer that one can read in the newspapers from day to day the proceedings of such a Committee. That observation can be met by the simple criticism, "If it is well founded, why have a Report at all?" All that has appeared in the daily Press is that a certain witness made a certain statement, and you would not have the only real advantage of appointing the Commission, which is to know what view the men whose characters and attainments justified their appointment have formed, after observing the demeanour of the witnesses as to the value of what they have established in their evidence.
Many reasons make it desirable that the Commission should have reported before the House proceeded with the discussion. Selecting from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that one of his arguments which seemed to be the strongest—that again was a point on which the Report would have assisted us—that part of his speech which seemed to me to produce the greatest impression, was that in which he dealt with the alleged zeal and enthusiasm and unanimity of the Welsh Members in favour of disestablishment. As far as I gathered his view, it was that they were possessed to-day, as they had been for many years, of a unanimous and unquenchable determination that Wales shall enjoy the blessings of Welsh disestablishment at the earliest possible date. I am so fortunate as to have been able to test the accuracy of that claim in the light of an

1551
authority which the House will readily recognise. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs was lately interviewed by, I think, the "South Wales Gazette" on this very point, and he made a reply to the reporter which throws no small light upon the somewhat extravagant claim which I think he has put forward. This is what he said about the enthusiasm and unanimity of his compatriots. The reporter asked him:—
"Are you confident that the Welsh party will do their duty?"
"Spontaneously, no. But when the Welsh Constituencies in the course of a few weeks have been quickened into an acute appreciation of the real position, then I believe every Welsh Member will be glad to fall into line and do his duty."
"But why do you not think they will do their duty?"
"That is rather a delicate question, but I should be lacking in moral courage if I did not frankly face it in a moment of supreme crisis in our national history. Undoubtedly the Disestablishment Bill is going to cause considerable inconvenience, if not serious difficulty, at certain stages to the present Liberal Government. Now, look at the Members of the Welsh party. Apart from the Labour Members, most of them have been the recipients of the spoils of victory. Political gifts inevitably produce political nepotism, which under normal conditions may be innocent and venial, but which are serious in a great crisis."
He proceeded to point out that the only chance of his colleagues doing their duty in this House and pressing forward the claims of this Bill, on behalf of which, according to the Prime Minister, they are consumed with so holy a zeal, and inducing them really to press it forward, is that their constituencies will compel them seriously to take notice of the urgency of the crisis. Then he proceeded to discuss with a good deal of knowledge the position of the actual members of the Government who represent Welsh constituencies—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Solicitor-General—and he referred to them as—
"ambassadors sent by Wales into the secret councils of the Empire. There they remain as ambassadors to serve the Welsh nation. It is for the remainder of the party at this moment to strengthen their hands. They will be face to face with a good deal of indifference and lukewarmness on the part of their Ministerial colleagues."
I do not know whether that is the Prime Minister or not.
"If you palter with this question, you run the risk of Wales ceasing in her entirety to be a reliable support to the Liberal party."
We are indeed face to face with grave considerations, but there is one other argument certainly well worth the attention of the House, and that is, when he pointed out an arrangement of a somewhat singular character which apparently the Welsh party have made with the Irish party—an
1552
arrangement the character of which, I think, will be appreciated by the House as a whole:—
"I purposely omitted Ireland for a special reason. A few months ago Mr. John Redmond came to speak at Wrexham, and in response to some criticisms which I passed upon the attitude of the Irish party on education and in reference to future support of Home Rule by Welsh Nonconformists, he gave us a public pledge that the Irish party should march shoulder to shoulder with the Welsh party on behalf of disestablishment and disendowment."
The hon. Gentleman observes with simplicity and enthusiasm that that is true. I was quoting it as being true, and was courteously accepting it as being true. But what kind of argument does that give you on principle why the House as a whole is to support Welsh Disestablishment? Because the Welsh party have made a bargain with the Irish party, which does not even depend on the abstract merits of Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment—because they have made an arrangement for mutual logrolling, therefore the House is to pass Welsh Disestablishment. I make no comment upon the result of that bargain except to say that although I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway are prepared to carry out their part of the bargain so far as Home Rule is concerned, I condole with them on the extraordinary failure of their colleagues below the Gangway on this side, as far as this Debate is concerned, to give them their countenance, which was their part of the bargain.
I could not help observing that there was a general tendency in the House to think it was really not necessary to treat this Bill seriously, and I do not ever remember hearing the right hon. Gentleman, who is a master of lucid exposition, introduce a first-class measure with more lukewarmness and lack of enthusiasm. The explanation which has been given of that is that it is notorious that this Bill is not intended to pass through all its stages in the House of Commons or to be sent to the House of Lords. I must warn my hon. Friends that any sanguine anticipation which they might base upon that expectation really rests upon an unsound foundation. In May, 1907, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was consulted by a correspondent in Wales, who was very indignant indeed at the continuous postponement of Welsh Disestablishment, as to what the intentions of the Government were, and this is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote:—
"Ton ask me whether, if this Parliament runs its normal course, it is the intention of the Government to pass a measure for the disestablishment and dig-

1553
endowment of the Church in Wales through all its stages in the House of Commons. To this I can give an unqualified answer in the affirmative. I have just Been the Prime Minister [that is the late Prime Minister] and he sanctions the above as an accurate interpretation of his views and intentions."
The House is face to face with the fact that this Bill is going through all its stages in the House of Commons. I hope the hon. Gentleman who cheered that statement will help me to distinguish between that process of ploughing the sands and the precisely similar stage which took place when a Liberal Government had lost the confidence of the country some few years ago in identical circumstances I am not going to discuss the abstract principle of disestablishment at all. I pause for a moment to dissent most warmly from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that everyone in Ireland is now agreed that the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a great success. I was only reading two days ago the criticisms on the result of disestablishment in Ireland which were made by the Archbishops and the Bishops of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and with one single exception they all unanimously expressed their conviction that the result of disestablishment had been profoundly injurious to the work and to the activity of the Church in Ireland.
I will give the House one illustration. It is a point which was raised in the observations of my hon. Friend. In the old days before the Church in Ireland was disestablished it was practicable to have one clergyman in every small parish. One result of disestablishment which followed all over Ireland has been necessarily the amalgamation of parishes. The result is that you have a large number of parishes now amalgamated, and quite inadequately served by a single curate, whereas before the days of disestablishment there was a curate or a clergyman in almost every parish. That is a consequence which is quite certain to happen in Wales if you disestablish the Welsh Church. I would ask the plain question, whether it is not endowment by universal consent which interests the people of Wales? If this Bill were put forward as one for disestablishment without disendowment you would not have one really strenuous supporter on these Benches. You would not have the support of hon. Members from Wales if it was divorced from the disendowment question. I do not wish to use any provocative language, and I put it moderately when I say that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that a consider-
1554
able majority at present in Wales support disestablishment. The explanation of that is to be found in the constant and consistent appeal which has been made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to the lowest motives of cupidity in the Welsh people. [Cries of "No, no."] That statement is challenged, but I will justify it. Not merely have statements been made by responsible persons, who are not Members of this House, but arguments of that kind have been addressed to the Welsh people even by Members of this House. Let me take a speech which was addressed to Welshmen in London by the hon. and learned Member for Anglesey. The hon. and learned Member said:—
"This Bill will mean bread and butter to the estimated value of £10,000 a year to the people of Anglesey alone."
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHS: The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us the paper from which he quoted, but from whatever paper he is quoting I wish to state that it is absolutely wrong. I was arguing the question of disestablishment from the point of view of principle, and thereupon an irresponsible person in the audience said:—
"Never mind about principle. Is there any bread and butter in it?"
Thereupon, I sought to justify it not only from the point of view of principle but from the material standpoint. I said it was the restoration to the Welsh people of a national inheritance, which had been for centuries used exclusively for the benefit of one sect.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: The distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman does not deal with the essential part of the quotation. I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman at once the paper I am quoting from. I am quoting from "The Churchman."
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: May I say that there was no reporter from "The Churchman" present at the meeting. It was probably taken from the "Western Mail," a Tory Church organ in South Wales.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: It is not worth while discussing the source of the quotation when I accept the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given. I did not gather that he denies that he said that the Bill will mean bread and butter to the estimated value of £10,000 a year to the people of Anglesey alone.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do dispute it, and I contradict it.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I quite accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, but he further said—and perhaps he will deny the accuracy of the report in the same way—
"If the funds arising from disendowment of the Church of England in Anglesey went to supplement old age pensions for the county the pensionable age in Anglesey could be reduced from 70 to 65 or even 60."
The paper is not likely to have invented that statement.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: No, I think that is probably accurate.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Of all the novel arguments which I have heard put forward for a cause which has certainly been presented on even loftier grounds in this House, I think that put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman deserves a high place. If these things are said about disestablishment and disendowment by a person so deserving of respect, and of the responsibility of the hon. and learned Gentleman, what is being said in Wales by persons who are not so responsible for the gravity of their utterances as members of this House? The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that when the disestablishment of the Church takes place the endowments will increase old age pensions.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is, perhaps, hardly worth while discussing this matter further, but what I said was that part of this fund originally belonged to the poor, that the Church had taken away what belonged to the people, and that it was only just that the Church should restore to the people again what originally belonged to them.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: He was arguing a highly controversial case, and stated that Wales would get old age pensions at a cheaper rate if they got disendowment. It is, therefore, not unfair to say that the hon. and learned gentleman supported his case by the bread-and-butter argument. The hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs, aiming at a more attractive metaphor, with perhaps a greater knowledge of his fellow countrymen, said, "The cup is being dashed from our lips when our lips are being held out to drink from it."
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I am really afraid that is not a correct quotation.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the cup is not being dashed from their
1556
lips? I do not think that he denies having used that expression. I do not speak in this House as a convinced adherent of the Church of England. I speak as one who was brought up a Nonconformist, and I state what strikes me in regard to this proposal to disendow the Church in Wales. I tell the House that I cannot distinguish this from any other act of common peculation so far as the right to take away property is concerned. My hon. Friend raised the point in regard to the period within which endowments are to be treated as sacred. Why has that limit been introduced? Is it to secure the Nonconformist churches in the possession of their endowments? The law relating to property will protect the owner to the possession of it if it has been enjoyed for a certain period. In dealing with Nonconformist property long enjoyment is protected by the Bill, but very long enjoyment of property by the Established Church is not to protect its property. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that these endowments originally belonged to the Welsh people, and that they ought to be restored. A more astonishing misrepresentation than that was never presented to any audience of enthusiastic Welshmen in London. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will condescend to tell us what part of the possessions of the Church the Welsh people once enjoyed. The only suggestion that I have ever heard made was that there was such a breach of continuity in the corporate existence of the Church at the time of the Reformation as to make it right to take the property with which the Church was endowed before the Reformation. That is an argument which has been explicitly, and I venture to say with complete historical accuracy, repudiated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in 1905:—
"I am not one of those who think, as used to be currently assumed, that the legislation of Henry VIII. transferred the endowments of a national establishment from the Church of Rome to the Church of England. There has been. amid all these changes, a substantial identity and continuity of existence in our national church from earliest history to the present time."
If that is so we must look elsewhere for the justification for taking away the property which the Church has enjoyed for so many centuries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Liverpool, said:—
"Does anyone imagine that the Welsh Nonconformist peasantry will go on paying a one-tenth part of the produce of their own toil towards maintaining an ecclesiastical institution which they would repudiate?"
Until the present Government came into power it was not usual for Cabinet Minis-

1557
ters to go about the country advocating a tithe war, and the precedent set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one which I do not think anyone will approve. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted any lawyer in the Liberal party he would have found how little foundation there was for this statement. Lord Selborne has pointed out that: "It is quite certain tithes were never the property of or payable to the State." Sir William Harcourt said in the debate on the last Bill:—
"It is a fallacy to say that tithe is a tax upon land. Everyone who prebased land chargeable with tithe paid so much less for it than he would pay for it if it was tithe free."
Let me give one or two instances:—Bettws Ivan, Cardiganshire, farmer—Two pounds a month towards maintaining Methodist Chapel; Llanwrda, a farm, pays £5 a year towards Taber Chapel; Miss Griffith, Pen-cnycan Farm, in Cardiganshire, pays £1 every week towards Methodist Chapel Capel y Drindod. Are these persons the victims of plunder or not, and if they are not so to-day, when will they become BO? I suppose the suggestion will be made that it will be possible, without injury to rights which ought to be protected by the House, to carry out the disendowment of the Church.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: What are the dates of these cases?
Mr. F. E. SMITH: They are all modern. They are to protect Nonconformist endowments by Act of Parliament on the ground that they have been possessed for 25 years. When it is pointed out that the church tithes have been enjoyed from time immemorial, and that the Nonconformists now enjoy tithes which with time will themselves possess the strict sacredness of the lapse of time, they reply, "these tithes are modern in their character." But I suppose that when they become old they will not be prepared to give them up. The case of glebe lands is even stronger. That is the case of property given by persons who were entitled to dispose of their property for sacred purposes, to make it possible for a vicar or rector to attend to his duties and live in a parish. What right have you to interfere with them? The only case made is that they have enjoyed them for a long time. Can anyone suggest any other ground or principle? Does not everyone in this House know that if hon. Gentlemen were strong enough they would do what they wish to do and intend to do—deal not only with the Church in
1558
Wales, but also with the Church in England. As Mr. Gladstone pointed out:—
"as regards the identity of these Churches, the whole system of known law, usage and history has made them completely one. I think, therefore, it is practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from that of England."
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: What is the date?
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I think it was 1895—it was in the last Debate. I have got it from a book on the subject of disestablishment. Does the Solicitor-General suggest that Mr. Gladstone changed his views that the case of the Church in England and Wales is one, and that you cannot separate the one from the other? The policy which is now being commenced is one which I venture to say will have this deplorable result—in an age of growing indifference you are attacking one of the few surviving sources of national idealism both in England and Wales. You are deliberately weakening morality. You are divorcing the State from that constant and high standard of conduct which everyone will admit springs from association with a Christian creed, and you are relaxing the standard of public integrity in dealing with sacred endowments. A more dangerous precedent than that I could not imagine. As far as we are concerned with the challenge given us in Wales and in England we will accept that challenge. The sooner the line of battle is deployed over the whole line the better pleased we shall be. Hon. Gentlemen have raised an issue in which compromise is quite impossible, and it will be most bitterly contested both here and in the country by the hon. Gentlemen among whom I sit. I cannot reply better to the whole case that has been made than in the remarkable language of the great Archbishop Benson. In the year 1891 he went to the Church Congress at Rhyl to encourage the Churchmen in Wales, and be said:—
"But you who are our eldest selves, the founders of our episcopacy, the primeval British dioceses, I come from the steps of the chair of Augustine, your younger ally, to tell you that by the Benediction of God we will not quietly see you disinherited."
Sir ALFRED THOMAS: Allusion has been made to the continuation of the Welsh language as an argument in support of the establishment in Wales. No argument could be more unfortunate. If the continuance of the Welsh language was left to the Church of England, there would not be a man to-day talking Welsh. I am very glad to find that Gentlemen on the other side are thinking of what Mr. Gladstone said. You will find him very

1559
often resurrected lately. But Mr. Gladstone, in 1894, speaking with regard to Welsh Disestablishment, in his latest utterance, said:—
"I do not say that the case of the Church in Wales is a repetition of the case of the Church in Ireland, but I say it is a repetition of the case of the Church of Ireland in two vital and determining points, into which, apart from the general abstract principle of Establishment, it is not necessary for me to enter at this time. In two vital and determining points I cannot deny that the case of the Welsh Church corresponds with the Church of Ireland. In the first place it is the Church of the few against the Church of the many (cheers); in the second place it is the Church of the rich against the Church of the comparatively poor. Those broad features are so stamped upon the case that, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny them. In that state of facts have the Welsh people given their judgment upon the question? I cannot deny that, upon the whole, not in a very rigid sense, but still in a somewhat substantial sense, it remains a proposition coining not very far from the truth to say that the Nonconformists of Wales are the people of Wales—undoubtedly the bulk of the people of Wales."
The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said that there was a desire to take away private donations. I do not think there can be a man of any degree of honesty who would wish to rob the Church or anybody else of anything given by persons. But the tithes have been enjoyed by a portion of the Church—the Church of England—for many centuries past, and not by the nation. We say that the tithes are the property of the nation, and should be used for national purposes, and I trust not for any purposes that could be met by the rates. However, that is not a matter to go into now. But coming to the matter more immediately before us now, I want on behalf of my colleagues to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing his measure for the establishment of religious equality in Wales. Without going into ancient history this has been the test question in Welsh politics for the past 40 years. The first question put to an aspiring Liberal candidate is: What is his position with regard to the liberation of religion from State control? To the Welsh Nonconformist this is not a political question. It is essentially religious, and is the logical outcome of his Church polity. That was the opinion held by him in the day of oppression, when not a single voice was raised on his behalf in the House of Commons. That is his opinion to-day, when every Welsh constituency has returned a Member pledged to disestablishment.
We are often told by members of the Established Church: "You do not now suffer for conscience sake." We are charitable enough to grant them sincerity,
1560
but no one outside of the pale of the establishment will for one moment assent to such an assertion. True the persecution and oppression endured so long in our country is gone, and I believe gone for ever, and I may ask whom have we to thank for that immunity? But to say that in rural districts throughout the Principality Nonconformists are equally treated with members of the Church of England is to say something that is unfounded in fact. Much the same in lesser degree may be said of the urban and industrial communities in Wales. What the Dissenters of Wales have endured in order to uphold and maintain their principles, furnishes a page of history such as, I believe, was never surpassed for wanton oppression in any country in the world. The result of the persecution is that to-day we are practically a nation of Nonconformists. For a long time we have been tolerated to con-, duct our religious observances as dictated by our religious convictions. That is very kind, of course. But what does that mean? It means there are two parties—the party of the superior persons and the others. Well, that kind of thing may have done before the reign of majorities—but to-day it is obviously out of date, and especially in a country where every member of Parliament is a living protest against such a badge of inferiority.
Parliament has another opportunity of dealing with this question, and I believe this House will meet the demand in the generous spirit it deserves, and pass the measure through all its stages in the present Session. The Welsh people have been very patient, but there is abundant evidence that their patience is fast approaching vanishing point. Especially is this the case with the younger generation. An Established Church in a country like Wales is such an anomaly that no legislature, having any regard for representative government, could for one moment withhold from its people the redress indicated in the measure introduced by the Prime Minister. It must be remembered that dissenters are not alone in demanding disestablishment. A substantial number of both lay and clerical members of the Church of England are anxious to free their Church from State control, and who desire the same freedom to govern and conduct their Church affairs as is enjoyed by their Nonconformist brethren.
Many others who to-day are bitterly opposed to the striking off State fetters will be prepared to say in after-time much the

1561
same as was said to me some 20 or more years ago by a member of the disestablished Church of Ireland. At that time I was a member of a Select Committee on Tithes. Among the witnesses called before the Committee was a leading Irish land agent, Mr. Hussy, who when at home was under police protection. I took the opportunity after the Committee adjourned to question him as to the effect of disestablishment in the Irish Church. I asked him, "Has disestablishment been a blessing or otherwise to the Church of Ireland?" He replied, "It has been a blessing. First," he said, "it drove out the drones. In the second place, disestablishment made it 'our' Church, and inspired us to make sacrifices in its support. And now we laymen have a word to say in its management." Then, warming up to the subject, he said:—
"There was not a man in all Ireland who fought more bitterly than I did against disestablishment, but if I were offered its renewal to-morrow, I would fight as hard against that as I did against disestablishment."
I believe that disestablishment would be a blessing to the Welsh Church, and I will give my ground for such a conclusion. We have been told that the Church of England has advanced her position in the immediate past. That I gladly acknowledge, and am only sorry that the increase in her communicants has not been greater. The awakening in the Established Church is most marked, and we know at what period it began. It began when the Church was threatened with disestablishment. Now, if the threat could work such a marvellous change, what a blessing would be disestablishment! It is a remarkable fact that where the Church has been most successful is in those places where she has copied the methods of Nonconformists, where she has trusted entirely to voluntary contributions, and members of those congregations are drawn from the same classes as members of dissenting chapels. Perhaps that is the reason why they view the proposed disestablishment with so much equanimity. It is only the landlords and their friends who fear disendowment, and them I commend to Providence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
May I briefly summarise what Wales owes to Nonconformists? To them we owe the revival of religion in our land at a time when the established ministry was a scandal to Christianity. It has been brought out before the Royal Commission that they have provided sitting accommodation in places of worship for 15 out of 18 of the inhabitants, three years old and
1562
upwards. Nine-tenths of our literature, religious and secular, is the work of Nonconformists. And to them we are indebted for the initiation of higher and secondary education in the Principality. Such are the people who make this demand at the hands of the Legislature. And why do we make this demand? Because the establishment divides our country into-two hostile camps, and we wish to remove the wall of partition which now divides us, so that all who minister in holy things may unite in uplifting fallen humanity.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member for East Glamorganshire concluded his very interesting observations by an eulogy of Welsh Nonconformists. I am not at all concerned to dispute the admirable work which has been done by Nonconformists in Wales; I do not dispute it any more than I understand it is disputed that the Church of England in Wales also has done admirable work. But when the hon. Member goes on to say that the religious bodies are still in a position of religious inequality, and implies, as I think he did, that there was some superiority in the position of the Church of England in Wales, I find it difficult to follow him. The only series of public events which has recently come to our knowledge is the relative treatment of Church teachers and Church schools and the schools and teachers favoured by Nonconformists in Wales, and in that matter the position has been one of oppression by the Nonconformists of the members of the Church of England. The hon. Member also spoke of a badge of inferiority. I know of no such badge. ["Oh."] The hon. Member for East Glamorgan may, but I really do not know what he is referring to when he talks about the badge of inferiority on Nonconformists. I know of no such badge in England—["Oh"]—and I really do not know in the least what is meant by a badge of inferiority imposed upon Nonconformity by the establishment or endowment of the Church. I listened to the Prime Minister and the hon. Member opposite to hear what is the case really supposed to be made for this Bill, and I say with perfect truth that I have never in my life listened to a more inconclusive set of arguments than that presented by the right hon. Gentleman and his follower. The Prime Minister did indeed refer to the Irish precedent. I do not propose to go into that. It appears to me that the position which prevailed in Ireland

1563
before the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church was so different from the conditions which prevail in Wales that really nothing whatever can be drawn from the precedent. Indeed, I adhere to what at any rate was the earlier opinion of Mr. Gladstone, that the two Churches were so absolutely different in every respect that it was utterly absurd to argue from the Irish Church to the Church of England in Wales. Beyond that, what did the speech of the Prime Minister amount to? There was a long historical account, not at all tedious but very interesting, of the Welsh Church and Welsh Nonconformity, in which he explained how very badly the Anglican Church had behaved in Wales, and how the result has been the growth of Nonconformity. We all admit that; no one who has read history denies it for a moment. But what possible bearing has it on this Bill? What is the argument sought to be drawn from that historical survey? I am utterly at a loss to know what is sought to be proved thereby. If the Prime Minister had gone on to say that the Church of England now fails to discharge its duty I should have understood what he meant; but, on the contrary, he paid a perfectly just but not too warm tribute to the admirable work which is being done by the Church of England in Wales in the present day. Therefore, I do not understand what that historical survey meant. The right hon. Gentleman was followed by the hon. Member for East Glamorgan, who also made reference to history, and to the great sufferings which Nonconformity endured in past years. But surely he does not regard that as a ground for promoting a Bill which we think is a measure of hostility to the Church of England, but which we are constantly told is going to confer great benefits upon the Church in Wales. What bearing all this historical matter has upon the question we have to consider to-day I fail altogether to follow.
What are the other ordinary arguments used in favour of this Bill? We are told a great deal about the national demand. I have considerable distrust of that phrase "national demand." It is impossible to tell under our existing constitution what the electors really desire. ["Oh."] The hon. Member for East Glamorgan may have special private information on the subject, but under our existing constitution it is impossible for an ordinary Mem-
1564
ber of Parliament to tell what the electors desire by the votes which they give at any election. The votes are not given or. any one question; they are given on dozens of questions. For instance, at the last election, I do not know how many questions were supposed to be decided finally by the verdict of the electors. I do not attach so much importance as hon. Members opposite do to the question of the national demand. But even admitting it all, we have this to consider. The proposal in this Bill is to make an attack on the political position of the Church of England in Wales, and to deprive it of a large part of its property. It is not enough to tell me that the majority of those who live in Wales wish to do that. That does not appear to me to be relevant. What you have to show me is that it is a just thing in itself. This House sits for the purpose of being, among other things, a court of appeal to judge between minorities and majorities in the various parts of the country, and to allow the good sense and moral sense of the whole community to decide whether a particular claim made by a majority in a particular district is a just or unjust claim. That is the main function of the House of Commons. We were told in a celebrated phrase by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that minorities must suffer. I agree. I have never quarrelled with the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. It is perfectly true; and the main function of this House is to see that minorities do not suffer intolerably, and to protect them from grave injustice. Therefore, when I am told that there is a national demand for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales, that leaves me quite cold, unless you can also show me that it would be in the public interest that this Bill should pass. We were told something by the Prime Minister about religious equality. I really do not know what is intended by that. I suppose it applies principally to the disestablishment part of the Bill. What is going to happen by the disestablishment of four dioceses in Wales? I could understand, if you were disestablishing the whole Church of England, that it would produce a vast change in our body politic. But what is the disestablishment of four dioceses in Wales going to do? It is going to turn four Welsh Bishops out of the House of Lords. I really do not know that it is going to do anything effective beyond that. According to the Prime Minister that would be one result of disestablishment, and

1565
another is that it would substitute conventional or legal courts for the settlement of Church disputes. As far as I know, those are the only two things which the Prime Minister said that disestablishment was going to do. I was not in the least surprised, therefore, to hear him subsequently refer to that part of the Bill as the formal and legal part. The real truth is that this Bill would never have seen the light and would never have had any backing except for the disendowment proposals. I do not think any honest man in any part of Wales will dispute that. [Cries of "Oh!"] Then will the Government drop disendowment? It is very easy to test the reality of those cries of dissent.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will you accept disestablishment?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: When you drop disendowment we will answer that. Does anyone seriously suppose that the Bill would ever have had any considerable support except for the disendowment proposal? I am quite confident in my own mind that is not so, and that it is the desire to take property from the Church of England—property, I daresay, quite honestly believed not in justice and equity to belong to her—that that is the real strength in favour of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, because the rest of the attack is really of the very slightest character. It is noticed that this part of the measure, which, even if I have overstated it, is one of the most important, received no argument from the Prime Minister. I did not hear him address one single argument in defence of the disendowment of the four dioceses in Wales. We have heard sometimes that the real defence for disendowment is that the funds of the Church really belong to the State. Hon. Members are familiar with the laboured and historical arguments to show that the tithes are or are not the gifts of the State given to the Church or the gift of private persons. Personally, I confess that the balance of my opinion is that they were given by private persons, but it does not appear to be of the slightest importance one way or the other. What does it matter what was the origin of the original methods by which property was transferred to a particular body some ten or twelve centuries ago? How can that really be a matter which we ought seriously to consider in this House? Surely the only question is: Has that property been enjoyed without dispute by the body to which it now belongs? Is that not the finest title
1566
and the best title to any property that any State could give? I do not believe any hon. Member of this House holds any properly under a really more effective title of ownership. In this case some centuries have elapsed since the property was given, and I do not know on what ground it is suggested that the Church ought to be deprived of its property. It was suggested more than once that the foundation of the argument for depriving the Church of its property was purely of party origin, and purely a political move with a desire to retain for the Government the support of the Welsh Members. That may or may not be the case. It is not an argument which is likely to be put forward by the occupants of the Treasury Bench. I ask myself what ground there is for depriving the Church of this property. What advantage is anyone going to get from this Bill? I leave aside the disestablishing part of it, and am dealing now with the question of disendowment.
I ask hon. Members not to be confused by words, and let us just consider what disendowment actually means. It is very easy to talk of taking property from a wealthy Church; but what actually will disendowment mean? It will mean taking property away from very poor men who are discharging their duties all over the Principality of Wales. I do not mean the individuals. The individuals are safe, I know, by the provisions of the Bill, but I am looking at it for the future. You are going to deprive the incumbents all over Wales and other ecclesiastical dignatories of their income. That is what disendowment means. It means nothing else. What is going to be the effect of that? In the first place, one of the effects will be it will call upon churchmen to make large contributions. Yes, it will call upon churchmen to make large contributions. That is cheered. I do not know why it should be cheered. Where are those contributions coming from? Everyone knows I am dealing with the thing as a practical man, that, practically speaking, in this country, as anyone connected with philanthropic effort is aware, there is only one charity fund. If you make more demands on that for any particular purpose it does not come out of the money which is spent on pleasure or on worldly advantage, but it comes away from some other charity. The matter is perfectly clear to those acquainted with philanthropic institutions. Make a claim or have a great movement supported by illustrious personages on behalf of some great hospital, and all the

1567
other hospitals suffer. That is the universal experience. Therefore the effect of disendowment will be to deprive other philanthropic agencies in Wales of the money which they at present get and on which they subsist.
That would be one effect. It will have another effect. It will deprive some of the incumbents of the full expenditure of their salaries. Nobody doubts that. There will be less money paid to the unhappy Welsh clergy of the various dioceses. What advantage is that going to bet Is there anyone in this House, even the bitterest Nonconformist, who will get up and say that the clergy of the Church of England are an overpaid body? Everyone knows that they are grievously underpaid for the duties which they discharge. That is what disendowment really means when you come to translate it into effect. It is all very well to talk of depriving a church, a wealthy church, of money it is not entitled to. That is mere phrasing. You are going to deprive certain philanthropic institutions of a considerable portion of their income, and drive religion still further into difficulty, and sometimes into penury the struggling clergy of Welsh parsonages and vicarages. Where is the advantage, and where is the excuse for it? Is it suggested, I do not think it is, that the Church is failing in its duty? I understand it to be admitted by the Prime Minister and by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and by the Member who sat below him by a certain interruption, and in fact it is universally admitted that the Church is discharging its duties in Wales. It is a great spiritual, philanthropic and charitable agency. The Prime Minister put it very strongly. He said it showed strong spiritual developments, and I do not think the phrase could be bettered. He went on to give a long account of the actual numbers of the Church compared with the numbers of Nonconformists. What has that got to do with the measure from the point of view of disendowment unless you are going to say that the clergy of the Church of England are now overpaid? What does it matter whether they are one-third, fourth, or fifth of the population? The question is whether they are getting too much money or enough to enable them to discharge their duties which admittedly they are discharging admirably.
I could understand the matter if you could show that the Church was declining.
1568
That is not suggested, and everybody knows who goes into the figures that the Church is increasing, and not even the Solicitor-General will deny it, that the Church in Wales is increasing in numbers. I confess I wished, when I heard this matter discussed, that the Prime Minister was still a practising member of the Bar. Would he, if he were, venture to go to any Charity Commission or to any court dealing with an institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission or the Court of Chancery? Would he venture to say, "I ask you to exercise your power to take away from this body the endowments to which it is entitled, and to make a scheme for the better administration of that charity?" The judge would ask, "On what ground, Mr. Asquith, do you make this application?" To that Mr. Asquith would reply, "Well, really I do not say it has failed in its duties. It has discharged its duties admirably." "Well, then," says the judge, "do you say it has got too much money?" To that Mr. Asquith would reply, "No, on the contrary, it is no part of my case that the functionaries are overpaid." Then the judge would ask, "What is the case that you make for depriving this very charitable organisation of the funds which at present it so admirably administers?" The judge, under those circumstances, would decide that there was absolutely no case, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would never have consented to make such an application in his career at the Bar. If he had it would have been instantly dismissed, I trust, with costs.
If that be so, what are we really going to gain by passing this Bill? We shall, I suppose, satisfy certain doctrinaire beliefs which I do not appreciate about some question of not recognising one form of religion more than another. I have never understood the basis of that. We are going perhaps to satisfy a certain amount of sectarian jealousy, I do not say represented in this House, but no doubt represented outside. But what are we going to do more? The Prime Minister was good enough to say, and I am sure he said it with perfect candour, that as far as he was concerned he had no animosity to the Church. I am sure he was perfectly sincere, but I confess these protestations of friendship to the Church of England, when you are depriving the incumbents of their funds and crippling the work of that body, fills me with a certain amount of nausea. I am not impressed by the observation that the Church is most successful when

1569
disestablished, nor do I in the least accept that argument in favour of the course we are asked to pursue. Hon. Members tell us they are going to deprive the Church of a great burden and to make it more fitted for the task it has got to perform, and that the effect of this measure will be, in the words of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan, to drive the drones from the Church and show them the advantages of self-action. That argument could be used in defence of all the great persecutions of the past and comes very badly from the mouths of those who are promoting this Bill. I cannot help feeling in the whole of this discussion and from the temper of the House that there is a vast amount of unreality about the whole of this proposal.
Is it really intended that this Bill shall pass? No one on that side believes it. I do not know whether or not the Government think it necessary to carry the farce so far as to drive it through Committee under the guillotine. I doubt whether very many desire the Bill. This is merely a kind of parade movement designed, or partly designed at any rate, to satisfy the inconvenient protests of a section of the Government supporters. That is the principal reason why I vote against the introduction of this Bill. In view of the very serious matters that ought to be engaging the attention of Parliament at this moment, this is a great waste of time. Hon. Members below the Gangway will bear me out when I say that no one who has struggled to read through that vast compilation, the Poor Law Commission Report, can doubt that there is a vast amount of real genuine legislation which this House would do well to undertake at the earliest possible moment, certain that whatever may be the result of it, it is likely to occupy several years to come. Instead of that we are asked by this Government to have, on the introduction of this Bill, several, as I believe they are called in the Press, full dress Debates on the question of disestablishment and disendowment. I cannot help asking with great sincerity: Have we not something better to do than that? There is undoubtedly much that this House might be doing. There are undoubtedly many measures which might be considered, and it does seem to me a pity that we should be occupied, even for two or three nights, in an attempt, which may or may not be genuinely intended, but which is certainly not going to be carried to fruition, to deprive an ancient historical church, that admittedly is doing its duty to the very
1570
utmost, of property which has been given to it in large part by the devotion of its members in ancient times, and in crippling or in injuring the work that it is doing at present. I venture to hope, in spite of the political predilections of this House, that it will not allow this Bill to be introduced.
Sir GEORGE WHITE: The Noble Lord has introduced a number of arguments against this Bill which open up some very interesting fields of discussion, but into which I do not propose to follow him. But I certainly say I was not a little amazed at the temerity with which he denied that there was any badge of inferiority in consequence of the existence of this national Church. That badge of inferiority is certainly felt throughout the rural districts of England, and very often I myself have heard and sometimes seen evidences of it in the nationality of Wales. I am not surprised also that the Noble Lord wishes to shut out past history. It is sometimes convenient to shut out the past history of these movements; at the same time, they do teach us experience, and they do form the basis very often of legislative action, and I think there is very much to be learned from past history in connection with this movement. The Noble Lord also deprecates altogether our taking any notice of the national demand which is made through the representatives of Wales in this House. Of course, I am not surprised at the attitude of the Noble Lord upon that question, because representative government has never been one of the great fortes of the party to which he belongs. But it is not, I think, left with the Noble Lord to judge what the desires of the Welsh people are as expressed through their Members. They certainly are in a position to express their desire more forcibly than the Noble Lord can. I was surprised to hear the Noble Lord simmer down this Bill to the exclusion of the four bishops in the House of Lords. If that is all that this Bill accomplishes, then I fail to understand his attitude towards it, or his very earnest desire to prevent its passing through this House.
Lord R. CECIL: I think I made it quite clear that I was only referring to the disestablishment provision.
Sir GEORGE WHITE: I shall be in the recollection of the House when I say that the Noble Lord stated that this was all practically that the Bill would accomplish.
Lord R. CECIL: No, no.
Sir GEORGE WHITE: The Noble Lord referred to the disestablishment part of the Bill, but he added that we simply desire to secure the emoluments of the Church, and that disendowment was really at the back of it all and the chief element in the prosecution of the measure. Without going into the merits of the Bill or into its financial clauses, I think you will perceive that those who are advocating (he disestablishment of the Welsh Church certainly personally will get no advantage financially from disendowment, neither will any of the organisations to which they belong get one penny of advantage from it. I disagree altogether with the attitude which the Noble Lord has taken in regard to the incomes of the charities, which he has described as coming out of one fund. I think if the Noble Lord had had more to do with voluntary contributions in regard to charity he would have understood more fully than he appears to understand the principle of giving. Certainly he does not appear to believe in the dictum of the old Puritan, who, speaking of the man who was charitable, said the more he gave the more he had. I am bound to say there is a great deal in that principle, and I do not believe for one moment that if the Welsh Church was disestablished and had to call, as it would have to call, upon its followers, there would be any lack whatever of funds to carry out the general philanthropic work of the Church simply because it had to maintain its ministers as the Free Churches have to do. But I really did not rise to enter at any length into the merits of this Bill or to debate the Question at all. I feel that in regard to an important measure such as that which is now before the House the details of it must necessarily be intricate in their character and yet must have a very strong bearing upon the principles which are behind it; and it is impossible to discuss a Bill of this nature with advantage until we have it in our hands. Therefore, my purpose in rising was simply in a very few sentences to assure my hon. Friends from Wales that the Nonconformist Members of this House and the great Nonconformist bodies of England look upon this action of the Government with a great deal of sympathy, and are prepared to do their best to assist the Government in carrying this Bill through. I think that the case which has been presented by the Prime Minister is unanswerable to this extent, that whatever the Church of England in Wales may be in theory it is not
1572
in fact a national Church. That, I think, is one of the main arguments which would induce us to support the measure which the Prime Minister has introduced. The figures which he has presented to this House are, of course, in their nature somewhat cold and heartless on paper. But I myself, although not a Welshman, have mixed enough with Welsh Nonconformists and I know that these figures are backed by a sentiment which is very very powerful in Wales, and which is as worthy, in my judgment, as it is powerful. A Church which practically leaves untouched three-fourths of the population of the nationality cannot in any sense be called, or ought not to be deemed, a national Church, and cannot in any way assert its superiority or draw upon the resources of the nation as a national Church. In my judgment, notwithstanding what the Noble Lord has said, the connection with the State largely destroys the influence which it might exercise and its general power in the nation. I am not on this occasion intending to discuss the principles which underlie the question of disestablishment, but I do assert that there can be no complete religious, equality in any nation where an Established Church exists. This Bill, recognising that fact, is endeavouring, I think, to deal with the matter in a generous way in regard to finances. So far as one can follow the Prime Minister I believe the measure is in the main generous in the way in which it deals with various interests. The measure takes very great care that funds which have been expressly left, going back some 250 years, for carrying on the Anglican Church, will not be taken away from that body, but will be very carefully preserved for its interests. In regard to the funds which are considered to be national funds, the Bill, it seems to me, in the main gives them wise and philanthropic application. The Noble Lord may conscientiously object when we express the belief that the vitality and usefulness of the Church of England will be largely increased by its separation from the State. We are charged almost with hypocrisy when we say that; still, we have the right to assert that principle, because we see what the power of voluntaryism is in the Free Churches. We see what it has enabled them to not only do within their more immediate bounds, but in regard to more important questions throughout the nation. We do feel that not only in Wales, but in England, the power of the Church on all great national

1573
and moral questions would be enormously increased if it were free from the trammels which now bind it to the State. Therefore, without occupying the time of the House any further, I would say, as I said at the beginning, that I have risen to assure the Government and my hon. Friends from Wales, with whom we deeply sympathise in this movement, that they will have the earnest and sustained support of Nonconformist Members in this House, and I believe the great body of Nonconformists in the nation at large, because whilst in England we do not feel the pressure in the same way as it is felt in Wales, we have still the belief that the principles which move the Welsh Members to take this step are righteous principles, and will conduce more strongly to the promotion of all that is good, moral, and righteous in the nationality of Wales, without the Established Church than if that Church existed.
Mr. CAVE: This Bill gives power to take away two or three millions of money from religious purposes to apply it to civil purposes.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: £279,000.
Mr. CAVE: I beg pardon, £200,000 or £300,000. I apologise for the mistake; but I do not think it is so much a matter of amount as of principle. It is a fact that the Bill proposes to take money from religious purposes and to apply it to civil purposes which have been very vaguely indicated by the Prime Minister, and I think a Bill for that purpose does require a certain amount of justification. I am going to deal very shortly with some of the arguments which have been given us in support of the Bill. But I do not dwell long upon the point which has just been made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, that the Bill is for the benefit of the Church in Wales. It certainly proposes to take a large income permanently from a particular body and apply it to other purposes, and in considering whether that is for the benefit of the body to be despoiled, I would be less willing to take the opinion of the spoilers upon the matter than perhaps the almost unanimous opinion of the body that is to be despoiled. I say without fear of effective contradiction that the vast body of the people of the Church not only in England, but in Wales, is very strongly opposed to the measure for disestablishment. Therefore I pass that over for the moment. But I want to dwell a little longer upon the second reason given, and
1574
which I think weighs very strongly with hon. Members opposite, and that is that the Members for Wales are, it is said, unanimous in favour of the Bill. To begin with, if that be so, it is not a final argument for this House. This House must decide by the opinion not of Wales, but of the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe it to be a fact that, taking the election addresses of Liberal Members representing English Constituencies—of all that large number there were not more than 10 who referred to this question of disestablishment. If that be so, one can see that there is in England no kind of feeling in favour of a measure of this kind. Many candidates went further. I know my own opponent, who was a very strong and very popular Liberal candidate, and a Nonconformist, in terms repudiated the view that this Parliament would be asked to deal with disestablishment, or that it would be a leading or dominating issue.
Sir S. EVANS: That is English disestablishment? Declarations were made before the general election on Welsh disestablishment.
Mr. CAVE: Then it is very curious that even the Prime Minister did not refer to it. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman went down to Wrexham and made a long speech, and did not deal with the question at all. In any case, I think I may say that this question was not an issue strongly before the country. Certainly, the present Government have not any mandate to deal with it in the present Parliament. I go further, and say that if it be true—and I have no doubt it is true—that the Members for Wales are in favour of disestablishment, and that those electors who voted for them voted on that issue, even so, the verdict was obtained in Wales upon statements which were not justified by facts. We have heard in this Debate today statements which we all know to be not absolutely correct, the statement, for instance, that tithes are national property. Let me quote a sentence from a leading Nonconformist in Wales, which shows the kind of representations upon which the Welsh verdict was obtained. He is the Rev. Evan Jones, a very important member of the Nonconformist body in Wales. He said this:—
"The State stubbornly upholds with privileges and emoluments, principally at the cost of impoverished free churchmen—the church of a dwindling minority."
Now, that statement contains three absolute inacouracies. The State does not

1575
uphold the Church with any endowments at all. Secondly, the endowments of the Church are not obtained through the impoverishment of Free Churchmen, or through Free Churchmen at all. Thirdly, the Church, by the admission of the Government to-day, is not the Church of a dwindling minority, but the Church of an ever-growing number of the inhabitants. I think if the verdict of Wales was obtained by such statements as those that it should not obtain the consideration which hon. Members claim for it. Now, upon the other point. Even if the opinion of the Welsh Members is an argument—I admit it may be a Parliamentary argument for disestablishment—how is it an argument for disendowment? How is the opinion of a large number, even the whole of the representatives of a particular district in favour of taking away the property of people in that district, to be accounted a final opinion? It may be an argument for looking into the matter of State recognition, but it is not an argument for transferring the property from one body to another. The argument from the representation of Wales is really no argument in favour of a very important branch of this Bill, namely the proposals for disendowment.
Now let us first take disestablishment. I must to some extent quarrel with the history that the Prime Minister has given us to-day. It is true, as he says, that the Church in Wales is a national Welsh growth. It is an ancient body. Its roots are very deeply laid in the Welsh soil. Indeed, it existed quite as early, perhaps earlier, than the Church in England. But I do not believe he is correct in saying that the union of the Church in Wales with the Church in England was effected by England, and was effected after the union of Wales with this country. I believe the historical truth to be this, that the Welsh dioceses voluntarily united themselves with the English dioceses, not after, but before, the union of Wales with England. In that respect I cannot accept—of course I know the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think it is right—what he says as to this historical fact. But, after all, that is not of so much importance as this: that now at all events there is, as everybody has admitted, a close union, what Mr. Gladstone called "a historical identity," between the Church of Wales and the Church of England. Indeed, they are one body. We Cannot treat them as two bodies. We be-
1576
lieve that it is true, as the late Sir William Harcourt said many years ago, that if you raise the question of the Church in Wales you raise the whole question. We must deal with this matter and this proposal to dismember the Church as affecting not only the Church in Wales, as affecting not only the Welsh dioceses, but the whole of the Church; and, indeed, as a proposal to cut off from the Church the four oldest and the four poorest dioceses. That being so, what is gained by disestablishment? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, referring to history, that it is true that in the Church of Wales there has opened a new chapter, and that it is putting forth its full vigour in the right direction. He said it was too late for that to have any effect. Why is it too late? If it be true, as it is admitted, that to-day the Church of Wales is doing so great a work, a great religious, moral, and charitable work, surely you must give strong reasons if you desire to cripple and stop that work, and disarm the body which is now doing it! Disestablishment cuts off the Church in Wales from the control of convocation and the ecclesiastical courts, and reduces Church matters—I am quoting the Prime Minister's words—to matters of agreement between its members. The religious duties, which are now matters of status, will become matters of agreement only. If you think that that change is going to tend to harmony I believe you are very greatly mistaken. I believe there will be an increase of litigation over matters not desirable to be discussed in the public courts, on the subject of religion. Quarrels of this kind will considerably increase, and you will do real harm not only to the Church of Wales, but to the whole cause of religion. I do not want to dwell at length on the harm you are going to do to the charitable functions of Churchmen. It is obvious if you take away, as you will after the present generation, the incomes given to Churchmen, you must to some extent dry up and diminish the amount of income that goes to charitable purposes. You risk taking away from every village in the country one who is there, it must be admitted, to some extent, for the purpose of helping not only in religious matters, but giving of charitable help to every poor inhabitant of his parish. But, apart from disestablishment, there is disendowment. I have not followed—I do not think we were quite told—for what purpose the income of the Church is hereafter to be applied—a part of it, we know repre-

1577
sented by glebe and certain other matters, is to go to the borough and district councils.
Sir S. EVANS: That is one of the disadvantages of the first reading, but the Prime Minister read the whole schedule.
Mr. CAVE: I know he read the whole of the schedule, but I do not quite understand whether the schedule is to apply not only to the glebe lands, which are, I believe, ultimately to be transferred to the borough and district council, but also to the tithe, which is to be transferred to county councils, and to that property which is to vest in the Council of Wales. We have not been told, and I do not think hon. Members care very much, to what purpose this income is to be applied. In any case, the very fact that they care so little about this matter suggests that, while they are seeking to disendow the Church it is not because they want the income for other purposes, that the main purpose in their minds is to take the income away from the Church. Not one word has been said about the benefit to be derived by other public bodies from this income. I doubt whether it is in the thought of Members on the other side. I think, if they will examine themselves, they will come to the conclusion that what I said is true, that their main desire is to disendow the Church, to take away the property of the Church, even if in doing so the income is to be altogether thrown away. [Cries of "No, no."] What is the justification for saying that Church property is national property? The Prime Minister said, 14 years ago, that the property in question is not the property of the Church as a whole; it is the property of different ecclesiastical corporations—the rectors, vicars, and so on. What is the justification for calling that income national income, or that property national property? It is the property of ecclesiastical corporations. You have no right whatever, in my view, to take that away and apply it to other purposes. This income has to a great extent been left in trust for certain objects, and these trusts are faithfully carried out. No one denies it; everybody asserts it. So long as that is so, you have no right whatever to deprive the holders of that property, and apply it to whatever purposes you think fit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Glamorgan said that tithes were national property. There is not the least foundation for that statement. The present
1578
Prime Minister was questioned some years ago in reference to tithes. The question was whether private benefactions before 1703 should be reserved to the Church; and the Prime Minister opposed this on the ground that the effect might be to reserve the tithe. He said "it was an arguable position, that although tithes became a compulsory tax after a certain date, they were originally a voluntary obligation given by private persons out of their own resources." They were given by private persons to the Church for Church purposes, not for national purposes, and there is no right to take that property away from the Church any more than there would be to take away its income from other sources. One other point. Besides the Church of England in Wales, are there not other churches and religious bodies which are endowed? Are not there Nonconformist bodies which have property? And I want hon. Members who are members of these religious bodies—and for these bodies I desire to express the greatest respect—but I would like to ask these Members, supposing it were proposed to disestablish and disendow those Nonconformist bodies, suppose it were proposed to cut off the Welsh circuits from the Wesleyan Church, and to take away its income and property, what would they say to that? Would they not feel that a very grave injustice? Yet that is the very injustice they ask to be allowed to be carried out towards the Church of England. I do hope when this Bill is discussed—I am pretty sure there is no intention to take it any further—a good many hon. Members will consider the matter somewhat seriously, and will see whether this is not a retrograde measure and not a reform. The late Duke of Argyll, when the Bill for the disestablishment of the Irish Church was brought in, said that that measure was not to be a precedent for disestablishment for England or Wales, and he said it would be dishonest on the part of any Member of that Government to treat the disestablishment of the Irish Church as such a precedent. He used very strong language about the Church in Wales. He said:—
"Never could there be a more scandalous example of robbery and injustice, amounting to sacrilege, than if the church in Wales, in the height of its activity and renewed spiritual life, were made a sacrifice to party interests."
I do very strongly and with all my strength oppose this Bill. I believe that every member of the Church of England,

1579
and indeed every man who desires to see justice done to every religious community, will on reflection see this is a Bill that ought not to pass.
Sir JOHN KENNAWAY: This Debate on this subject brings back to my mind very interesting reminiscences of nearly 40 years ago. I had just entered the House of Commons when the Irish Disestablishment Bill had been carried through triumphantly by Mr. Gladstone, and it was thought then that he would lend his great power and influence to carry out a similar measure in Wales. The question was brought forward by Mr. Watkin Williams, and Mr. Gladstone then clearly laid down in the most emphatic way that there was no similarity between the Church in Wales and the Church as it existed in Ireland. He maintained its continuity and identity with the Church of England. Again, on a similar occasion two years later, and again almost 20 years later, he maintained the same attitude which he took up at that time. This measure has been brought forward not as a hardy annual, but again and again, and has met with very little encouragement and response. I cannot at all think that at the present time it is going to get much farther than its introduction into this House. I do not for a moment complain of the attitude of the Prime Minister or the spirit in which he introduced this measure. He did not attempt, as unfortunately the President of the Welsh Churches did at Swansea in his address the other day, to represent the Church in Wales as a dwindling Church. He admitted very fully that it was a growing Church, and was entering upon a sphere of usefulness and activity, and he asked us to believe that he was not actuated by any feeling of hostility against the Church of England. But I must follow, I am afraid very feebly, my hon. and learned Friend when he raised a general protest against the statement that the Welsh Church was incorporated with the English Church for political purposes. On the contrary, I quote from what Mr. Gladstone said on the occasion to which I referred a while ago. Mr. Gladstone asserted that there was complete ecclesiastical, legal, historical and constitutional identity between the Church in Wales and the rest of the Church in England. History, to which the Prime Minister appealed, will, I am sure, confirm the statement that it is a fact that
1580
the four Welsh dioceses accepted the supremacy of the See of Canterbury 150 years before Wales was united to England. There was a gradual process of fusion. There was no attempt, as might be said of the Church of England in Ireland, by kings and prelates to force an alien Church upon the Principality. And why is this measure brought forward? It has been brought forward hastily before the facts are in our possession on which we may form a deliberate judgment. It has been brought forward, I think, because the Prime Minister feared a Welsh revolt. We are all proud of gallant little Wales. We know the energy and power of the Welsh Members, and their loyalty as a rule to the Liberal party, but they are exacting in their demands, and they are conscious of their power, and they let it be known very clearly that they would not tolerate this measure being left out of account, and the consequence has been, just as in the case of old age pensions, to satisfy the cry that was raised—I make no objection to the cry—but to satisfy that cry legislation was entered upon in a hurry, and inquiry was made afterwards when it was too late. This is exactly, it seems to me, a similar case, and I hope we shall take warning, and that the House will not rashly embark on such a dangerous and difficult sea. The real question is, Is it to the advantage of the Welsh people generally to cripple a Church admittedly doing good work? It is not easy to see how Wales will be better for disestablishment. I do not say that religion depends upon establishment, but if you tie a man's hands behind his back and then send him to do his work he will do it at a very great disadvantage. That is just what you are doing in regard to this Church, which is admitted to be an advancing Church, an active Church, a living Church, and a Church rising from. elevation to elevation. I will not trouble the House with many statistics, but I should like to call attention to the fact that in 1831 there were in Wales 726 resident clergy, 1,346 services. There are now 1,543 clergy and 3,727 services. There was then 1,090 churches, there are now 1,869. What I care about is not ascendancy, but the religious rights of the country. We know what danger there is at this time to religion. We know how the influence of pleasure and money have told against the fortunes of religion, and disestablishment, we know, will disturb the form of religion, and thereby do great harm. Is

1581
it right to take away provisions which belong to the Church of England? There are admittedly at this time great Church questions pending, and if disestablishment follows, if disestablishment is to come to pass; it is very likely that the Church of England, that great historical Church, which I know my Nonconformist friends do feel, has rendered great services to the cause of religion, would be split up into different sections, and would lose her unity by losing her power also. As to the position of the Nonconformists themselves, are there no dangers attaching at the present time to Nonconformists in regard to the loss of active religious faith? The Welsh people have at the present time special need of stable guidance, and this Bill would lead to a destruction which would bring about great harm for the people of Wales. Bishop Westcott once said:—
"It is not a question whether the State shall favour a particular religious body, hut whether it shall recognise a certain human need; whether it shall provide for the fulfilment of a definite function, and that the highest function of our corporate life: whether it shall openly declare that religion is not an accident of humanity but an essential element in every true human body."
I might give many other instances, but I will content myself with quoting what Dr. Dollinger wrote to Canon Liddon during the disestablishment agitation of 1885. He said:—
"For my part. I think that any such measure should be firmly resisted. It will be a blow to Christianity, not only in England hut throughout Europe."
It is because I desire to avoid such a blow and such fatal consequences in Wales that I now protest, and I shall vote against the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. CARLILE: The hon. Baronet, who represents the Welsh party, has been the only hon. Member who has brought forward any strong arguments apart from the speech of the Prime Minister in favour of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in. Wales. His argument was that years ago the Church in Wales became efficient in her work under the threat of disestablishment, and he asks us to believe that if that threat produced such activity disestablishment itself will effect a still further improvement. I for one cannot see the force of that argument, for it is one which is entirely wanting and inefficient. Personally I feel the strongest ground upon which this Bill can be opposed is that it proposes to destroy the public, official recognition of the interposition of Almighty God in the public affairs of the Principality. We believe that the public recognition of the fact that we look
1582
to this guiding principle and Almighty Power in connection with our affairs is of-estimable value to the State itself. It is from the standpoint of the State itself that I am most strongly opposed to any suggestion for separating the Church from the State in Wales. I would much prefer some form of pure Christian religion allied to the State, even if that religion were not associated with the body of which I am personally a member. A recognition of that principle underlies all our legislation, and it has brought inestimable benefits to the people, and as Christian men we have a right to appeal to that principle as being our greatest and best heritage. It is on that ground that I feel most strongly that, to propose disestablishment in these four dioceses in the province of Canterbury would be to take a step which from my point of view would be disastrous to the highest and best interests of the community of which we have the privilege of being individuals.
The Prime Minister said the situation is the same at it was when he brought in a Bill some years ago for carrying out this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman did not succeed in carrying his previous Bill, and I do not think he will succeed with this. It is difficult to take this matter seriously, because I am inclined to think, after the introduction of the Bill, we shall probably hear very little more about it. At the same time, I suppose these proposals are seriously entertained by the party opposite, and no doubt they will seize any opportunity they can get of forwarding this destructive policy. At the present time in the Principality the clergy of the Church of England organisation are working with the Nonconformist bodies in Wales, but if this Bill is carried into law, accompanied as it is by the proposition to disendow the Church, there can be no question of further co-operation between them. If this grievous wrong of destroying their income and undermining all the conditions under which the clergy have carried on their work in the past is carried out at the behests of the Nonconformists, it will not be the case that the clergy will continue to co-operate, with Nonconformists any longer in those great religious and moral undertakings which at the present time find so much mutual co-operation between them. I think that would be one of the greatest losses in the Principality.
The Prime Minister spoke as if all Non-conformists in Wales were of one denomination, and the figures he gave were intended to convey the idea that they were

1583
all one organisation. I believe that if we were to get them together and hear them discuss Church organisation and doctrinal matters we should find that they were absolutely divided in many respects on this Question, and certainly the Prime Minister is not justified in grouping them together and giving the House an impression which the figures do not warrant. The position of Nonconformity is not so strong as the statistics seem to indicate, and I am afraid they will have the effect of misleading a large number of superficial persons outside this House as well as within it. That is not fair. It is not fair to give the impression that the majority of the people in Wales are Nonconformists, and I do not believe that statement is true. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] I am satisfied it is not true. It cannot be shown, because Nonconformists have systematically objected to a religious census, and it cannot be proved by statistics that the Nonconformists number anything like half the population. The Nonconformists have objected to take the only course which could demonstrate conclusively this fact, and the mere fact of hon. Gentlemen being here representing Wales and claiming to be in favour of disestablishment no more applies to the Church of Wales than it would apply to the Established Church in Scotland. Mr. Gladstone once said upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church in Scotland:—
"We have now got Scotch opinion conclusively declared in favour of disestablishment ill Scotland. The enthusiasm shown by Scotch Members in favour of disestablishment settles the question as far as Parliament is concerned."
I think that was a very proper remark for that distinguished statesman to have made. Notwithstanding that the Church of Scotland is not disestablished to-day, although the condition of things which Welsh Members think justifies the destruction of the association of the State with the Church in Wales obtains at the present time in Scotland. Far from any proposals for disestablishment in Scotland being put forward, no reference is ever made at any election to the subject at all, and I think that will be the position in which this question will stand in Wales in a very short time, notwithstanding the Bill which is before us. The Nonconformists in Wales represented by hon. Members opposite know that the Church is rapidly gaining strength in the Principality, and their testimony this afternoon has been to that effect. Evidently they think that the
1584
only chance of destroying the connection between the Church and State and appropriating, or rather misappropriating, a considerable portion of her revenues, according to their idea, for all sorts of secular objects, is to attack her now. If they leave the Church much more time to progress they know she will be so strong in her hold on the spiritual life and affections of the people in the Principality that to attack her will be useless. After having a Royal Commission inquiring for two years on this subject, which is just on the point of reporting, the Government come forward and ask us to deal with the matter in the most indecent haste, without having the full facts before us and in order that the Report of the Royal Commission may have no weight whatever with the people of this country. I think these are reasons which should certainly make the House hesitate before giving this Bill a first reading, because it is clear that underlying the whole subject there is a question of mere political expediency. Who believes that the right hon. Gentleman would have introduced this Bill but for the fact that the Liberal Members representing the Principality had brought all the pressure which they could on the right hon. Gentleman's head? They have induced him to get up one of the most garbled accounts of the history of any movement ever known to this world—I mean his version of the history of the Church in Wales. Nobody who knows anything of that history would recognise the description he gave. For the reasons which I have given I hope and trust that the House will not give this measure a second reading. When the Prime Minister said that the Church can now go on freed from her burden, he ought to have said, "free from her money," which will make it impossible for her to carry out in a self-sacrificing manner the work of God amongst the mass of the population.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I must congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on having reverted from their abortive efforts at social reform to the more convenient and genial task of destroying one of the ancient institutions of the country. It is more familiar ground to them, and I think they do it better. I recognise in the very ease with which the Prime Minister traversed familiar ground this afternoon and reploughed the old furrow—though I think in no more fertile soil than when he is supposed to have ploughed the sands with the same measure 15 years ago—I noticed how

1585
easier it is to destroy and how much less reflection it takes and how unnecessary it is accurately to get up the facts upon which your work of destruction is to be based. I do not think that while undoubtedly hon. Gentlemen opposite are earrying out their ancient constitutional rôle—quite irreproachably—in attempting this destructive work they might do it with somewhat more decorum in point of form than they have chosen to adopt on this occasion. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment called attention to the fact which was ignored by the Prime Minister, and which I do not think was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Welsh party—and which certainly was not mentioned by any of the speakers on the opposite side to whom I have listened—that there is actually at this moment a Commission sitting whose business it is to collect the facts upon which legislation of this sort is to be founded. If that Commission had been appointed by the late Government it would at once have been said that the object of its appointment was dilatory, and that the intention of the Government was to put off the decision of this important subject and that a new House of Commons with -a large Radical majority in it would be perfectly justified in not waiting until that Commission had reported, but, on the contrary, they might consider themselves so intimately acquainted with all the facts of the case as to be able to proceed with their legislative scheme without misgivings and without that degree of ignorance which may get them into difficulties when the Committee stage is reached. But that excuse is not open to hon. Members opposite. We did not appoint the Commission. You appointed the Commission. I do not know whether you appointed it for dilatory reasons or not, but, at all events, you appointed it, and with the avowed object of extricating yourselves from the embarrassment which must inevitably follow from a discussion of a Bill of this kind when the facts are imperfectly known. That is not our version of the proceedings, but your own version of your own proceedings. It is a version which has behind it the authority of the late Prime Minister, who appointed the Commission, and distinctly asserted that the object of it was to collect the facts, without which legislation on this subject could not conveniently take place.
What excuse have the Government got? In the first place they appoint a Commission, and then insult it by asking us to pro-
1586
ceed to deal with the Question before the results of the consideration have been laid before us. I do not think that such treatment has ever been meted out to any Commission by any Government to a Commission of its own appointment, and particularly when the head of the Government stated that legislation could not conveniently or properly take place until the findings of that Commission were before the country and the House.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton division of Liverpool, in his brilliant and interesting speech this afternoon, reminded us that when he asked the Home Secretary at the Prime Minister's request whether the Report of the Commission would be in the hands of Members before the Bill was introduced, the Home Secretary gave a distinct pledge on behalf of the Government, that the Bill would not be introduced until the Report of the Commission was before the House.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Home Secretary stated that we had every reason to suppose that the Report would not be delayed for any length of time. He gave no pledge, certainly.
Mr. BALFOUR: That is not what I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say. It is sufficient for me now to remind the House of what was so forcibly put before the House by the Mover of the Amendment, that you are, if not flying in the face of your specific pledges, you are still flying in the face of all Parliamentary traditions and the decency of Parliamentary procedure with regard to the relations of this House with Commissions appointed by the Government. I cannot believe that so new a departure can carry with it a happy augury for the future fate of the Bill. I am not going to traverse the history which the Prime Minister gave us of the Welsh Church from the third or fourth century down to the present day.
I doubt whether those who are more intimately acquainted with the Church in Wales than I pretend to be will admit for one moment that the views which the Prime Minister put forward as if they were the accepted commonplaces of ecclesiastical history really have any foundation, nor do I think it really very much matters, I do not think it is relevant to the issue before us. The Prime Minister stated that for 70 years the Church in Wales has risen to the height of its great duties and has recognised its great responsibility and was worthily carrying out its work as a

1587
branch of the great Christian community. Is not 70 years enough? A Nonconformist body obtains an indefeasible title to its property after it can be shown to have enjoyed it for 20 years. Surely the fact that for 70 years the Church in Wales has used its none too great endowments admirably for the purposes for which they were given constitutes a sufficient and adequate title why it should be preserved, I will not say in the enjoyment, but in the use of its property? There is an amazing doctrine which comes up in these debates and then is conveniently forgotten until the next occasion when a Church is to be robbed. It is the doctrine that the Church is improved by being deprived of its property. It is sometimes wrapped up in rhetorical phrases; but everybody knows that no corporate body can carry out its work efficiently unless—least of all these modern days—it is adequately endowed, and least of all in these modern days, unless it is adequately endowed with funds. Of course, I admit, as everybody who reads history will admit, that there have been cases in which churches, in their activities, were clogged and drowned by the amount of their misused possessions. Nobody will deny, for instance, that the Church in France in the 18th century was possessed of too great wealth to be properly used; nobody will "deny that the wealth of great ecclesiastical establishments has, by the corruption of this or that age, been used as a source of emolument to Royal and other favourites, that it has been used for non-resident clergy, and bishops who never went to their dioceses—nobody will deny that a Church which so uses, or misuses, its wealth either has more than it ought to have or should divert it to very different channels. Does anybody make that statement about the Church in Wales, or a statement even distantly resembling that? Does not everybody know that the Church in Wales is a poor Church, and that it is only by the most economical use of such wealth as she possesses that it is enabled to maintain, not in overgrown luxury or unnecessary wealth, but to maintain at all in the various parishes of the Principality the men who carry on the great work of Christian teaching in a manner which even those who differ from them theologically must, I think, admit is, on the whole, in the interests of religion? If that is not denied, on what possible pretence do you endeavour to divert the endowments of the Church in Wales into wholly alien
1588
channels, in which you yourselves do not profess to have much interest? I was rather struck by one statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to this Bill this afternoon. He said:—
"We have altered the destination of the funds of the Established Church because we find some of the purposes to which we allocated them 15 years ago have been carried out, out of the general wealth—out of the taxpayer—or from funds other than those of the Established Church."
Does not that show that it is not in order to use the funds for better purposes that you take them away from the Church? You take them away from the Church primarily, and then you have to look round for some decent use to which to put them. I think every man, no matter what his theology may be—every man must admit who thinks it over honestly with himself—that this is turning money from a higher to a lower use; from purposes which it serves admirably at the present time to other purposes which I am confident could be met out of other and more natural and legitimate sources. Many Members of the House may remember the arguments which we had over the endowments of the Free Church of Scotland in the course of last Session. The Free Church of Scotland claimed to have the power of altering its formularies, and it had undoubtedly in many respects changed its theological position since it first came into existence near the middle of the 19th century. This House deliberately determined that the funds should be maintained in that organisation, and I think they were perfectly right in so determining. Who, then, advanced the doctrine that the Church was the better when deprived of its money? Who, then, supported this monstrous and extravagant paradox that you make a religion the purer by making the ministers of religion poorer? That is a doctrine carefully and sedulously kept for Established Churches. It is never applied, so far as I know, consistently to Nonconformist denominations, and those who are most eager to deprive the Church of her property are sometimes those who have laboured most faithfully and most successfully to increase the worldly wealth and property of the particular community to which they belong. Why do they struggle to increase the wealth of the community? Because they know that these resources will be well used—because they know that religion will gain by enabling those who are carrying on the work of religion to do what they could not do without these necessary funds. Why are you going to have a different rule for the Wesleyans

1589
and the Congregationalists, and any of the great Nonconformist sects? One rule for them and another for the Church of England. No reasons have yet been given us, or can be given. There are historic fallacies which do a ragged duty on the platform, but which no man has the courage to repeat in this House—viz., that the funds of the Church were funds given by the taxpayer, and should be resumed by the taxpayer. That may be well enough in some very distant, very obscure, and ignorant community to round off a period or to excite a cheer. We all know now, after these Debates, that it is admitted by every competent lawyer and historian that the funds of the Church of England are funds given in exactly the same way—for analogous purposes—as those of any other religious body. [Cries of "No."] Yes; of course allowing for differences of social surroundings. I do not mean that the benevolent donor of the eleventh or twelfth century was precisely like modern subscribers or the people who hold a bazaar to provide the necessary funds for some good work. Of course, there have been great changes. But in no true sense of the world are the endowments with which you propose to deal in this Bill, endowments given by the State to a religious body. It is not so, and no competent man would say it is so.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: They are collected and coerced from the taxpayer by the State.
Mr. BALFOUR: Collected by the State? What does the hon. Gentleman mean?
Mr. C. EDWARDS: Tithes. The position in regard to the Nonconformist denominations is this—that the contributions-are perfectly voluntary. In the case of the tithes they are collected with all the compulsion and coercion of the State at the back.
Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. It is perfectly true that a great deal of the money of Nonconformist bodies is given at the church door or by cheque or annual subscriptions, and may be withheld at any moment. Of course, that is true. It is not true of the produce of endowments and accumulated funds.
Mr. C. EDWARDS: I was talking of tithes.
Mr. BALFOUR: A tithe is a debt, and the money that comes from accumulated
1590
funds is a debt. I do not follow the hon. Member's arguments in the least. The real fact is that this Bill suffers from a fundamental difficulty which I am quite sure will make it the more unpopular the more it is understood with every class of the community. It is not a Bill to do-good to the community in general, but a Bill to do harm to a particular section. It is not based upon a desire for the growth of religion; it is not based upon any large view of the influence of religious organisations upon the growth of the welfare of the community. It has its origin in some historic jealousy of some particular communion, and a desire to injure that religious communion by depriving it of the funds which are the inevitable instrument of its work. That is all I really have to say on the main question. But I want to ask the learned Solicitor-General if he will tell us exactly what this Welsh Council is? No speaker has referred to it; the Prime Minister touched upon it. But it did seem to me that the word "council" was a word of evil omen and that this was a National Councils Bill, intended not merely to deal with the Welsh Church, but intended, and deliberately intended, to start what the Prime Minister called a representative Welsh Council. That may be good, or it may be bad. A Welsh Councils Bill may be a good Bill or a bad Bill; but it is a very different Bill to a Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and the two things ought not to be mixed up together. If we are not merely by this Bill going to rob the Church of England of funds, which it is admirably using, but are going to have Welsh Home Rule brought in under some obscure disguise, then, if there is any additional reason for why I should vote against the Bill, that additional reason is given in ample measure.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am pleased to be able to say that I am able to allay the fears of the right hon. Gentleman. The plan of the Bill is this: You must have some body like the Welsh Commissioners to. carry out the objects of the Bill. They are-appointed for a temporary period to put the machinery into effect for the first four or five years, and the proposal in the Bill is that unless the period during which they have jurisdiction is, by Order in Council, extended, their power will come to an end in 1915. Thus it is only after they have done their work and are dissolved that we have this Welsh Council brought into being—at any rate, in its

1591
operation. And the Council of Wales is not a Council of Wales in the sense of being a Parliament of Wales; it is merely a body created ad hoc for the purposes of this Act. I remember having made a very long speech 14 years ago on the second reading of the Bill of that year, and I am afraid it will be my duty to occupy the time of the House hereafter, and even sometimes I am afraid at length, in dealing with this Bill. Therefore I hope that right hon. Gentlemen will not ask me to say anything more at the present time.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I point out that we have had no justification in regard to the Royal Commission.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I beg pardon. As has just been stated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to the Motion of the Prime Minister, the Commission that was appointed has nothing to do with policy or matters of that kind. Therefore, with regard to disestablishment, nobody ever contended that it was necessary to have the Report of the Royal Commission before we introduced legislation. With regard to the question of endowments, all the facts and figures have already been collected, and the Commission have closed their work so far as the collection of evidence is concerned long ago. They are now merely considering the terms in which they will make their Report to the House.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The evidence has not been published.
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The evidence can be published to-morrow. Everybody knows that a Royal Commission has a right to make an interim report, and they constantly act in that way. A Commission on which I am serving made an interim report of part of the evidence only a short time ago. It is quite within the power of the Royal Commission to decide tomorrow to print the whole of the evidence. Undoubtedly the whole of the facts have been collected, and, therefore, it is not necessary to have the Report of the Royal Commission as a condition precedent to bringing forward this Bill.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I really wish to protest against the very summary way in which this matter is being dealt with. We have complained on this side of the House of the introduction of this Bill when no evidence given before the Royal Commission has been published. We have not
1592
had access to it, and we do not know what the mature opinion of the Commissioners is. On this ground, if on no other ground, we maintain that it is quite competent for us to violently protest against the introduction of this Bill at this moment, and it is hardly treating the House with fairness and justice to throw this Bill at our heads, when we have not had the opportunity of consulting the judgment and information of the learned Gentlemen who are sitting on the Royal Commission. I cannot help adding that it seems to be the usual practice of this Government to give verdicts first and evidence afterwards. It will be within the recollection of all hon. Members that on the occasion of the Old Age Pensions Act the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Act had been passed, thought it desirable to go to Germany and get evidence about the matter, which would have been extremely valuable in the discussions in this House when the Bill was being considered. Exactly the same thing is occurring now. We also desire to have full information on this subject, and again the Bill is being, as I say, thrown at our heads before we have had an opportunity of considering the information which is being collected. I had hoped that the Commissioners' Report would have been available at this moment and that the learned Solicitor-General was going to give some more general purport of what it contained than we have had, as I presume he knows something about it. If he does not know anything about it, it seems to me that our protests are all the more justified, and when we further realise that this matter is being discussed in this way, I think it to some extent accounts for the extraordinary unreality of the whole Debate. I have sat through a good deal of it and I have heard some very excellent speeches from this side of the House, dealing as far as possible with the very meagre information before the House, on the whole subject. The benches on the other side of the House have, during the Debate, either been empty or conspicuous for a conspiracy of silence on the part of hon. Members. I do not know what is the object of that, but I presume the Government were afraid of allowing their followers to discuss the matter very fully, because the section which is interested in this Bill would have discussed it at such inordinate length; but however that may be, I think that reasons have been brought forward that amply justify the attitude which we have taken, and also justify us in saying that

1593
the Debate has been wholly unreal. We have pointed to the inconsistency of the Government and the party opposite, when it is borne in mind what the attitude of Mr. Gladstone was in the matter and the pointed distinction which he made between the disestablishment of the Irish Church and the possible disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I am not sure that his statements have been quoted, and I collected some of them before this Debate. On one occasion he said publicly that—
"The case of the Welsh Church is widely different from the Irish Church."
On another occasion, in 1870, in this House, he said:—

"There is complete ecclesiastical, constitutional, legal, and, I may add for every practical purpose, historical identity between the Church of Wales and the rest of the Church of England."
How can Mr. Gladstone's supporters on that Bench justify their action by his opinion? They are acting against it. They are bringing in a Bill which so far from meeting with the unanimous approval of Wales as a whole, is violently resented by a great portion of the people of the Principality. They choose, moreover, as a time for bringing forward such a measure a moment when the Welsh Church is making great strides in the Principality, and when, far from deserving the spoliation which this Bill inflicts upon the Church, it ought to be encouraged in its work for religion and national progress generally.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 90.

Division No. 69.]

AYES.

[7.55 p.m.

Abraham, w. (Cork, N.E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Agnew, George William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Armitage, R.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dobson, Thomas W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Duckworth, Sir James

Illingworth, Percy H.

Astbury, John Meir

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jardine, Sir J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jenkins, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barnard, E. B.

Erskine, David C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jowett, F. W.

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Beauchamp, E.

Fenwick, Charles

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bell, Richard

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bonn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Gee.)

Findlay, Alexander

Lament, Norman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fullerton, Hugh

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gibson, J. P.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Black, Arthur W.

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Bowerman, C. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bramsdon, T. A.

Glover, Thomas

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bright, J. A.

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Bryce, J. Annan

Grey, RL Hon. Sir Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Callum, John M.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gulland, John W.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Micking, Major G.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Halpin, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mallett, Charles E.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Manfield, Harry (Nerthants)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Chance, Frederick William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mason A. E. W. (Coventry)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hazleton, Richard

Massie, J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cleland, J. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Clough, William

Hemmerde, Edward George

Menzies, Walter

Cebbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

Middlebrook, William

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

Henry, Charles S.

Mond, A.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

Mooney, J. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Higham, John Sharp

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard)

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Myer, Horatio

Crossley, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Napier, T. B.

Curran, Peter Francis

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholls, George

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Horniman, Emslie John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Nuttall, Harry

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tomkinson, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rose, Charles Day

Toulmin, George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rowlands, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Grady, J.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Verney, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Vivian, Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Joseph

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Scott, A H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wardle, George J.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Seddon, J.

Waring, Walter

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Seely, Colonel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Waterlow, D. S.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Watt, Henry A.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitbread, S. Howard

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Simon, John Allsebrook

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Snowden, P.

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Stanger, H. Y.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Rees, J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Richardson, A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Robinson, S.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Renton, Leslie

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Haddock, George B.

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Hills, J. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Joynson-Hicks, William

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Kerry, Earl of

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cave, George

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R,

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Morpeth, Viscount

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Newdegate, F. A. M.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Oddy, John James

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Du Cros, Arthur

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Percy, Earl

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pretyman, E. G.

Gardner, Ernest

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Main Question put and agreed to: Bill brought in and read the first time; to be read a second time on Monday next.

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL.
Order for second reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I hope the House will permit the few minutes at its disposal to be used in passing the second reading of a small Departmental Bill which is not opposed in any quarter of the House, and which, is of a somewhat urgent character. It is a Bill to safeguard the public from the danger which arises from fires at cinematograph

1597
entertainments, which are specially liable to outbreaks of fire on account of the long highly inflammable films which are used in the lanterns. There have been already many fires. The London County Council is able to make regulations for places under its control, and these regulations undoubtedly have averted, within the last few years, several serious panics which might otherwise have taken place. But there is a great number of places both in and outside London which are unlicensed, and altogether without control; many of them are dangerous in structure, and no adequate precautions are taken against fire, and unless they are brought under control disaster is sooner or later almost inevitable. There have been several panics owing to fires arising from cinematograph films catching fire in other countries, although happily in England we have been free from them, but if the unregulated condition of these places of entertainment is allowed to continue, sooner or later disaster is almost certain to take place.
The Bill provides, first, that regulations may be made by the Home Office to secure safety from fire when inflammable films are used, and to have the apparatus properly boxed in and provided with fire extinguishing apparatus, and, secondly, that the premises on which the entertainments are given shall be licensed by the county council or county borough council or by the Lord Chamberlain if they come within his purview. I beg to move.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There are many features of this Bill which are open to question. It is another instance of those Bills which are called Departmental Bills, which simply have the effect of increasing those grandmotherly, and in many cases, entirely unnecessary, precautions which are supposed to be in the interests of the public, but which really inflict very considerable hardship upon individuals, and I have been at a loss to understand, in reading over this Bill, why this particular class of entertainment should be picked out, and why others of a similar character and certainly almost, if not quite, as dangerous and as likely to cause fire, should be exempt. For instance, there is all that class of entertainment where magic lanterns of different kinds, and gases which are liable to explode, and specially liable to take fire are used, and when you read this Bill through and find that these cinematograph entertain-
1598
ments are specially picked out, and have a Bill all to themselves, you wonder why it is so. I am credibly informed that the people who are running these different entertainments are fully aware of the risks attached to this particular kind of apparatus, and that precautions are taken in every possible way. We had a very interesting series of entertainments of this kind in the city to which I belong, which gave an amount of enjoyment and instruction and recreation to thousands of people, and there was no trouble or difficulty of any sort. I am informed on good authority that there has not been in this court-try a single case of fire arising from any of these entertainments at all.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not the case. There has been a considerable number of fires.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I made inquiries, and I was not able to ascertain that within anything like recent times there had been any fire arising from this class of entertainment. I myself have had to do in my official capacity with a number of these entertainments in Liverpool, and they gave a great deal of enjoyment and instruction, and it is a very great pity that they should be picked out for special condemnation, and that attempts should be made to cause difficulty in giving this instruction and enjoyment to the public. There are other features in the Bill which are objectionable in themselves. For instance, why should the licences be left in the hands of the county council? I cannot understand that. With regard to other matters, the power of granting licences for various classes of entertainments is left with the magistrates who have to do with licences for other premises at the same time. Then there is a number of penalties in the Bill, and they are very serious. We have had no indication as to what the regulations are which are to be made. It is possible that if the Home Office is given the power of making a number of regulations they will make such regulations as will make it practically impossible for these entertainments to be given. If the House is asked to deal with a matter of this importance, involving large sums of money invested in these entertainments and involving arrangements which have been made for months to come to give these entertainments, it is too much to expect that in ten minutes we should be asked to deal with an important matter of this sort and to pass a Bill without

1599
Members really having an opportunity of fully considering it and discussing it. I see there are penalties of £20, £5, 5s., and £1.
Mr. CLOUGH Mr. CLOUGH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am not endeavouring to talk the Bill out. I am simply making a few observations upon matters which are absolutely essential to be taken into consideration when a Bill of this kind is brought forward.
And, it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, further proceeding was postponed, without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

MARITIME COMMERCE DURING WAR.
Mr. F. W. JOWETT Mr. F. W. JOWETT called attention to the Question of the immunity of merchant vessels in time of war, and moved: "That, in the opinion of this House, it should be a principle of naval warfare that enemy merchant vessels, other than carriers of contraband, should be immune from capture."
I should have been myself far better pleased if the privilege of moving this Resolution had fallen to the lot of some Member of the House to whom the subject is more familiar than it is to me, but the fortunes of the ballot ordered otherwise, and, as the subject itself is one of very great importance, which, in the opinion of a great many Members of the House ought to be duly considered and put to the vote, I have no option but to accept the duty when I have got the chance to do so. Many of us think that it is to the interest of all countries that private trade should be undisturbed by hostilities between nations, and if it be the interest of other countries, Continental or otherwise, it is most certainly, as we think, the interest of this country that commerce should be immune from capture during the time of war. The present position of private commerce is somewhat affected advantageously by the recent conference, which took place in London, and which has resulted in defining to some extent what is contraband of war, and in establishing prize courts to determine the various classes of goods
1600
and the various articles of commerce which should be carried in neutral vessels, without doubt and beyond dispute, immune from capture. But outside of the scope of that conference there is the general question of commerce carried in neutral vessels between nations which are at war with each other, and the present position, as I understand it, is that all ships of an enemy nation, and all enemy goods therein contained, are liable to capture and liable to destruction by either of the belligerent States. The United States, Germany, Russia, and Italy have all at various times during the past 50 years signified that they are ready to render all such commerce immune from capture, but unfortunately Great Britain has been hostile to the opinion of many of the other great States in respect to private commerce at sea. Hence we are in this position to-day that if Great Britain were at war with a Continental State our tremendous interests in commerce would be at stake, and, in my opinion—I offer that opinion with all due reservation—we should suffer more than any other State which happened to be at war with us. No State, I imagine, has more to gain than Great Britain by freedom of commerce in time of war. In the case of any Continental nation, such a nation would be able to obtain its food supplies by rail through the agency of its neighbouring States, but Great Britain, as an island nation, is almost entirely at the mercy of foreign countries as regards its food supplies especially. Eighty per cent. of our wheat, 40 per cent. of our meat, 60 per cent. of our bacon, 50 per cent. of our cheese, and 70 per cent. of our butter are imported from places oversea. Moreover, nearly half of the merchant tonnage of the world is British, and hence our risks in the event of war would be very great indeed. The whole of our foreign trade would be in jeopardy. Our food supplies would also most likely be curtailed, and in any event the tremendous risk that ships would run carrying our food supplies would send up prices to such an extent as would involve tremendous privation on the part of the poorer classes among our population. I do not think it would be too much to say that the greatest risk we would run in time of war would be through the interference with our food supplies. We are to such an enormous extent dependent on outside sources that the mere risk attaching to the transit of these food supplies would send up prices to such an extent that the very poor in many cases would be unable to

1601
afford to buy food in sufficient quantities. For these reasons it appears to me we, of all nations in the world, have most to gain by a change in our national policy, and by agreeing to the undoubted wishes of some other very powerful States of Europe, and also to the well-known wishes of the United States of America, and rendering once for all commerce immune from all danger during time of war.
Also I would submit that the question of the risk of having our importation of Taw materials seriously diminished in war time is another and a great reason for making this change and coming to agreement on this subject. All the cotton that we use is imported. Most of the wool used in our textile factories is also imported. If in addition to the immense prices which would certainly ensue after an outbreak of hostilities in which this country is concerned we have to face the curtailment of trade and the standing of our machinery, and the consequent throwing out of employment of immense numbers of our people, the misery produced -would be intensified to a very great degree. I understand the Foreign Secretary objects to this change because, in the first place, I gather that in his previous speech he remarked, by way of objection, that Germany did not indicate that its policy in regard to armaments would be in any way affected by any change in the direction of rendering commerce immune from capture. In regard to that may I observe that our well-known hostility to this change may be accountable for the fact that Germany has not pressed the proposal in any way upon the Foreign Secretary himself, and as the Foreign Secretary has himself remarked, in speeches made on the floor of this House, it is not the practice of big nations to make proposals which they have reason to know beforehand will not meet with acceptance. Therefore I cannot see that it is for us to make any such objection.
The advance under existing conditions, it appears to me, should come from ourselves, because our objection to this course has been perfectly well known. I also understand that the Foreign Secretary objects because he thinks that it will have the effect of decreasing our advantage as a naval power if we limit the war merely to the conflict between States and decline to bring in commerce, and to make attacks on the enemy's ships other than warships. But I think we should examine that reason very closely and realise fully what the Foreign Secretary implies by making that
1602
objection. He implies, if I understand rightly, this, that he intends to keep an advantage over all foreign Powers by means of a big fleet. Then in that case what else could we expect but that Germany and other nations who see what underlies that argument will themselves feel that they ought to have a big fleet to match ours and protect their commerce? And in that way it seems clear that by the argument which the Foreign Secretary himself has used other nations must inevitably be led to increase their armaments and to increase the number of their battleships in order to preserve their commerce, which is as dear to them as our commerce is to us. And in that way it would appear that by maintaining this position we render the possibility of decreasing the armaments of various nations of the world much more remote than it would have otherwise beet and on that account I move this Resolution.
I believ that if this House by its vote shows that it is of opinion that private commerce should be excluded from the area of strife in the case of war, and if the Government will give expression to that view, provided the House accepts this, as I hope it will—if the Government would give expression to that view by making advances to other Powers I am quite certain we should bring nearer the time when we could look with far less concern on foreign nations than we can do to-day. I should certainly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to distinguish his term of office by bringing about this great reform, and all the security that would De implied by it. The period of office of the last Government was signalised—and I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has had all the credit due to him on this account—by the reference of what might have been a very grave dispute between ourselves and Russia to The Hague Tribunal. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the respect and thanks of all for that fact, and I should like to appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to signalise his term of office by bringing about this reform, in favour of which I have now pleasure in moving a Resolution.
Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Though I would have preferred that others more thoroughly acquainted with the technicalities of the Question should have introduced it to the notice of the House, all will admit

1603
that the Question is one of pre-eminent importance, and one which we are perfectly justified in bringing forward in this Resolution. I think that this House and the country generally is viewing with great apprehension the great and ever-increasing growth of expenditure on armaments of war. We find the more we spend the greater the pace that is being set, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary stated in the previous Debate, unless some means are devised whereby an arrangement may be come to, and this expenditure checked, some nations must ultimately find themselves in bankruptcy. Unfortunately, we find that the greater our expenditure, and the wider the provision made for war, the less secure do this and other nations feel in the matter. We claim to be constantly striving for security, but nevertheless, that security is constantly eluding us, and we find ourselves -to-day, despite enormously increased expenditure, feeling no safer than we have hitherto done. The result is that the immediate outlook offers no great hope for diminishing expenditure; rather it is that the growing demands for "Dreadnoughts" will have to be interpreted by the poor of the country as one of the reasons why nothing can be done on behalf of social betterment. I might be permitted here to interpolate that we on tin's side of the House hold—and I believe the view is shared by a considerable number of Members on the other side—that, Although this increased expenditure may be persisted in. we cannot accept it as a reason why schemes of social reform should, be arrested.
I am pleased to be associated with this Resolution, because, in my opinion, it is the most hopeful thing yet suggested whereby an understanding may be reached between the nations and the expenditure on warlike preparations diminished. There is no denying the fact, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, that the other great nations of the world endorse the principle contained in this Resolution. It has been stated by responsible Ministers in the German Reichstag, and also by the German Delegation to the Hague Conference, that that nation is perfectly prepared to embrace the principle of the inviolability of private commerce during time of war. We may full well understand that other nations have similar circumstances to encounter to those with which we are confronted in our own land. Un-
1604
doubtedly the German people are very much afraid of the tremendous strength of our Navy. Some Gentlemen may deem this to be a desirable thing; but, for my part, I see in it the genesis of this race between Germany and ourselves in warlike expenditure. If I be correct in stating that the German nation is fearful lest we should use our tremendous strength for the purpose of removing her commerce from the sea, I feel that if we could come to an understanding on the lines of this Resolution, we should perhaps establish a sound reason for a diminution of this wasteful expenditure. We have the assurance of German Ministers that their naval programme is not designed as an aggressive force against this or any other country, but rather to act as a check upon the possible aggression of other nations. But, unhappily, in this country the relations between the two nations have been inflamed and passions have been embittered by an unfortunate agitation within our own shores. I know that certain German people are inclined to place our naval policy in conjunction with this agitation. Some of them are imbued with the fear that we may have designs to cripple the strength of the German nation, and certainly they are now familiar with the fact that some portions of our community have designs with regard to their commerce. Unfortunately Germany has been placed before us for several years past as a great commercial hegemony, and undoubtedly that has reflected itself in the naval preparations that are being made and into which we are being led.
The Foreign Secretary is well known to have been opposed hitherto to the proposal contained in this Resolution. I do not know whether recent events have had the effect of modifying his view, but I trust we shall learn from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the proceedings to-night that the Government have an open mind on the matter, that they are prepared to leave the question to the consideration of the House, and to be guided by the decision come to thereon. Personally, I have felt that it is a very unfortunate thing that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have issued such definite instructions to the British delegates to The Hague Conference in opposition to the proposal of the immunity of commerce in time of war. He acknowledged in those instructions arguments could be adduced in favour thereof; he even admitted that it might be decidedly advantageous for this nation in

1605
time of war, and he has supplemented those declarations by definite pronouncements in this House. Such being the case, I submit that it ill becomes anybody to say that we have heard no whisper that the German naval policy might be modified if we submitted this proposal for Germany's consideration. The fact is, as I have read in different publications, this country has barred the door against Germany and other nations in the matter, and we cannot reasonably expect that they should now be prepared to come forward and make the proposition afresh to us. Rather I think it is for us, if we are convinced of its justice and desirability, to reopen the whole question, with a view to a more satisfactory understanding being attained. I feel, with my hon. Friend who submitted the Motion, that if we abandoned this aggressive weapon of the right of commerce destruction we should give to our naval supremacy a purely defensive character. At present our Navy is viewed very largely from the aggressive standpoint by the powers that be. We on these Benches have sometimes been charged with being "little Navy" men. For my own part, and I believe I may speak on behalf of my colleagues, we fully recognise the necessity for this country to have a strong Navy. We have never advocated the reduction of the strength of the Navy in a way likely to diminish its effectiveness, unless it is possible for an international understanding to be attained. We hope that Germany may be induced to recognise the fact that our being an island nation renders it imperative that we should have a large Navy, just as we in turn ought to be prepared to recognise that Germany's peculiar position on the Continent makes it a natural corollary that she should have a formidable Army. Nevertheless, I feel that unless we are prepared to go into this matter willing to give fair consideration to the subject, and willing also to make some concession, we cannot hope that any agreement may be entered into. If we go, as was the case at The Hague Conference, with a determination to maintain the status quo, we may rely upon it that no understanding will ever be reached between civilised nations, and that this race of expenditure upon armaments must continue until the nations are forced to give up the struggle because of their inability to bear the financial burden.
I feel with my hon. Friend, after all this nation should look at this matter and
1606
understand that in time of war the probability is that our commerce might suffer as much as that of other nations. We find that Germany and other nations are now emulating our example in shipbuilding, and therefore we have to face the inevitable fact that other nations will be powerful enough to menace our commerce. Just as we retain the option of capturing commerce at sea, so it is they will be able to retaliate at sea. Hitherto we have made this amelioration of war impossible. We do not yet know that Germany will be unwilling to enter into an arrangement with us on the question. On the other hand, we do know full well that when German Ministers have expressed themselves it has been in favour of this proposal. This, in our opinion, affords the only immediately practicable proposal whereby a desirable limitation of armaments might be effected and peace established on an abiding footing between the nations. At The Hague Conference, speaking upon the American proposal, one of the German representatives said that Germany had always been in favour of the abolition of capture, and that Germany would be prepared to co-operate in securing the immunity of private property at sea. It is well known that by the actual voting strength at that Conference a resolution in favour of the immunity of capture of commerce at sea was carried by a substantial majority. But, unfortunately, this country was in the position of opposition.
We submit that the time is ripe when we may very justly revise our policy, recognising in it a desirable principle and one likely to take us in the direction that I believe the majority of the Members of this House desire that is an understanding, and, if possible, a diminution of expenditure on warlike preparations. This proposal, if carried into effect, would only assimilate the principle of naval struggle to that of battle on land. We find that it is a generally accepted principle of warfare to-day, and we feel, if we are to be logical, we should carry into our naval struggle the embracing principle of this resolution. Furthermore, we have to recognise that the sea is the natural means of communication between the peoples, that it is open to the inhabitants of every nation, and can never, even in the most indirect way, ever become the exclusive and private property of any one nation. That seems to me to be a powerful argument in favour of the proposal that we are submitting to the House.

1607
I fully recognised, when I associated myself with this Resolution, that the question of contraband would be one requiring grave consideration. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the progress that had taken place in the consideration of this question in recent times, and the understanding which has just been entered into, has greatly simplified this question, and, I believe, made it more possible and much more practicable for the wider adjustment to be made. I may, in conclusion, appeal to this House on the broad principle of the desirability of peace between the nations. We must get rid of the idea that the only form we can requisition for the purpose of adjusting differences between nations is that of force. We mean to habituate the world to the idea of friendly negotiation and peaceful arbitration of those differences that even diplomacy has failed to solve. It is true this question of international understanding has previously baffled, and, we might say lowered, the self-respect of the peoples of the world; but as we sit here from day to day we cannot help feeling that the utteraces and sentiments of certain Members of this House towards a friendly people like Germany is a most undesirable thing. Here we have some people obsessed with the idea that war with Germany is inevitable, and yet we believe that the German people, like ourselves, desire to live in peace. It is true this characteristic is not new. Scare is ever following scare. The greater the force we build up, so it is that other nations are induced to follow, and we have to keep adding soldier after soldier, ship after ship, constantly racing against each other for a security which, as I have previously stated, is always illusory and vanishing.
Some people affect to believe that war is a glorious thing. In my own view the tawdry triumphs of war block the paths of progress and turn constructive energy into a devastating force. It is often stated that the views of those on these benches are Utopian in character, although it may be that the things we are advocating to-night are not immediately possible of realisation; nevertheless I believe they meet with the response in the hearts of the German people. Although our proposal may seem to be Utopian, I believe it will be one of the accepted truths ere we are much older. I feel that a proposal of this sort can only be made by a nation like ours. I am one of those who believe
1608
our nation is invincible. We can afford to make such a proposition to Germany and the other nations of the world. I trust it will be so accepted to-night, that we may say to Germany and those other nations that we in this country are desirous henceforth of marching in the front ranks of peace, amity and concord. I have great pleasure in seconding.
Mr. RICHARD HOLT: I very naturally, as a shipowner, approach this Resolution with a good deal of sympathy. Nobody I think will be altogether insensible to the advantages of a proposal which is intended to give greater security to his own property, and, therefore, at any rate from the point of view of personal interest I naturally have a great deal of sympathy with this resolution. I feel as strongly as do the hon. Members who proposed and seconded the resolution the great importance of doing everything we possibly can to secure a limitation of the cost of armaments. I am one of those who regard all wars as entirely objectionable. No method of warfare whatever can be regarded by sensible men as a reasonable means of settling disputes. I should like to draw the attention of the House, however, to he fact that the particular method of warfare which it is proposed to get rid of is by no means the most inhuman of those employed. For instance, it is not to be compared as regards inhumanity and downright cruelty with the method of floating mines, which, as we know in the case of the Russo-Japanese War, resulted in the death of a great many perfectly innocent people who were carrying on a lawful business 100 miles away from the seat of the war, and who in no way whatever interfered in that war. That is a method of warfare which destroys absolutely innocent people, and is really one of the most brutal things it is possible to conceive. Before turning to the special matter dealt with by the Resolution, as I see two representatives of the Admiralty present, I should like to urge that if the right of capture is to be exercised it should be exercised solely and entirely for international purposes, and that it should not be a means by which officers could make prize money out of it. It should not be a means of increasing their income. There have been occasions in our history where I believe military operations have been postponed because some of the officers concerned thought it would be very much more profitable to their own pockets if they captured the enemies' merchant property. I would

1609
seriously suggest that it be made perfectly clear that there should be no question of the private advantage of naval officers arising out of the capture of the enemy's private property at sea, but that it should be solely and entirely exercised with a view to the public advantage. It is commonly admitted by all parties that England is bound to keep a Navy sufficiently strong to protect her shores from invasion, and also to protect the communications of the Empire from the attacks of the enemy. I do not think on these two points there is any difference of opinion between any sections of the community. I believe it is an object which every member of the community has at heart. It surely follows from this that if we are to protect the internal communications of the Empire, because the internal communications of the Empire are on the seas, we have got to have a sufficiently ample force to prevent any trading vessel engaged in carrying on the trade of the Empire from being interfered with in time of war. Turning to the Resolution, I would draw the attention of the House to this proviso: "other than carriers of contraband." I would respectfully submit that the adoption of that phrase, so far as British commerce is concerned, would be of very little value at all. I am a shipowner engaged in the trade of the Far East. We scarcely ever send a steamer out of Liverpool which has not got on board a certain quantity of goods that are the property of the Government. They are being taken to the Straits Settlements or to Hong Kong in connection with the construction of railways or similar undertakings, and I would further remind the House that the increase in the number of these undertakings and railways by the Government in our self-governing Colonies leads to there always being on board merchant vessels trading with those self-governing Colonies a considerable amount of property which is really that of the Government, not merely the property of the War Office or the Admiralty, but the property of the Government. That presents a conundrum which I believe is not easy to answer, so that it is extremely difficult to lay down that property belonging to the Government could possibly be regarded by the enemy as otherwise than contraband of war. It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary that we should have a sufficient force at sea to prevent the capture of those ships which are possibly carrying goods which are the property of the Government, and which may
1610
be considered contraband of war. It is quite true that a ship may be taken to the prize court and the small quantity of Government stores taken out of it, and it is quite possible that on appeal to The Hague Tribunal the shipowner would get his property back. That may be all right and well so far as the ship owner is concerned, but that is not what the nation requires. The nation does not, after all, care very much for the individual ship owner and his interests; what the nation wants is the use of his ship, and if it is hung up at a port abroad for months the national loss will be very great while all this is going on. Therefore I would suggest that the words "other than carriers of contraband" would make it seriously doubtful whether a proposal framed in those terms would be of any real value to us. I suggest that it would be absolutely necessary for us to maintain a force sufficient to protect our ships against any form of capture. If we are to maintain our national independence, if we are to wage war successfully, we are bound to maintain a sufficient force at sea to enable us to protect our merchant shipping against risk of capture; otherwise, in case of war, we should have in a very few days or a very few weeks to make peace on the earliest possible occasion. Let me point out the case of Germany. I have not got Germany on the brain; but you have only to look at the map of Europe to see for yourselves that the right to capture private property at sea gives us, if we have a sufficiently strong Navy to prevent ourselves from being invaded by Germany, automatically gives us the power to capture the whole of their commerce. On the other hand, unless they are in a position to invade this country, it will be practically impossible for the German navy to capture a single British ship, so long as these make up their minds to sail from the ports on the West coast of this country. Take, again, the right of capture by France. It would be a very valuable thing to France if their navy is anything like as strong as ours. They would be able to do a very great deal of mischief at sea. Therefore, we are right in saying that this is a privilege in war, which, as regards certain enemies, would be of great value, and as regards others would not be of so great a value. On the whole, the right of capture is probably, so far as I can judge, of great advantage, from a military point of view, to the British nation. That being so, as the British have to

1611
protect their own property, and, being lovers of peace, it seems to me that the proper way in which we ought to approach this question is to approach it as a matter of bargain. We have got a custom, a right of war, that is of considerable value. I hate all the customs of war. I shall be very glad to get rid of all of them. I know that there is a very strong idea that if we were to consent to this abolition of capture at sea, that we would secure a reduction of armaments from Germany. Supposing it is possible to obtain a reduction of armaments from Germany on the basis of giving up the right of capturing private property at sea, I, for my part, say at once that the Government should attempt to make a "deal" on the subject. It ought to be the subject of a "deal." I should very much like to have from the representatives of the Government an explicit declaration that they regard this as a valuable privilege, as, I think, it is, and that they are prepared to bargain it away in exchange for some other consideration as regards warlike matters which would be of value to us. I do not myself very much believe in the probability of a great European war. In spite of everything that has happened, I still think that the statesmen who manage the affairs of great European countries have too much sense to allow such a catastrophe as a European war, and to embroil us all in the needless shedding of blood, and the destruction of treasure, over disputes which have no real substance or ground in them. I think, perhaps, a very important thing under these circumstances is to secure a more satisfactory position for neutrals. I should like to suggest that it should be made perfectly plain and obvious that the British Government is prepared to make a "deal"' with regard to the privileges and rights of belligerents. It would be a mistake to give up privileges or rights which are of very considerable value, and which are advantageous to us, unless we are going to get in exchange concessions of similar value.
Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: The last speaker has told us that he is a ship owner. He has approached this matter exactly from the ship owner's point of view. He objects to this Resolution, inasmuch as it does not go far enough—because it renders ships carrying contraband still subject to capture, fie considers that injurious to British merchant ships who happen to have contraband on board. I am not a
1612
ship owner. If I were I should not have thought it proper to approach this subject from such a point of view as that of any particular interest. I think we ought to be guided in a matter of this kind by the general considerations affecting humanity, and the interests of our country as a whole, and not deal, or be supposed to deal, with it in a partial or mercenary spirit. I have listened very carefully to the reasons given by the members of the Labour party who moved and supported this Resolution. I agree with a great deal of what they have said. I agree that it would be a very good thing if we could avoid war altogether. Failing that, we can do something—as much as we possibly can—to diminish the area of war, and mitigate its horrors. So far as the Resolution which they proposed does that, if it were practicable, I should heartily agree with it. But in a matter of this kind we cannot be guided entirely by theory. We live in a world of fact, not theory. If I may say so, with great respect, the members of the Labour party in this House, in dealing with matters of this kind, seem to live in a world of ideals. They imagine, or seem to imagine, that all nations are wanting to live together in peace and harmony. They ignore altogether international strife, ambitions, and jealousies between nations, and the natural desire of the strong to prey upon the weak and the rich. We cannot shut our eyes to that fact. We know that Europe at the present time is one vast armed camp, and that the power of this nation is simply its power at sea. We have never pretended to be a military nation. We are a great maritime and naval nation. All our power rests on the sea. Our Empire, our prosperity, our very existence, depends upon the maintenance of our command of the sea. Therefore, I think, from the theoretical point of view, these proposals may have an advantage; yet at the same time if they give away the only weapon of defence which we possess in a case of war, it is obvious that we would be left perfectly helpless. That, I take it, being the case, in the event of a war with a foreign country, what can we do? We can do nothing. At present, we can injure our enemy of harassing him at sea, by block ading his ports, by destroying his commerce, by cutting off his communication between the Mother Country and the Colonies. That is the only way in which you can bring a war to a close. That is the only provision to induce

1613
another nation to make peace with us. That is the great deterrent to prevent foreign nations engaging in war with us. It is because we know, and that they know, that this country has been, and is, omnipotent upon the sea, and has the power of destroying their commerce, and doing them other injury of a similar character in time of war, that they are anxious to keep the peace with us. Therefore, I rather doubt even from a humanitarian point of view whether the taking away of this power of capture at sea would tend to shorten a war or whether it would not rather tend to lengthen the war and to prevent it coming to a conclusion very speedily. What is the position in case of blockade? There is nothing in this Resolution about blockade. Is the power reserved to capture vessels by blockade or not? We must look at this matter from the different standpoints of this country. I think, if I may say so to some hon. Members, it is rather unwise to bring in the case of Germany. I do not think we should allude to any particular instances in discussions of this kind. But suppose we were engaged in war with a great Continental Power what would we do? We should advance upon the enemy's ports, seal up her ports, blockade them, and keep her ships there, or else attack them when they came out to sea and destroy them. Suppose we were to blockade the ports of a foreign country, what becomes of the right of capture, is it to be exercised or not? It seems to me it must be exercised because how can we refrain from capturing foreign vessels who are at war with us at sea and another time blockade its ports. The two things are inconsistent, and, therefore, I take it that the meaning of the reference to blockaded ships is intended to put an end to blockade, and if it does end all blockade it will put an end to the power of this country to do anything. It would deprive her of her only defensive weapon. There is one more reason why I feel compelled to object to this Resolution. There is no means of enforcing it. People may meet at The Hague and elsewhere and pass rules of international law. Who is to order the carrying out of rules of international law? Who is to see them obeyed? We have had a very significant instance within the last few weeks of the slight respect which was paid by a great Power to the Treaty of Berlin. We have seen that Power willing to deviate from the Treaty of Berlin, and we have seen that it has been allowed to do so by the other contracting Powers.
1614
If we were engaged in war with another belligerent and these rules were in force what is to prevent that belligerent departing from these rules and attacking the commerce of this country? I see nothing to prevent that from being done, and if it is done what course is there to compel that other nation to obey these rules and to carry out that policy? Therefore, it seems to me in the present condition of things it would be exceedingly unwise for this country to make any departure of this kind. We may all hope that in the future it may be possible to do something more in the direction indicated in the Resolution. At present it seems to me that our best resort is to maintain the traditional policy of this country to maintain a strong and powerful Navy, and to make sure of the protection of our commerce, our Colonies, and the shores of these islands. At the present time it would be a mistake to give up the only power we have as against our neighbours.
Mr. SIMON: While I sympathise with those who moved and seconded this Resolution in the conclusion they wished the House to come to, I do not myself take the view that these considerations which they particularly emphasised are those which are really of the first importance in justifying the Resolution they put forward. They dwelt, and, of course, very powerfully dwelt, and very naturally dwelt, upon the desirability of reducing naval armaments, the expenditure upon them, and the waste thereby incurred. As it seems to me this is a Resolution which really is not directed, and has no immediate bearing, upon that question, but is a Resolution, which, I am sure, will be recognised by all who have considered the subject carefully, as one on which much might be said upon one side and the other. It is only quite incidentally it bears upon the question of the expenditure on armaments. Another observation made in the course of the Debate by my hon. Friend on this side of the House, who said he was a ship owner, was that this particular practice of the capture of the enemy's merchant vessels in time of war was a practice which was, comparatively speaking, humane. That is quite true, but it is not upon any ground of humanity that the proposal was put forward. There is a third consideration mentioned by the hon. Member who spoke last. I am not quite sure whether he realised it, but if we really were to accept the argument he puts forward, then the account

1615
we give of ourselves and the justification we put forward for our Navy is exceedingly fallacious and illusory. The First Lord of the Admiralty the other day told us that the object of the British Navy was to protect the shores of this country and Empire, and to protect our communications and to protect our commerce. If we believe what is said just now the real object of the British Navy is to attack other people's commerce. That may or may not be the truth, but if it is the truth it is worse than stupid to assure foreign nations, through their diplomatic representatives, that the object for which we keep the great British Navy is a peaceful object. The real connection between the proposal embodied in this Resolution and the expenditure on the British Navy is this: While it is very likely that the legitimate demand of that great service will continue to be supreme and continue to be very high, and while as far as I am concerned, in supporting this Resolution, I do not seek to encroach upon the expenditure upon the Navy, on the other hand if we show ourselves willing to accept the proposition laid down in this Resolution, we show our good faith and we show that the object for which we acquire and insist upon an 'n-vulnerable Navy is a peaceful object. Now I venture to think that it is desirable to approach the argument in favour of this proposal from rather a different point of view. It is the point of view touched upon by my hon. Friend who spoke upon this side, and who discussed what I conceive to be the real and immediate question—namely, Is it of advantage to this country to persist, contrary to the opinion of most of the civilised Powers of the world, in maintaining this right of capture of private property at sea? He stated that you only had to look at the map to see that this proposal was to the advantage of this country. Personally, I very much doubt it. Certainly the argument that it is not to the advantage of this country one may put forward with some confidence, and expect the Government to treat it with some consideration, because it has been put forward by no less an authority than the present Lord Chancellor in a letter which he wrote to "The Times" newspaper. In that letter he put forward arguments which certainly I have' not heard answered, and which it is desirable to have dealt with if they can be answered. Upon looking at the map the first thing that you must observe is that England is
1616
an island, whilst the great countries of this world other than our own and Japan who have great navies and commerce are not islands. Consequently their means of getting provisions do not depend to anything like the same extent on the use of the sea as is necessarily the case in this country. That is the first and overwhelming fact to be observed if anyone looks at the map.
Now what does all this involve? Assume the most favourable set of circumstances to this country. I will assume that we succeed in keeping complete command, in the first place, of the sea; and in the second place that we succeed in completely blocking the ingress or egress of the commerce, of some great continental power. That is assuming everything in our own favour, and that is the utmost we can do. After we have done all this what is the position if we insist upon preserving this principle? 'You cannot stop railways running into-Germany, and you cannot stop neutral vessels carrying provisions to Germany. You cannot stop communications with Germany from other countries in Europe, such as Holland and Belgium, although it is quite true that you may for a time inconvenience, and materially inconvenience, the ordinary methods by which such a country as Germany obtains supplies. But when you have effected that temporary inconvenience that is the utmost you can do by maintaining this principle. That is assuming everything goes in a most favourable way in this country. It is assuming that we succeed in maintaining everywhere the command of the sea and in maintaining an effective and continuous blocking of the enemies coast line.
But let us look at the other side. Whatever may be the case with a Continental Power, whatever may be, the opportunities which Germany, France, Austria, or Spain may have of getting provisions by other means, we cannot get provisions unless we get them by sea, and unless we get them we starve. We cannot get the raw materials for our industries unless we get them by sea. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution pointed out what an enormous proportion of our food supplies and raw material must come to us over sea, and must come to this country by that one route. When you contrast a country which is an island with a great Continental nation which has land frontiers, can it be right to say that you have only to look at the map and say that it is all to the advan-

1617
tage of this country to maintain the principle that you can always capture commerce on the sea when you cannot make a similar attack upon a citizen's property on land, merely because he happens to be an alien.
It is a fact that we boast even in these free trade times of the fact that this country is easily the paramount country in the mercantile marine of the world. Our mercantile marine is supposed to be twice as great as that of the United States, and five times as great as that of Germany, and if there is anything which has been demonstrated by the recent inquiry into our food supply in time of war, it is that we cannot count in the event of a European war upon the services of our Navy in any overwhelming fashion for the protection of our food supply, because our Navy will have other work to do, which is more immediately and properly national. Therefore the extent of the inconvenience which we are able to inflict upon our opponents by preserving this principle is necessarily limited, and the immense amount of our own merchant shipping as compared with our enemy's makes the risk of its being interfered with infinitely greater. The risk we run is greater, and the consequences to us are far more serious.
The principle which it is suggested we should maintain may have had at an earlier stage a good justification in the national interests, but it has not got that justification now for a different reason, which never existed before. Does the House realise the enormous ramifications of modern commercial insurance? Those hon. Members who are acquainted with Lloyd's are aware that in the City of London is undertaken not merely the underwriting of British ships and cargoes but also foreign ships and foreign cargoes. Now, what is actually involved in maintaining this archaic principle? First, you tax the British taxpayer to build a commerce destroyer. You send it out, and it destroys the commerce in question, and when you have done it the owners of that commerce underwritten with British underwriters turn round and ask to be compensated. I am not unfamiliar with the answer which is sometimes attempted to meet that difficulty. The first answer is a technical lawyer's answer, and it is not, therefore, of any great substance. It is that by the law of this land an enemy who loses his property is not entitled to turn to an Englishman in an English court, and
1618
compel that Englishman to compensate him. That is the principle so long as the war is going on, but whether it is the principle after the war I confess I have some doubt. Does anyone mean to tell me that if we announced to the world, if we announced to the German mercantile service that if they insure with an English underwriter we shall repudiate our obligations in time of war and take advantage of that to say we are not going to pay, would that be fair and in the interests of commerce? In those circumstances, I do suggest that the remedy suggested by my hon. Friend above the Gangway is not one which is going to produce the conclusion he suggests.
Look again at the map of Europe, and consider the circumstances of our commerce. If you do you will see that the consideration which ought to guide you is that we have far more to lose because we have far more to risk on the sea. Again, we are more vulnerable because we are surrounded by the sea, and our connection with international insurance is such as to make the preservation of this principle little less than absurd. When the Foreign' Secretary intervened last year he suggested, on the spur of the moment, an answer to this difficulty of insurance. I shall be interested to see whether the First Lord of the Admiralty repeats that answer to-night. The answer given by the right hon. Baronet supposed that a foreign merchantman was captured by a British ironclad in the course of a war between this and a foreign country. It may be that the foreign merchantman is insured with an English underwriter. It may be that he will make his claim and that the underwriter would pay, but it may be said that the things which the foreign merchants have lost have not been destroyed, but only forfeited. They will be in the hands of the British Government and will be handed back. Amongst other disadvantages it may be that it will pay British underwriters to insure foreign cargo rather than English cargoes. The result will be that any underwriter who insured foreign cargo could afford to snap his finger, but if so imprudent as to insure an English ship which was captured he could not afford to do that. The conditions of the ramifications of modern mercantile practise go to show that the time has gone by for insisting upon this proposal. There is another argument. It is said it is all very well to make these pious resolutions, but when you come to a disastrous naval war all these self-denying

1619
ordinances will go by the board. It was true enough that in Napoleonic times to make a bargain with the other nations of Europe we had to preserve the safety of the private commerce of the enemy. It was fair enough to say that the bargain thus made was a bargain that might not be carried out. The seas at that period were little patrolled, and the means of knowing what was going on was very slight. There was, for instance, no wire-less telegraphy, and the chance of a vessel being destroyed without explanation was much greater than now. Under modern conditions you keep your eye on the merchantman on the sea, and it is fair to say that it is just as difficult for a foreign nation to take advantage of its opportunity of breaking this law at sea as it is for a foreign nation to take advantage of opportunities of breaking such a rule upon land. It may be said, "What is the good of making proposals of this sort when no overtures are made by other nations?" Undoubtedly that would be a good criticism if it were well founded. What is the history of this matter? With the exception of England and France, the civilised world has for years been demanding this change. The United States has been doing so for fifty years. The United States declined to accept a partial change trending in the same direction because the United States said they required further sacrifice at the time of the Declaration of Paris, which was negotiated in 1856, and it was France and this country that pressed the proposal.
It may be said, "You ought not to give this up until you get an exchange." That is not the way to deal with this matter. If it is to the interests of this country to make this change let it be made. It is said that our Navy is provided for pacific and defensive purposes. The present Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of the Admiralty, and the late Secretary for the Colonies have spoken on this subject, and there has been a surprising unanimity in favour of this change taking place. The mass of shipowners, and certainly the great majority of the chambers of commerce, have urged this change on the Government. While I admit that there may be great International considerations they do not entitle any one to speak with contempt of proposals which have so large a backing. We should deal with the question from a common-sense and businesslike view. If it should result in a

1620
reduction of armaments so much the better. Let us see if it is not possible to make this change, which is earnestly desired by this country, as the greatest commercial Power in the world.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. Member who addressed the House just now said if it could be shown to be of benefit to this country to make the change, "let us make it by all means." Everybody in the House agrees with that very admirable sentiment, but the point is: Will it be to the benefit of this country to make this change? Having listened very carefully to this Debate, and having given some attention to this subject, I prefer to adopt the ideas of the hon. Gentleman opposite when he said:—
"Undoubtedly in this right of capture of private property at sea we possess an advantage which we should only give up after careful consideration, and after we have assured ourselves that in return for it we are to have some substantial advantage from other people."
The hon. Member opposite very properly said that if you look at the map of Europe you cannot help feeling that it is a great right to capture vessels at sea. With that I concur. To my mind, this right of capture of private property at sea is not only a great advantage to us after war has begun, but it acts as a deterrent to any other country declaring war against us. Take the case of Germany—the most apt case at the present time. If the affairs of Europe were at any time in such a position that their was a possibility of war between this country and Germany, Germany would proceed to count the cost of failure and the chances of success. Germany would say to herself: "What is in it, things being what they are? What do we stand to lose in case this war goes against us?" And she would reckon up all her vast maritime commerce which she has at present, and which is growing year by year, and she would know that if she went to war with us and was unsuccessful she would lose practically all the commerce between Germany and America, and on the East Coast of Africa, and neary all over the world—that she would lose that commerce which, at tremendous cost to herself, she had built up. Germany or any other nation similarly situated would think very seriously and for a very long time before she would undertake to go to war with us. Therefore I submit that the right which we possess at present to capture private property at sea, which has such a deterrent effect upon a nation before she de-

1621
clares war on this country, is a right which it would be extremely foolish for us to give up. If we give up this right during the time of war what would be our position in regard to a country like Germany? Germany would say at once: "Here we are; we have got a navy nearly as great as that of Great Britain"—I am assuming a state of affairs in which the German navy would be nearly as great as that of our own—an assumption which I do not think as things are going on at present is very outrageous. At any rate, let us for the sake of argument look at Germany. Germany has a navy approximating to our own, and she will count the cost before going to war. and she will say: "Supposing we go to war with Great Britain and Great Britain gets the better of us—what is to happen?" and she will reckon the possible result. As things stand, after war had been proceeding for six months, if peace were again declared, Germany would not be one penny the worse as far as her maritime power is concerned, except so far as a blockade might interfere with ships entering some parts. I say it is a very great right which we are asked to give up. What are we to get in return for it? It is said that by giving up this right we should ensure that raw material and food supplies would be given free entry in this country. After all, that is not of very great importance, because if we were by any chance defeated at sea, and were dependent upon the food supplies and raw material which comes in, this is absolutely of no avail. Under present circumstances if we were defeated it sea, we should be starved out. It seems to me that once we were defeated at sea we should be finally vanquished, either by starvation or by actual defeat by the enemies' troops landing on our shores. Now the hon. Member who introduced this motion in a speech which I listened to with great attention while I disagreed with a great deal of what he said, observed that it was in the interests of all countries that private property should be immune from capture in time of war, and it was especially of advantage to this country. He then said that the United States, Italy, Russia, and other countries have given their adhesion to this idea. Of course they have. But I submit that they have done so for the reason that it would have for them great advantage, and, under these circumstances, it is not much to be wondered at that these nations are ready to get rid of one of the most serious menaces to them in the time of war.

1622
Another hon. Member said that a great nation like Great Britain could afford to make this sacrifice or experiment. I must enter my protest against that. It is true that we are a great nation, but solely and simply because we have, by centuries of hard work and hard fighting, got ourselves into that position. We have got ourselves into the position of being supreme on the sea. I contend that we, as a House of Commons, must not allow humanitarian or sentimental ideas to enter into our discussions at all. We are the representatives of the people here, and our first duty is to defend the country and to maintain it in the position handed down to us by our forefathers, and it would be a grave dereliction of duty if we gave that advantage up without being assured that in so doing we should gain in its place something that would be advantageous to us. and compensate us for giving it up. I trust that the representative of the Government who is going to speak will take up a firm position on this question, and that he will resist all clamour in the way of sentimental and humanitarian ideas, and that he will stick to the right that we have possessed for so long, and which I am convinced has before now been of great advantage to us, and which, I am perfectly certain, will be advantageous to us in the future.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I hope my hon. Friends who have supported this motion with conspicuous ability will believe me when I say that I approach the consideration of this subject with an absolutely open mind, except so far as I have a predisposition in, favour of the motion. But I have to consider it from the point of view of naval strategy, and from that point of view I wish to offer a few observations to the House. My hon. Friends who moved and seconded the motion argued, if I understood them rightly, upon the basis that we should be giving up something of value to ourselves if we accepted the motion, but we might exchange this something of value for the fullest consideration in the reduction of armaments. I will deal with that view before I close, and certainly so far as the Government is concerned, I may say it is a view with which the Government are in complete sympathy. But the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was entirely different. His argument was that it is our interest to give up the right of capture of the enemies' private property at sea in time

1623
of war, and that we are standing in our own interest when we refuse to do so. My hon. and learned Friend supported the argument with very convincing strength, but I regret to say that my study of the question from the naval side has not led me to the same conclusion as himself. He stated the case in the following terms. He said, suppose the very best circumstances for this country when we are at war, that we have complete command of the sea and that we are able to put a stop to the whole trade carried on in bottoms of the enemy, we still, he said, could not do them much more than inconvenience, we could not destroy their trade, and they would still be supplied, unless they were an island like ourselves, from overland; though we could injure them we could not inflict a vital blow. On the other hand, he said, in the case of this country, which is an island, in which we can only be supplied from oversea, if a similar condition against us existed we must be starved. Therefore he concluded, from that statement of the case, that it was to our advantage to give up the right of capture of enemies' property at sea.
My hon. Friend has, I think, not appreciated the case. It is quite true that if the enemy had command of the sea against us, and we abandoned the right of capture of private property at sea, and that abandonment was respected by the enemy, that our ships would still come and go to our ports; but if the enemy had command of the sea there is a second way of destroying this country, and that is if it be invaded by an army in overwhelming force—an army which we have not the means of meeting, and I hope shall not attempt to meet by any conscript force of our own, so that we should be absolutely at the mercy of the enemy by invasion. The case is not therefore fully stated by my hon. Friend. We require in our own interest the right of capture of the enemies' property at sea as a method of warfare. I am rather in a difficulty here, because if I expatiate upon the advantage of such a method to us my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow may retort upon me, "Is that the purpose for which you require the British Navy; to destroy foreign commerce?" If that is to be his reply I am left without recourse in stating the purpose of the British Navy in case of war, except to say that assuredly the purpose of the British Navy in case of war is to make war. Then I am, I think, justi-
1624
fied in claiming, in spite of the argument of my hon. Friend, that though we should endeavour to destroy the enemies commerce in the event of war, nevertheless the purpose of the British Navy has been a pacific purpose, and I appeal not to the declarations of Ministers or Members of this House, but I appeal to the record of the British Navy for the last 80 years, during which period I think the Navy has been predominant in Europe. It has never been exercised upon a European Power, and I say that upon that record we are entitled to be judged as regards the purpose of the Navy. If this country is engaged in war, we have to consider what means we have got of carrying that war to a successful conclusion, and what means we have of bringing about peace. My hon. Friend treats the interruption of the enemy's commerce oversea in a somewhat light manner, but I can assure the House it would be no light matter. There is no great modern European nation which has not got a more or less extensive seaboard, and which is not largely dependent upon oversea commerce, and all European nations are more and more becoming dependent for the supply of their raw materials upon oversea trade. They are becoming more and more manufacturing nations, and consequently the injury to any one of them from obstruction of their oversea trade is becoming more and more serious. I recognise in consequence the undeniable feeling which may exist in foreign countries for the protection of their oversea trade; but, that being the fact, it cannot be disputed that it is a great engine of power in the hands of Great Britain, so long as her Navy is supreme, that she can interfere with foreign trade. It has been contended that our claim to the right of the capture of an enemy's ships and cargo was a right dictated by some piratical instinct. Whatever it may have been in the past that is not true to-day. The sole underlying principle of the right of capture of an enemy's property at sea is to hamper and obstruct their trade. It is said that in this respect naval warfare is conducted on an entirely different principle from land warfare. There is no justification whatever for that statement. The moment you compare the conditions of warfare on sea and on land you will see the reason for my statement. In the case of land warfare an invading army claims and exercises the right to close the roads and holds the railways. That is to say, by effective occupation of all the means of com-

1625
munication an invading army prevents the trade of the country which is invaded. It stops the communications. There is no need for an invading Army to attack property in order to effect its object, because it can hold the roads. But what is the position in naval warfare? The sea is open, and it would be impossible to close it. It is a great highway. It is open on every side, and every part of it is an open road. If you wish to close it against an enemy your only means of doing it is to say to the enemy: "If you use that road and we capture you we will confiscate your property." It is not a means of piratically acquiring foreign booty. It is a means of hampering and closing communications.
Ought this nation in its own interest and without any consideration of compensating advantages to give up this power which it can exercise, so long as it has a predominant Navy, of hampering oversea trade? There are those who, like myself, deprecate all wars and the occasions for all wars who would be only too glad to see all international disputes settled on the same terms as disputes are settled in our own country, by process of law or by friendly arrangement. I assume we are all agreed upon that point. But at any rate, we must all be agreed that that is not the condition of the world at this moment, and it is only in relation to the condition of the world at this moment that this Motion has any bearing. We know in the case of a dispute in our own country nine times out of ten plaintiff and defendant enter into court each thoroughly convinced of the merits of his own case, believing that his adversary is in the wrong and that he is entitled to enforce his claim right up to the highest tribunal. It is the same with nations. Nine times out of ten nations enter into war each believing that it has a just claim which it has no other means of enforcing and that it is entitled in the last resort to appeal to the only tribunal for the enforcement of those rights. We must contemplate the possibility of wars, whether it be for the enforcement of our just claims, for the fulfilment of our trade obligations, or for the defence of our rights. We have to consider the possibility of a just war in which we may be engaged, which we ought to fight to a conclusion and which we are bound to exercise all our power to bring to a successful issue. Supposing at this moment, in the present state of the world's armaments, both by land and by sea, we have abandoned this right and, putting the case
1626
only as a hypothetical consideration, imagine us at war with a great European Power. Our Navy we will suppose is predominant. The enemy, recognising the predominance of our Navy, will keep their own ships in port. We shall, in the amusing description of the hon. Member for Tyneside, have a sort of war conducted for an indefinite period, in which no harm would be done on either side. The enemy's trade would be conducted peacefully in their own ships at our ports, as if we were not in a state of war. We shall have constantly to maintain our whole fleet in a continued state of preparedness, because if ever we were caught napping, we could be invaded. This state of warfare, in which the enemy could suffer nothing, might go on indefinitely, although our risks of an invasion would be continuing the whole time. My hon. Friend treated that, in his very amusing account, as a kind of warfare to which he did not much object. But I am supposing a case in which we are at war for the enforcement of a right we are morally bound to enforce, a treaty obligation to which we have put our hands, or the defence of some colony or possession which we are bound to defend. Are we then willingly to strike a weapon out of our own hands, and leave us in a position to carry on a sort of war in which we can do no harm, and in which we run all the risks of ultimately being invaded if ever, through some mischance or another, our Navy for an indefinite period is unable to keep a hostile Navy perpetually bottled up? That is a condition which, under present conditions, this nation ought not to be asked to face with equanimity. We ought to welcome most warmly the state of international feeling in which there was a greater prospect of disarmament, a greater prospect of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but so long as things are as they are at this moment we should be depriving ourselves of a weapon without the slightest compensation.
So much for consideration of this question from the point of view whether or no it is to our interest to maintain the right of capture of property at sea. Let me refer for a moment to the light in which it was regarded by my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion. Their argument was this: Cannot the abandonment of this right be made the basis of an agreement for the reduction of armaments? I think that in this respect no

1627
sufficient attention has been given to the instructions to our delegates at The Hague Conference. These instructions have been frequently quoted for the strength of the argument they contain against the abandonment of this principle, but they have not been noticed in so far as they convey the idea that if the question of disarmament was under consideration this Government would then be prepared to reconsider its attitude on the subject of the capture of private property. Let me read to the House one paragraph of these instructions, and I think, after I have read it, my hon. Friends will agree with me that the Government have not taken up a non-possumus or obstructive attitude on this question. Paragraph 21 runs:—
"You should, however, raise no objection to the discussion of this question of immunity from capture at the Conference, nor should you refuse to participate in it, nor need yon necessarily take the initiative in opposing a Resolution if brought forward. If at some future date the great continental armies were to be diminished, and other changes favourable to the diminution of armaments were to take place, the British Government might be able to reconsider the question. If, for instance, nations generally were willing to diminish their armaments, naval and military, to an extent which would materially relieve them from the apprehension of the consequences of war, and by rendering aggression difficult would make war itself improbable; and if it became apparent that such a change could be brought about by an agreement to secure this immunity from capture at sea under all circumstances, and was dependent upon it, the British Government might feel that the risks they would run by adhering to such an agreement and the objections in principle now to be urged against would be outweighed by the general gain and relief which such a change would bring. But at the present time they are unable to assent to a Resolution which might, under existing conditions, so limit the prospective liability of war as to remove some of the considerations which now restrain public opinion from contemplating it, and might, after the outbreak of war, tend to prolong it."
There the argument is stated in a most popular form in a document which has been published to the world. In the instructions to our delegates themselves the Government say they are prepared to reconsider this question if it is to be made the pivot upon which a reduction of armaments is to turn, provided that we can be assured that we shall have some gain commensurate with what we should give up—the gain of the guarantee of general peace, the gain of the guarantee of the promotion of the general interests. I assure my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion that with this assurance the Government would be most willing to consider this question, but until that time comes I certainly beg the House not to hamper the hands of the Government by passing the Resolution, which, at this moment, without any guarantee of a
1628
reduction of armaments, would be most materially disadvantageous to us in the event of war, and which, when the right was once given up, would leave us without the lever to obtain that reduction of armaments which both my hon. Friends and myself are entirely of one mind in wishing for. Therefore I cannot help submitting to the judgment of the House that we should be better advised—believing, as I do, that the great majority of the House are of one mind on the subject as to the interest which we have in the maintenance of this claim of right—to leave things as they stand for the present and keep this claim of right in reserve as an instrument of bargaining should opportunity ever arise for a general reduction of the armaments of the world.
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: After the very able speech of my right hon. Friend I am somewhat in doubt as to the position of the Government in regard to this Resolution. He has quoted a passage from the Letter of Instruction to our representative at The Hague Conference, the purport of which seemed to be that if only a millennium began the Government would be disposed to consider this proposition—that is to say, the paragraph specifies such a comprehensive and sweeping modification of armaments, not merely naval, but military armaments, land as well as sea, that it seems to set up a set of conditions, as the only conditions in which the Government would be favourably disposed to act, as to seem to put the matter outside practical politics altogether. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman earlier to indicate sympathy with the view of the Motion in so far as the Mover and Seconder suggested in their very persuasive and reasonable speeches that you might use a concession of this sort as a means of getting agreement as to merely naval limitation. I do not think we have a right to raise or suggest any further conditions or stipulations than that in this particular connection. The arguments of the Mover and Seconder were something to this effect—and I think the right hon. Gentlemen's speech entirely bears them out—that the particular naval armament is an armament designed to protect them from those very menaces that the right hon. Gentleman's speech shows to be constantly in existence. Nothing can be clearer than his admission. It is not to defend commerce. He practically took up the position of the hon.

1629
Member opposite, who argued that the British Navy existed for the purpose of destroying other people's commerce.
Mr. McKENNA: No. I absolutely repudiate any such statement. I said that the history of 80 years shows that there is not the slightest foundation for suggesting that the British Navy has ever been anything but an instrument of peace.
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I quite recognise that my right hon. Friend tried to take up the two positions, but they are incompatible. If you really think you must maintain the right of capture of commerce at sea in time of war because the destruction—he used the term: I suppose it was through inadvertence—because the capture of the enemy's commerce is one of the most effective ways of making war, you cannot at the same time take up the position that you only maintain the Navy for the purposes of peace. Let us take the case the right hon. Gentleman quoted. We may go to war in some circumstances in which what we are doing is maintaining some of our treaty obligations, and for the purpose of carrying out our treaty obligations we need a great Navy in order to be able to smash the commerce and stop the supplies of any Power with which we are at war. Will he deny that this vivid description is the fullest justification to the German people for maintaining as big a navy as they possibly can? I think that that is involved in his speech, and I hope that he will not repudiate that particular inference from it. Are not the Mover and Seconder of the Motion justified in saying that if you indicate to the world—as you would by carrying this Resolution—that you recognise in their navies an armament for defensive purposes, if you suggest the possibility of any such concession as this, you are taking the most effective step to induce those Powers voluntarily to limit their armaments? There is one point in the powerful speech of my hon. Friend of which I should like to make a qualification. He said that the Resolution only incidentally bore on the question of the armaments of other Powers, I should like to substitute for the word "incidentally" the word "fundamentally," because this fact emerges from the whole discussion—namely, that the German Navy, which is the object present to the consciousness of the people at the present time, is a Navy justified in the terms of our own admissions by the danger that our Navy sets up to the German people. If we take a
1630
step which will remove that danger to their commerce in the future, is there not the strongest ground for expecting that that Power will voluntarily and, I do not say instantaneously, but speedily take steps for the reduction of its naval armament? That is as reasonable an inference as can be drawn. The hon. Member for Hexham suggested that there might be some bargaining done. You may very well bargain on the ground that contraband shall be defined in such a way as to leave our food supply absolutely safe, and you may also make an end of the argument about provisional contraband. You can bargain to that extent. But nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, after all, met this argument—that the danger we run in time of war would be removed by carrying such a Resolution as this if it were accepted by the other Powers. The right hon. Gentleman evaded or avoided that point altogether. It is within the knowledge of everyone in this country that the kind of propaganda which sustains the demand for an ever-creasing Navy is a propaganda largely carried on outside by such organisations as the Navy League. The Navy League during the last few days has been sending round a circular urging a variety of reasons for maintaining a huge Navy; and one of the grounds most reiterated is the necessity of protecting our huge commerce and defending it in time of war. If you came to such an arrangement as is here suggested all these pleas for a vast Navy would be withdrawn on our side, and the situation would be altered all round. The standing motive for large armaments would be taken away from both the Great Powers now competing, and we might hope for a great improvement in the situation. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs lately thought fit to say that those of us who raised debates on this point were wasting time. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that the question at stake is one of the swamping of civilisation—that if no limit is placed upon these armaments civilisation will go under. I do not think it can be suggested that we are wasting time when we are suggesting a way out of that danger. I have heard nothing to-night to countervail the considerations implied in such an admission as that. The hon. Member opposite suggested—and here the right hon. Gentleman was apparently in agreement with him—that if we gave up this right other nations, would be more ready to go to war. More

1631
ready to go to war for what? Commerce is one of the main grounds for going to war, and if you have made it impossible to steal or to attack each other's commerce in this fashion you have actually removed one of the main grounds for war in the modern world. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think, however, that the carrying out of some of our treaty obligations is a consideration that outweighs anything of that kind. It is difficult to know exactly what treaty obligations he has in view, but one might suggest as a corollary that it might be well to look for your treaty obligations in the future on a new basis; and if you find that the securing of the peace of the world will affect some of the treaty obligations you have incurred in the past, it might be worth while considering whether it would not be better to abandon those treaty obligations, and not make such treaty obligations in the future. Those who suggest that Powers would go to war in a wanton fashion, and be far more ready to fight than before, rather overlook the fact that the modern navy is a very costly thing indeed. These "Dreadnoughts," about which we hear so much, cost £2,000,000 at least. And one hon. Member said that if a nation would not smash up commerce it would have nothing else to do. Is there not the glorious task of destroying each other? Would not the loss of a modern navy be a consideration just sufficient to withhold any nation from going to war, if any consideration could?
It appears to be taken for granted in a matter of this sort we can inflict so much damage on the enemy's commerce, and on that ground the right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which was very able, generally, made out a very strong case. His argument as to the dependence of other Powers on raw material is an argument of considerable force. But raw material can be brought in a variety of ways. It can be carried in neutral ships. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten all this, and that we would suffer most as belligerents. The Powers which we might be at war with could get their raw material overland and in a way in which we would not be able to interfere with it, so that his argument as to that is not at all conclusive. I do not think it is necessary to discuss what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham as to the comparative humanity of this particular mode of warfare. I think that the whole discussion arose from a misinterpretation by
1632
the Foreign Secretary of a certain historical phrase about the "methods of barbarism." The word "barbarism" does not mean methods of cruelty, and it was in a different sense it was used. Methods of barbarism are the methods used by ancient powers, such as Babylonia and Assyria, who devastated a lot of the territory of the people they were making war with. This is also a "method of barbarism" in the sense that is a resort to methods of barbarous peoples in times of war. I quite grant the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be injuring the commerce of the enemy with the purpose of the old barbarians. I would remind him that the loss to the commerce of this country in naval wars has always been more than that of the commerce of the enemy. In the great wars with France, on the authority of Captain Mahon, our loss was much greater than that of France, and our commerce suffered enormously more than theirs.
I would earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he has not, in taking up an attitude of opposition to this Resolution, lost an opportunity to do something for arresting this process, which, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, will ere long "swamp civilisation"? It is all very well for the Government to tell us that they could not accept such a Resoution, but why not do so in some conditional fashion and show that they associated themselves with the idea, and not go the length of the extraordinary paragraph which the right hon. Gentleman read from the instructions sent to our representatives at The Hague. If the Government would accept this Resolution they might even get certain security from the definition of contraband. I confess I agree with those who deprecate bargaining; but to get the Government to take really some helpful step I should be ready to make some concessions, and the action of the Government in accepting a Resolution even with some conditions would do something for the peace of the world.
Mr. ARTHUR LEE: It has been my unhappy fortune during the last few weeks to be in conflict with the Admiralty, and. therefore, I am only too glad on this occasion to heartily support the stand taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in opposing this Motion. But I must confess that I was surprised when he said that he approached this subject with a per-

1633
fectly open mind. In view of the fact that the mind of the Government had apparently been closed upon it for a very long time, and when we had the very emphatic speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a previous Debate, and the instructions given to the delegates at The Hague Conference, I think it was strange that the First Lord of the Admiralty should approach this matter with an absolutely open mind. But we gather from his further remarks that whatever his previous view may have been, he has learned wisdom at the Admiralty, and that his mind is now very satisfactorily closed. In the last passage of his speech he did say that the Government will retain an open mind in the event of its being possible for us to make a deal with our great Continental neighbours in the direction of a reduction of armaments. But our chief naval rival on the Continent has made it perfectly plain that they are not prepared under any circumstances to consider a reduction of armaments, and therefore we should only be exposing ourselves to humiliation if we endeavoured to raise that question in connection with this matter. Our attitude with regard to this question—and when I say our "attitude" I mean the official attitude of the Opposition, for I am not sure that I myself absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walton—the attitude which the late Government always took in this House in regard to this question is absolutely on the lines now taken up by the Admiralty, and certainly nothing has arisen lately, so far as we know, to justify any change in that attitude on our part.
Several speakers this evening have based their objections to this system of exposing merchant shipping to capture in time of war upon minor inconveniences which are necessarily incidental to war—inconveniences to this or that industry, to the shipping industry, to the insurance interest, and so forth; but while there is something perhaps to be said for all those arguments, the national interest it is perfectly clear, in my opinion, must prevail. I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow in his very interesting speech said that, after all, the line which we took with regard to this question was not dictated solely by humanity. Of course, that is perfectly true, but it is dictated by considerations of humanity in this one thing, and that is we believe that by maintaining this right of capture we were clearly reducing the chances of war. I do not
1634
think that we on this side of the House yield to any one in our desire to avoid war if possible. ["Oh!"] I am surprised that any hon. Member can be found to express doubt as to that desire on our part. But we support the action of the Government in this respect, because we believe that if this Motion were accepted, so far from its having effect in the direction desired by the Mover and Seconder, that of promoting humanity, it would have the direct effect of increasing the chances of war, because if shipping is immune, then, as has been most clearly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, and, indeed, corroborated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, there would be little or no risk of Continental Powers engaging in hostilities against us. Therefore what is at the bottom of our policy is that since that risk would be incurred in war against us by any Power, it would not be in the interests of that Power to make war against us. We oppose the Motion also, because of the military and naval interests of the nation. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty has dealt with that point very adequately. He has shown, in the unhappy event of war, that if this power is taken away from us we practically have no power of either waging war effectively or, at any rate, of bringing the war to a conclusion, and that leaves our enemy blocked up in his own ports, behind his fortifications. Meanwhile, our own fleet, which must be engaged in endeavouring to maintain the blockade, is exposed to the necessary risks of lying off the enemy's coast; risks by mine, torpedo attack, and so forth. Really, then, we on our side are exposed to the serious losses of the ships of our fleet, whilst unable to inflict any injury whatever on the enemy with whom we are engaged. Then we have had the specious argument that if this immunity to merchant vessels were granted we should be able to reduce our Navy. That is based upon a fallacious idea, that our Navy is only maintained in order to protect our merchant shipping. This is only a subsidiary purpose. Our Navy is maintained to preserve our country inviolable under all circumstances—in the event of the breaking of treaties, or any combination of hostile Powers against us, with or without provocation. That is the function of the British Navy. When we are met with the arguments, I think, of the Member for Tyneside, that other nations may claim that our Navy is intended for aggression against them, then

1635
we know—as the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated—we have proved, by 80 or 100 years of example, that our Navy never has been, and never will be used, in my belief, for purposes of aggression against any foreign Power, and that we maintain it simply because we believe it is necessary for our continued existence as a nation and for the peace of the world. If other Powers refuse to believe that argument, if the argument that we feel so strongly does not appeal to them, then it is not our business to endeavour to convince them by reducing our Navy, or to handicap ourselves in any other way in order to show our sincerity. Our own consciences in this matter are perfectly clear, and that ought to suffice us. I think the object of our Navy is to preserve the integrity and safety of the Empire, and to preserve the interests of the Empire as a whole; not merely to safeguard the comparatively smaller interests which have been spoken of by hon. Members to-night. It is because we think that if this Motion were accepted by the Government, that we should be giving up not only one of the greatest safeguards for peace which we possess at present, but also giving up almost our only effective weapon in case of war, that we on these benches heartily support the Admiralty in the attitude they have taken up, and if the Motion is pressed to a Division we shall support the Government.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: In this Debate I do not desire to trespass upon the time of the House at any length which will make it impossible to take the sense of the House in a Division on the very important subject which has been raised from below the Gangway. It has been said with perfect truth that this is not a Debate which in the main is determined by party lines. And if, as a comparatively young Member of the House, I may venture to say so, it is one of those debates in which the House of Commons is, or may be, seen at its best, simply for the reason that it is not necessary to advance arguments or to pronounce a decision upon strict party lines. It is well known that I am not in entire agreement with the contention which my hon. Friend, who sits in my company professes with so much ability, as to the relative strength of this country as compared with other countries.
It is certainly equally true that I find myself in complete disagreement with the views which are held on that point by the
1636
hon. Member for Tyneside. I confess after having considered this subject with some care for 15 years, I have seen no cause to vary the clear and definite opinion at which I have arrived after considering this question in the interests of this country, and not pretending to consider it in the interests of any other country, we lose more than we gain—that is the only question—by the maintenance of the present system. I do not admit the value of the humanitarian argument. I believe the practice of the capture of private property at sea whatever objection it may be exposed to, the least objection is that based upon the humanitarian argument. I approach this question from one point of view, and one only, and that is what is in the best interests of this country to which we all belong. Considering it from that point of view, and as the inquiry in existing circumstances makes a comparison necessary of the effects of the policy upon the great nation of Germany and ourselves, I desire to studiously avoid as far as I can any provocative language or any language that may be misunderstood, and so I will devote the few moments at my disposal to considering what is the effect of this practice from the point of view of national interests, first of all in the case of Germany, and secondly in the case of ourselves.
What is this right on which we still insist jealously of the capture of private property at sea? What is the limit of the possible mischief which the maintenance of that practice inflicts upon Germany? Now it has been explained, and, as far as I gathered, it is not seriously disputed in the course of this and previous Debates, that, suppose to-morrow war should most unfortunately break out between this country and Germany, the position of this country, having a predominant Navy and the right of capture of private property at sea would enable us to inflict serious inconvenience on Germany. It is certainly not proper for anyone discussing this question to ignore the possible mischief we could inflict upon Germany. I think it is very important that this House should realise, and with a due sense of proportion, what the extent of that mischief is. It was at one time a very serious mischief indeed, because, before the signature of the Declaration of Paris, we were at liberty, if any commerce was being sent to German ports, whether or not that commerce was carried in German ships, to seize and interfere with that commerce

1637
Before the Declaration of Paris, and as long as this country possessed the power of interfering with imports into Germany, whether carried in German bottoms or neutral bottoms, it was an effective and a powerful weapon, but the moment we assented, rightly or wrongly, to that provision of the Declaration of Paris which made German imports immune, provided they were carried in neutral bottoms, from that moment we gave up all that was really most worth having as a weapon against Germany. What would happen to-morrow if war broke out between this country and Germany? We have been told these weapons are in our hands. If war broke out between us and Germany two things would happen. In the last 100 years, as everyone knows, there has been an enormous development of the possible means of land transit open to Germany; and the second point is there would be a rapid transfer of the German carrying trade from German bottoms to neutral bottoms, and the moment they were transferred to neutral bottoms we should not be able to injure them, and the only loss Germany would sustain would be the loss on the trade transferred from German to the neutral bottoms. But my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham used the argument, and it was repeated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that this great weapon lies in our hands to-day to prevent a cruel war. If I thought we possessed in the maintenance of this principle a really effective weapon, I should certainly never be found voting against its maintenance, but what is the extent of the efficacy of this weapon? We are told that the knowledge on the part of Germany that we could destroy her commerce would prevent her entering upon an aggressive war. I have heard during the last few weeks hon. Members explaining to the House of Commons and to the country how many "Dreadnoughts" Germany would possess in four, five, and seven years. Each of them is going to cost £2,000,000, and can any nation give a greater guarantee for abstinence from an aggressive war than that? The mere fact that there is risk of their tonnage, whether in the case of vessels of war or marine, is of itself a certain reason why no nation will engage in an aggressive war; but if you have 20 German "Dreadnoughts" which you can destroy if you have the two-Power standard you have no additional reason to secure you from war in the fact that the mercantile marine may be kept in
1638
harbour. The argument that we have a security for peace in this liability of foreign vessels with me has very little weight.
But there is a far more important argument, which I think is worthy of the attention of the House, and it is one which goes to the whole root of the extent of our naval provision at the present time. I have never concealed my view that I am in favour of the two-Power standard without any qualification whatever in its most extreme form, and I include every single Power. What is the position taken up to-day by the Government and by my hon. Friend who spoke in front of me? They gay we are face to face with the great German nation. The Foreign Secretary said the other day that Germany has never come to this country and coupled the request for the abandonment of this practice with any proposals for disarmament. It is quite true that Germany has never done so, but it is also true that no single German spokesman who has made himself the mouthpiece of the German nation, in dealing with German naval expansion, has omitted to mention in the forefront of the objects which make it necessary to preserve a great German Navy the protection of German commerce. If I were a member of that great, virile, and progressive nation I would never be content as long as a foreign Power maintained the right of destroying our commerce until I had a navy which would make it impossible for that foreign Power to destroy our commerce. The power of the British Navy is not aggressive. In the same breath and the same speech the First Lord of the Admiralty and my hon. Friend say that the power of the British Navy is not aggressive and that we can destroy the commerce of any nation in the world. One argument may be good, but you cannot have the two arguments. If we can go to Germany and say to her: "We have abandoned this practice: we ask you, having no longer to fear the destruction of your commerce, to treat your navy now as being on a different basis," and if, in spite of that, Germany still built "Dreadnoughts," the position of this country would be a very different one from what it is at present. As long as Germany builds "Dreadnoughts" to protect her commerce, then, as a German, I would approve of that policy; but then, in an opposite sense, as an Englishman, I say that if we withdrew from this right of destroying the commerce of our rivals in case of a war, and if in the face of that withdrawal Germany continued to expand her naval power, I would regard that as

1639
being done for the purpose of aggression, and regretfully, and with infinite melancholy, I would shrink from no sacrifice, believing that we were at a crisis identical with the crisis of the Napoleonic period. Until we have made that offer we are not entitled even to feel surprise that a nation of the strength of Germany is entitled to protect her mercantile marine as you are entitled to protect your mercantile marine. These are not the doctrines of Liberalism, but of common-sense, and I hope that the House of Commons, by a free and unfettered vote, will place the question in a clear and distinct position. If Germany, having no menace to her commerce, still challenges our supremacy, then I would shrink from no sacrifice in the face of such a European development.
Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS: I have been taken by surprise by the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Coming as it does from a member of the Conservative party, it is the most surprising that this House has heard for many years. [Cries of "Divide."] He actually advised Germany to increase her "Dreadnoughts." because he said—[Cries of "Divide."]
And, it being after Eleven of the clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEDICAL TREATMENT) BILL.
Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
The House adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven of the clock.

  Trice of Bread (Sale by Weight).
  Trice of Bread (Sale by Weight).
  Philippine Islands (British Trade).
  Philippine Islands (British Trade).
  American Mail Service.
  American Mail Service.
  Post Office (Sub-Engineers).
  Post Office (Sub-Engineers).
  Territorial Force (Sergeant-Instructors).
  Territorial Force (Sergeant-Instructors).
  Scottish Fishery Board (New Cruiser).
  Scottish Fishery Board (New Cruiser).
  Irish Land Stock (Government Holdings).
  Irish Land Stock (Government Holdings).
  Teachers' Residences, Ireland (Income Tax).
  Teachers' Residences, Ireland (Income Tax).
  Law Library, Dublin.
  Law Library, Dublin.
  Public Trustee Act (Proposed Extension to Ireland).
  Public Trustee Act (Proposed Extension to Ireland).
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Board of National Education (Ireland).
  Kenmare Estate (Ireland).
  Kenmare Estate (Ireland).
  Constable Goldrick's Memorial (Ireland).
  Constable Goldrick's Memorial (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (County Kildare).
  Royal Irish Constabulary (County Kildare).
  National School Inspectors (Ireland).
  National School Inspectors (Ireland).
  Major Vesey Estate, Clonberne (County Galway).
  Major Vesey Estate, Clonberne (County Galway).
  American Wheat Speculators.
  American Wheat Speculators.
  Manufactured Goods Exported from Ireland.
  Manufactured Goods Exported from Ireland.
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Accidents in Mines (Fatal and Non-Fatal).
  Accidents in Mines (Fatal and Non-Fatal).
Preamble
The VISCOUNT DE VESCI—Took the Oath.
RAWMARSH RECTORY BILL. [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Order for the Second Reading on Wednesday next discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
ALEXANDRA (NEWPORT AND SOUTH WALES) DOCKS AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
DONINGTON WATER BILL. [H.L.] BUNGAY WATER BILL. [H.L.] FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.] GRANTHAM WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ARDS RAILWAYS BILL. MOUNTAIN ASH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. NORTHALLERTON WATER BILL. SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
KIRKWALL PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the 16th of March last referring the Bill to the Examiners discharged, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Bill deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Pentland), and reported from the Committee.

INDIAN IMMIGRATION INTO CROWN COLONIES.
LORD MONK BRETTONMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the vital statistics of Mauritius, and to ask the Secretary of
604
State for the Colonies whether the effect of Indian immigration on the French population will come under the consideration of Lord Sanderson's Committee; and, if so, to ask how the Committee will take evidence thereon. I hope the noble Earl will not think it presumptuous on my part if I say how glad I am that this Committee has been appointed, because it appears to be the first step to grapple with a problem which is increasing in importance every year, not only for the Colonial Office and Crown Colonies, but also for the self-governing Dominions. I would, therefore, ask the noble Earl to give us all the information he can with regard to the scope of the Committee, and the way in which they are to obtain the evidence upon which they will report.
The Question I have placed on the Paper concerns Mauritius, which is peculiar in that it has been the meeting place of blacks, whites, and Asiatics for a longer period than, so far as I know, any other part of the world, and it is, therefore, a place where one may, in a nutshell, study the effect of the close contact of these races. I would ask noble Lords to allow me for a moment to remind them of the history of Mauritius. It was first seriously colonised in the year 1740 by the energy of a French Governor, who introduced into the island a population of the same stock as that which has produced such sturdy and prolific colonists in French Canada; and for 100 years, with the assistance of black slave labour, they were enabled to run a fairly successful colony. At the end of the 18th Century the population had risen to 65,000, and, according to the Historical Geography of Sir Charles Lucas, two-thirds of that population were blacks. The remaining third must have comprised a very considerable white population. In the year 1835, which is the turning point in the history of the island, the population had risen to 100,000 That was the year of the emancipation of the slaves, and from that time onwards Indians came in, they being more willing to work as voluntary labourers on the plantations than were the blacks. The Indians have since increased in a most extraordinary way, and to-day constitute more than 70 per cent. of the total population, 263,000 of the 375,000 inhabitants being Indians. The blacks and the whites have only increased by 12,000, whilst the Indians have become

605
about two and a-half times as numerous as the whole of the rest of the population. I venture to think these figures are very significant.
I should like to call the attention of the House to some of the reports made by an officer who has administered the government of Mauritius. In the Report for 1898 Sir Graham Bower tells us that a steady but absolutely sure change is taking place in the population of Mauritius, a change likely to have important social, political, and economic consequences. He tells us that the old French Creole population is being slowly but surely pushed to the wall, and he adds—
"This is a deplorable fact, and it is to be hoped that, by improved educational and technical training, something may yet be done to save a race which has counted for so much in the history and literature of Mauritius."
In the following year Sir Graham Bower's remarks are still more significant. Speaking of the increase of Indian small-holders, he says that the land is passing from the hands of Creoles of either European or mixed blood into the hands of Indians. He adds—
"The Creole is being gradually squeezed out, and from the social and moral point of view it means the extinction or expatriation of an ancient, cultivated and graceful people, and the substitution of Asiatic for European thought and culture. In a word, if the present movement continues, Mauritius must in a few generations become a purely Indian island, governed and administered by a few English officials some factory managers, and a military garrison."
Apparently the movement has, to a certain extent, continued, because in the last report on the Colony the same writer says that—
"the variation of population for years past has been in the direction of an increase in the Indian and a decrease in the Creole population."
As regards wealth, the Indians are not the poorest portion of the community, whether you compare the rich Indian planters with the rich French planters or whether you take the poorer classes for your comparison.
As to Port Louis–the capital of the island—Sir Graham Bower tells us that thirty years ago it was, to all intents and purposes, a European town; but now the greater part of Port Louis has passed
606
into Asiatic hands. Of the Creole population he says, in the Report for 1900—
"They are poor, and are becoming poorer. It can hardly be doubted that the competition of the Asiatics must be keener as time goes on, and that the Creole population, especially those of mixed blood, must find the struggle for existence press, more heavily upon them. Even among families of pure European blood there are many in very humble employment, and were it not for the strong family affection and abundant family charity, it is to be feared that many women of pure European blood and of European culture would be put to great straits to secure the barest necessaries of life."
I have troubled your Lordships with these quotations because I think they afford confirmation of the fact that practically a revolution is taking place in Mauritius, and that from a white and black island it is becoming an Asiatic one. This may be economically sound. It is probably economically necessary. But I think, after the language used by Sir Graham Bower, the case for the whites is worthy of investigation, for the British Government had committed to them a white population which, according to the words of their Administrator, is fast disappearing. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies will remember that Mauritius is the birth-place of the dodo. That may be an omen for the white and black population.
The importance of the investigation by Lord Sanderson's Committee is not confined to the narrow boundaries of Mauritius, because in that island may be studied a very much wider question. In Mauritius may be found a justification for the policy of Australia in its northern territories, and, perhaps, of some South African Governments; and in Mauritius also may be studied the advisability of introducing Indians into East Africa, as has been suggested. That is the reason why I am particularly anxious that the investigations of this Committee should be as thorough as possible. It may be said that Mauritius is an exceptional case. I do not think it is. We have it on the authority of Sir Charles Lucas that there is a tendency in other Colonies for the Indian population to develop so as to swamp the other inhabitants. I would, therefore, ask the noble Earl if he could tell us how this evidence with regard to Mauritius is going to be taken—whether official evidence is to be relied upon, whether inhabitants of Mauritius who may happen to be in London whilst the Committee is sitting

607
will be heard, and whether other steps will be taken to secure that all sides shall be represented. When the noble Earl wished for evidence from South Africa he sent a Commission to the Transvaal. I do not suggest that Lord Sanderson's Committee should be peripatetic; but I understand that the noble Earl has recently, with the approval of the Legislature of Mauritius, appointed a Commission to inquire into the financial condition of the island, and I would ask the noble Earl whether he could not utilise that Commission in order to obtain information on a subject which is of importance to Mauritius, and, I venture to think, of far larger importance to other provinces of the British Empire.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)My Lords, there are two other Questions on the Paper which, although dealing with different parts of the Empire, yet are quite akin in their subject to the Question put by the noble Lord who has just sat down. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I propose to answer at the same time the noble Lord's Question and those of Lord Hindlip and Lord Stanmore.
LORD HINDLIPMy Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended that the views of the various Crown Colonies affected shall be placed before the Committee appointed to consider the question of the immigration by Indians to the Crown Colonies; whether the Committee has power to call for evidence and to examine witnesses; and, if so, whether evidence other than official will be taken, and in what way it is intended that such evidence shall be obtained.
My object in placing this Question on the Paper is to ascertain from the noble Earl how those living in British East Africa will be enabled to place their views on this subject before Lord Sanderson's Committee. I am somewhat afraid that rather covetous glances have been directed towards British East Africa by those in favour of the immigration of Indians into the Colonies and into Africa in particular; and I am anxious to learn from the noble Earl whether the Committee will be able to take evidence from the unofficial community in East Africa, and also whether some of the native chiefs will be asked if
608
they would like the country flooded with Indians. If they could have heard what my noble friend Lord. Monk Bretton has told your Lordships this afternoon on this subject, perhaps they would not be very anxious to welcome the immigration of Indians. I sincerely hope the Committee will not be content with simply examining a few officials, and possibly a few ex-officials, who happen to be in England when evidence is being taken, but that a real attempt will be made, once and for all, to ascertain the feeling of the community. If I might offer a suggestion, I think it would be of use to the Committee if the Legislative Council of the Colony, and possibly the Colony Association, would pass resolutions embodying their views on the subject.
LORD STANMORErose to move for any correspondence which may have taken place between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of Crown Colonies relative to the appointment of the Committee to consider the subject of Indian immigration into those Colonies.
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, as I was for some years a resident in Mauritius and am still in close touch with the Colony as Chairman of the Bank of Mauritius, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words with regard to what has fallen from the noble Lord who initiated this discussion. I think that in one respect the noble Lord is somewhat mistaken. He led the House to believe that the Indian population in Mauritius is likely to outgrow not only the black and probably the coloured element, but the white element also. In that I think he is mistaken. I do not believe that the large increase of Indian inhabitants there will in any appreciable degree affect the white population or the employments in which they are concerned. I refer to the proprietors of large estates and sugar works, the leading merchants, and persons in the upper class of society. I do not think that these will be very much diminished. It is to some extent otherwise, no doubt, with the other classes of the population.
But when you come to consider the welfare of the Colony as a whole you cannot, I think, arrive at any other conclusion than that the free Indian population has been of the greatest value to it. Without them the Colony, embarrassed as

609
it has been for some time past, would have been in a much worse condition than it is to-day. An appreciable part of the sugar cultivation of Mauritius is carried on by these free immigrants on small patches of land which they have acquired, and it is to them largely that the increased tonnage of sugar exported from the island is to be attributed. I believe there is no class in Mauritius that is not now sensible of the great benefits which the Colony derives from the large body of settled Indians who have completed their agricultural residence, or who are the descendants of those who completed their residence long ago.
As the noble Lord told the House, Indian immigration began in Mauritius about seventy years ago. A great many of those now living in the island as free Indians are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren respectively of the early immigrants, and they are quite as much inhabitants of the Colony as the black descendants of the slaves who were imported there fifty years earlier. There is no essential difference between the two. If the descendants of the black slaves who inhabited Mauritius before the Emancipation are to be considered as part of the population of the island, it is equally clear that the descendants of the free Indians are also an integral part of that population. The Indians were brought to Mauritius originally to work on the sugar estates, but fifty years ago there was no law in existence under which they could be repatriated after they had ceased to work on those estates. Consequently they remained on the island. It was for a long time considered a great object so to retain them, because it was desired to keep them at work on the estates. In fact, those who did not work on the estates were looked upon as useless to the island, and as vagabonds who ought to be forced into labour again. That state of feeling has long since ceased.
The Indians have been recognised as an integral part of the population, and almost every one in Mauritius will agree that they have largely contributed to its prosperity, and that were they to be excluded from the island for the supposed benefit of the blacks and half-castes, it would be a calamity. Their places could not be filled, and I cannot conceive that any but the most deplorable and disastrous consequences would follow. With the permission of the House I have
610
ventured to make these few remarks with regard to the noble Lord's Question. My own Motion is to ask whether the noble Earl has any objection to giving us any correspondence which may have taken place between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of Crown Colonies relative to the appointment of the Committee to consider the subject of Indian immigration into those Colonies. My object in putting that Motion on the Paper was essentially the same as that which animated Lord Hindlip—namely, to ascertain the course likely to be pursued in procuring evidence from all sources to be laid before the Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House any correspondence which may have taken place between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governors of Crown Colonies relative to the appointment of the Committee to consider the subject of Indian immigration into those Colonies.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I am much obliged to the three noble Lords who have asked these Questions, in the first place, for having postponed their Questions for a time, and, in the second place, for putting them on the Paper for the same day. Although, as I said, they deal in some respects with apparently different subjects, yet they are all connected with the Committee which has been set up under the presidency of my noble friend Lord Sanderson to inquire into this large and important question. I can at once answer the Question asked by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Stanmore). There is no correspondence whatever to lay as between the Governors and ourselves, because no correspondence has taken place. All that occurred was that when we decided to set up this Departmental Committee we naturally informed the Governors by telegraph, and asked them to suggest the best manner in which evidence concerning their respective Colonies and Protectorates could be brought before the Committee, and also, of course, to mention names of probable witnesses. This Committee was set up by us because we consider that the question into which it is designed to inquire is one of the very first Imperial importance. We have not in the reference to it incorporated any allusions to the self-governing Dominions of His Majesty. As regards Indian

611
immigration into the self-governing Dominions, an entirely separate set of questions naturally arises. Those Dominions are by common consent the judges of the extent to which they will admit or forbid the immigration either of His Majesty's Indian subjects or of other persons belonging to different races. Subject, of course, to the general rules which govern the treatment and management of the King's subjects in any part of the Empire, or, indeed, of the world, we feel that the self-governing Dominions must exercise an independent discretion on the matter. There is, however, another important side to the question. There are some very enthusiastic advocates of Imperial unity who seem to me sometimes to fall into the error of considering nothing which can be done towards advancing that unity unless it concerns the self-governing Dominions. I hope I yield to nobody in desiring to draw more closely together the bonds existing between the self-governing Dominions and the Mother Country, but we must not forget in this connection the rest of the Empire. There is India with its 300 millions of population, and there are the Colonies and Protectorates, with a population of between thirty-five millions and forty millions; and when we consider the immense possibilities of development in many parts of these Colonies and Protectorates, we cannot help feeling that anything which can be done to promote healthy interchange between them and the great Indian Empire must be of advantage to the Empire as a whole. It surely is of the first importance that further knowledge and further interchange should create a substantial interest between India and those other Dominions of the Crown which are in certain respects akin to India and are in many cases governed in a similar way.
As regards the particular question under discussion, I will detain your Lordships for a moment by a word on the present state of Indian immigration. I will say nothing about Ceylon, because Indian immigration into Ceylon stands on a somewhat different footing. There are, I think, something like 400,000 Indians on the tea plantations in Ceylon. They pass freely backwards and forwards; they are not indentured labourers, and, except for the purposes of Government, it may almost be said that they are moving backwards and forwards in their own country.
612
The same considerations to a great degree apply to the Straits Settlements. The Straits Settlements up to 1867 formed a part of the Indian dominion, and therefore the immigration of coolies into the Straits Settlements and the Malay States stands also on a somewhat different footing from immigration to other parts of the Empire.
I think it is not generally realised how large the Indian population in many of the Crown Colonies is. In Fiji, out of a population of 125,000, one-fifth are Indians; in Trinidad, out of a population of 333,000, three-tenths are Indians; in British Guiana, out of a population of 300,000, four-ninths are Indians; and in Mauritius, with a population of 380,000, 70 per cent. are Indians. One sees, therefore, what an important bearing on the whole life of the Empire this question of Indian immigration has; and one of the important subjects which my noble friend Lord Sanderson and his Committee have to consider is in what circumstances and under what conditions this large influx from India may be applied, and what proportions ought to be applied, to other parts of the Empire.
As to the question of indentured labour, speaking generally, it has been the subject of criticism in many quarters. I have never seen any difficulty myself in defending the system. For certain purposes, such, for instance, as the possession of a vote, and the taking of a direct part in the government of their country, the members of many native races are treated as though they were minors, and so in labour questions. Having regard to the fact that they cannot and do not possess that power of organisation which white labour possesses, it seems to me that they may fairly be subjected to some conditions of apprenticeship as if they were minors; and provided that those conditions are fair and reasonable I do not think they need be subjected to any very severe criticism. At the same time all will, I think, agree that all systems of indentured labour necessarily require very careful watching. There is, of course, a temptation on the part of some to exploit the indentured labourer, and to bring his condition near the border line of that servile condition which all parties in this country would equally desire to avoid for him.
This Committee was, therefore, set up by the India Office and the Office which I have

613
the honour to represent. We hope that it may serve the needs of India as well as the needs of the Colonies by indicating and directing the places and the methods to which and by which Indian immigration can best be carried out. The last thing we wish is to exploit in any way the labour of India or to do anything but assist in making a free outlet from the Indian Empire for those labourers who desire for reasons of their own to work elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, asks whether it is intended that the views of the various Crown Colonies affected shall be placed before the Committee appointed to consider the question of the immigration by Indians to the Crown Colonies; whether the Committee has power to call for evidence and to examine witnesses; and, if so, whether evidence other than official will be taken, and in what way it is intended that such evidence shall be obtained. The general answer to the noble Lord is that we certainly desire to have every point of view as far as possible placed before the Committee. It is, of course, impossible for Lord Sanderson to undertake a sort of voyage of Ulysses round the world with his Committee and examine people on the spot, but I hope it may be found possible for representatives of every interest who feel strongly on the subject to have an opportunity of coming here and stating their views. I think the noble Lord would agree that a little local trouble and organisation ought to enable representatives of every class entitled to speak for their fellows to come over and give evidence before the Committee. I do not know whether the native chiefs to whom the noble Lord referred are likely to be able to take that course; but when he mentioned them I could not help feeling that we have not always been in the habit of asking the opinions of native chiefs before occupying their countries ourselves; and although I fully admit that the point of view of the natives ought to be put before the Committee, and I have no doubt will be put by the official representatives who have to safeguard their interests, yet at the same time I feel that absolutely to demand the presence of one of these no doubt admirable representatives of the native races would be going almost beyond what my noble friend on the Cross Benches could hope to effect.
Now, my Lords, I come to the question of Mauritius, raised by Lord Monk Bretton
614
and also dwelt on to some extent by Lord Stanmore. As Lord Monk Bretton very truly said, Indian immigration into Mauritius followed in the first place on the abolition of slavery. The Indians have now, as Lord Stanmore said, with equal truth, become part of the established population of the island, and, so far as the figures at my disposal enable me to judge, there is no great alteration in the ratio of the different races. I have the figures for 1907, which represent pretty nearly the average of previous years. The general birth rate was 35.3 per 1,000, and the Indian birth rate was 38.8; and the general death rate was 35.2 per 1,000, and the Indian death rate 39.1. So far therefore, as births and deaths are concerned, the House will see that the Indian population is not increasing.
Then the noble Lord spoke of the French, or, as they are more often called, the Creole population; and as regards the question of competition with them, it is a very curious fact that out of 112,000 of them only 3,600 are declared, on their own statement, to be agricultural labourers. I am not prepared to say that that small figure represents the total of those engaged in agricultural pursuits among the Creoles, but it does show, of course, that the proportion is exceedingly small. As regards the immigration figures for the last five years, if the noble Lord would look at them he would see that the number of Indians who have come in and have gone out is practically the same each year, with the exception of the year 1904, when there was a surplus of 1,500 immigrants. For the last five years the average has been about 500 entrants and 500 departures, so that it will be seen that there is no swamping of the rest of the population by Indians.
And if I might trouble your Lordships with two more figures, they confirm in a remarkable degree what was said by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches. There were 264,000 Indians in the island, only 54,000 o whom had ever been indentured at all, and only 96,000 were employed on sugar estates; that is to say, only one-fifth of the Indians in Mauritius have ever been indentured, and only two-fifths are employed in sugar cultivation. That establishes the fact that there is a fixed industrial Indian population in Mauritius. Therefore I do not entirely understand what it is that the noble Lord complains of, because

615
the conclusive result of the figures I have given is that the effect of Indian immigration upon the French population in the island is absolutely nil.
Then the noble Lord asked whether it would not be possible for the small Commission which is going out to Mauritius to inquire into the finances and general condition of the island to make some special inquiries on this subject. So far as those inquiries will be germane to its particular reference, I have no doubt they will be made; but I think it would be unfortunate if there were any overlapping between that inquiry and the inquiry conducted by Lord Sanderson's Committee, and therefore I am not prepared so to amend the terms of reference to that Commission as to enable them to make any special inquiry into this particular branch of the subject. I am afraid I have dealt at some length with this matter, but I was anxious, as three noble Lords had called attention to it, to make a general statement.
LORD SANDERSONMy Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that my position in regard to this discussion is more properly one of an attentive and interested listener than of a participant in the debate. But, even at this early stage of the Committee, I may be able to make some remarks of interest to the noble Lords who have raised this matter to-day. In the first place, I think it would be ungracious on my part if I allowed the occasion to pass without expressing my acknowledgments, in which I am sure my colleagues on the Committee would be ready to join, of the alacrity and courtesy with which the staff at the Colonial Office have, with the sanction of the noble Earl the Secretary of State, exerted themselves to procure the attendance of witnesses and to furnish the Committee, and especially the Chairman, with documentary information in almost embarrassing profusion.
Up to the present time the Committee have only been able, in consequence of the intervention of the Easter holidays, to hold six sittings, but they have examined seven witnesses at considerable length. The first gentleman called was a prominent owner of sugar estates in Mauritius, an ex-President of the Chamber of Agriculture, and an elected member of the Legislative Council. The second was an English manager of a sugar estate in the same Colony, previously
616
employed in that capacity in British Guiana. The third witness was Sir Charles Bruce, who for eight years filled the post of Lieutenant-Governor in British Guiana, was Governor of Mauritius for six years, and has made the question the study of his life. The fourth was a gentleman who was for twelve years employed in the Indian Immigration Department in Trinidad, and afterwards for eighteen years as Trinidad Emigration Agent in India. The fifth witness was Sir Daniel Morris, for ten years Imperial Commissioner of Agriculture for the West Indies, who has had exceptional opportunities of testing and observing the relative capabilities of negro and Indian labourers. The sixth was the Member for Sunderland, Mr. Summerbell, who has represented in the other House the views of the Trinidad Working Men's Association, and who was good enough to give us a very clear statement of those views, and to suggest names of witnesses who might give evidence in support of them. The seventh witness was the Governor of the Straits Settlements.
I hope, therefore, your Lordships will think that the Committee are casting their net wide enough. They are not limiting themselves to official witnesses, and I do not anticipate any difficulty in getting the necessary evidence. If any point arose on which it was difficult to obtain complete and exhaustive evidence by examination here, I suppose it would be our duty to report to the Secretary of State and to suggest that an examination should be made by properly-qualified persons on the spot. I lay particular stress upon the words "properly - qualified "persons," because I do not think that a short visit to a Colony by any one not properly qualified to take such evidence would be of any great value.
As regards Mauritius, it is undoubtedly true that between the years 1830 and 1907 the population was about quadrupled, and that whereas the non-Indian population only increased from about 97,000 to 112,000 the Indian population rose to 260,000. Of these 260,000 only 62,000 were actual immigrants, the rest being descendants of previous immigrants; and of the Indian population 102,000 were employed in 1907 on the sugar estates, as contrasted with 13,000 slaves in 1830, who were classed as farm labourers. In 1830 the export of

617
sugar, which is the staple produce of the island, was about 68,000,000 1bs., worth £525,000; while in 1906 the export was about 380,000,000 1bs., and its value, notwithstanding the fall in the price of sugar, was estimated at £2,500,000. Therefore whilst the population had quadrupled, the export of sugar may be said to have quintupled. One cannot read these figures without perceiving that Indian immigration has been of enormous service is developing the resources of the island.
There is considerable difficulty in drawing conclusions from the vital statistics, because they are so greatly affected by sudden epidemics of malaria, causing the death rate to increase from about thirty to forty or even more per 1,000. Again, the town population has a disproportionate mortality. In 1902 the death rate for the whole of Mauritius was thirty-four per 1,000, but for Port Louis the death rate was fifty-three per 1,000. Until effective measures are taken for further sanitation in the towns the town population must be subject to a disproportionate death rate; and it is the Creole population which is more addicted to employment in the towns, whilst the Indian population is more employed in the country. That fact has an important bearing on the proportions of the two populations. In recent years, however, the increase of the Indian population has slackened while that of the non-Indian inhabitants has slightly risen. From 1901 to 1907 the population only increased by about 3,300, of which the non-Indians account for 1,300. I think, therefore, that the disappearance of the non-Indian population is not quite so near at hand as Sir Graham Bower seemed to apprehend.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS)My Lords, this is one of those Bills which have to be passed before a certain date. It is necessary that this Bill should become law by the end of the present month, and
  618
  therefore as time is running rather short, we had to put down the Second Reading without giving what I think the House would consider sufficient notice. I am afraid that the putting down of the Second Reading for to-day must have been rather inconvenient to the House, and therefore I would suggest that this stage should be taken formally, and that such discussion as may be necessary should take place on the Committee stage. I would then, if the House wished, make a general statement on the proposals contained in the Bill. If your Lordships agree, I propose to take the Committee stage on Monday, thereby allowing more time for noble Lords to consider the contents of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read2a (Lord Lucas.)
  THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am glad the noble Lord who represents the War Office made an apology to the House for the shortness of the notice which has been given of the Second Reading of this Bill. I quite understand that, in the circumstances, the War Office should desire to press the Bill forward, but I have no doubt that had it been possible for longer notice to be given the attendance of Peers interested in military matters would have been a great deal larger than it is this afternoon. The Bill is by no means the formal Army (Annual) Bill to which we are used. It contains, as the noble Lord well knows, a considerable number of entirely new proposals, and although the Bill itself is in appearance a short and simple measure it is quite clear, if you look closely at it, that owing to the number of existing provisions which it repeals its effect is much more far-reaching than one would at first suppose. To understand the intricacy of the Bill you have to look at the Memorandum which the War Office has very properly laid upon the Table, in which the repealed provisions of the law are enumerated. That is a Memorandum which covers nearly sixteen pages of closely-printed matter. I am also glad that to the Bill itself is attached a short resume of its principal provisions. Some of them are, at first sight, rather of an alarming character. I mean, for example, the provision from which we learn that the bulk of the powers now enjoyed by the Secretary of State for War are to be transferred to the Army Council; but I understand that what is intended really is to bring the law

  619
  into conformity with the practice which has arisen, and which, in fact, has prevailed ever since the Army Council came into existence, and that there is no intention of depriving the Secretary of State for War of any part of that full responsibility which now rests upon him for everything that is done at the War Office.
  LORD LUCASHear, hear.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am glad to have obtained the assent of my noble friend to that. With regard to other proposals in the Bill, I have no doubt that the suggestion of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary is one which will be for the convenience of the House, and that we had better discuss the details of the Bill when we go into Committee. There is, I notice, an important provision dealing with billeting. as to which I would only say at present that I can quite understand that, in cases of emergency such as those which the Bill contemplates, it should be necessary to provide the military authorities with powers considerably in excess of any which now belong to them. The same may be said of the clause under which power is taken to impress vehicles of all kinds. As to provisions of that sort, all I will say is that I believe the people of this country are entirely ready to submit to any sacrifice of convenience and to accept any exceptional and abnormal arrangements which may be required in the interests
  620
  of the efficiency of the military forces of the Crown, provided the circumstances are really circumstances of emergency such as those which the framers of the Bill have in contemplation. I certainly desire to raise no objection to the further progress of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will not put down the Committee stage until the beginning of next week.
  LORD LUCASIf it will meet the convenience of the House, I propose, as I have said, to put the Committee stage down for Monday next.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I move that the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.